Frist Endorses Idea of Gay Marriage Ban Via Constitutional Amendment

[Drift3r]

Damit the GOP is just as bad as liberals ! Government needs to stay the hell out of peoples lives and only be there when it is needed ! Oh yeah and since when are gay people criminals If you really want to see a bunch of criminals well...Go look at the housing projects and all the women there running around having tons of kids that they can't feed without your tax dollars !


http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=gays_and_lesbians


Frist Endorses Idea of Gay Marriage Ban

Sun Jun 29, 8:00 PM ET

By WILLIAM C. MANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Senate majority leader said Sunday he supported a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage in the United States.

Sen. Bill Frist (news, bio, voting record), R-Tenn., said the Supreme Court's decision last week on gay sex threatens to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned.

The court on Thursday threw out a Texas law that prohibited acts of sodomy between homosexuals in a private home, saying that such a prohibition violates the defendants' privacy rights under the Constitution. The ruling invalidated the Texas law and similar statutes in 12 other states.

"I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually ? or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned," Frist told ABC's "This Week."

"And I'm thinking of ? whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home ? ... to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern."

Asked whether he supported an amendment that would ban any marriage in the United States except a union of a man and a woman, Frist said: "I absolutely do, of course I do.

"I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between ? what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined ? as between a man and a woman. So I would support the amendment."

Same-sex marriages are legal in Belgium and the Netherlands. Canada's Liberal government announced two weeks ago that it would enact similar legislation soon.

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., was the main sponsor of the proposal offered May 21 to amend the Constitution. It was referred to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution on Wednesday, the day before the high court ruled.

As drafted, the proposal says:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state under state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

To be added to the Constitution, the proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Frist said Sunday he respects the Supreme Court decision but feels the justices overstepped their bounds.

"Generally, I think matters such as sodomy should be addressed by the state legislatures," Frist said. "That's where those decisions ? with the local norms, the local mores ? are being able to have their input in reflected.

"And that's where it should be decided, and not in the courts."

 

[Vadatajs]

They're just crying like toddlers that didn't get their way

 

[zantac]

After the July 4th break, DeLay will probably intoduce a similar idea in The House.

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

Can I kick him in the butt repeatedly, please?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

"I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually ? or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned," Frist told ABC's "This Week."

"And I'm thinking of ? whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home ? ... to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern."

WTF? This doesn't even make sense. Is he saying he wants your private, personal affairs kept between just you and law enforcement?

 

[Drift3r]

The funny part about this is that this guy is proposing in this bill the same thing people accuse the Supreme Court ( if not to a greater degree ) of doing in their ruling when it comes to States rights !

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state under state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Man this is why I would never vote Rep ( corporate, religious welfare and Orin trying to blow up my pc ! ) or Dem ( see DMCA, social welfare, PC politics ), freaking nut cases.

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
The funny part about this is that this guy is proposing in this bill the same thing people accuse the Supreme Court ( if not to a greater degree ) of doing in their ruling when it comes to States rights !

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state under state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Man this is why I would never vote Rep ( corporate, religious welfare and Orin trying to blow up my pc ! ) or Dem ( see DMCA, social welfare, PC politics ), freaking nut cases.

That's why I say kill 'em all and start over. It's time to flush out the rats nest, imo.

*waits for fbi to show up*

 

[sandorski]

Hmm, Sodomy is a State Issue, but Marriage isn't?

 

[HappyPuppy]

I am reluctant to endorse any change to the Constitution.

 

[OulOat]

Frist kills kittens! Won't someone think about the kittens?

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: TheBoyBlunder

Originally posted by: Drift3r
The funny part about this is that this guy is proposing in this bill the same thing people accuse the Supreme Court ( if not to a greater degree ) of doing in their ruling when it comes to States rights !

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state under state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

Man this is why I would never vote Rep ( corporate, religious welfare and Orin trying to blow up my pc ! ) or Dem ( see DMCA, social welfare, PC politics ), freaking nut cases.

That's why I say kill 'em all and start over. It's time to flush out the rats nest, imo.

*waits for fbi to show up*

Oddly enough, I'm reading a book right now called Term Limits. It's about a group of patriotic ex-commandos that assassinate overnight a few of the most corrupt politicians in Washington. They then announce that they did this to get attention and to convey the message that they were serious. They demand that the President and the remaining House and Senate put aside partisanship and begin enacting legislation to put the country back on track as intended by the founding fathers. Either this or the killings continue.

Interesting idea. I have to say that all of my adult life I have been beyond disgusted at what happens in Washington.

 

[Linflas]

The idea of a Constitutional ammendment regarding marriage is as dumb as one regarding flag burning or alcohol consumption. Once again stir in equal parts media hype and political opportunism and horrible law tends to emerge.

 

[Moonbeam]

Isn't this just an attempt to sew up the anal retent butt to build pressure for the coming election and to keep their minds off WMD

The same mentality always comes to the fore when humans attempt to evolve. Many didn't want to free the slaves. People just have to have somebody to look down on so they can feel their heaven in their bones. So so deeply sad.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Isn't this just an attempt to sew up the anal retent butt to build pressure for the coming election and to keep their minds off WMD

The same mentality always comes to the fore when humans attempt to evolve. Many didn't want to free the slaves. People just have to have somebody to look down on so they can feel their heaven in their bones. So so deeply sad.

No, this is about keeping marriage between a man and a woman. The way is has been since the beginning of time. We are animals who have 2 genders and it takes one of each to mate and reproduce - that is nature's law not man's To allow for "gay" marriage would mean that we spit in the face of science and nature( and God if you want to bring that into the discussion). How does "evolving" enter into the picture? Have we figured out how to perpetuate the species using homosexual sex? Nope so there is no "evolving" taking place.

CkG

**note the above may or may not represent this poster's real feeling. It is however a realistic view that could be taken.**

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

"I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually ? or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned," Frist told ABC's "This Week."

"And I'm thinking of ? whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home ? ... to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern."

WTF? This doesn't even make sense. Is he saying he wants your private, personal affairs kept between just you and law enforcement?

i could be lighting up heroin but its in the privacy of my own home so what business of the gov't's is it?!?

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Isn't this just an attempt to sew up the anal retent butt to build pressure for the coming election and to keep their minds off WMD

The same mentality always comes to the fore when humans attempt to evolve. Many didn't want to free the slaves. People just have to have somebody to look down on so they can feel their heaven in their bones. So so deeply sad.

No, this is about keeping marriage between a man and a woman. The way is has been since the beginning of time. We are animals who have 2 genders and it takes one of each to mate and reproduce - that is nature's law not man's To allow for "gay" marriage would mean that we spit in the face of science and nature( and God if you want to bring that into the discussion). How does "evolving" enter into the picture? Have we figured out how to perpetuate the species using homosexual sex? Nope so there is no "evolving" taking place.

CkG

**note the above may or may not represent this poster's real feeling. It is however a realistic view that could be taken.**

Should we also outlaw male/female marriages in which neither person wants kids? Marriage has nothing to do with "the beginning of time", it's a legal and cultural institution that we set up.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: PipBoy

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Isn't this just an attempt to sew up the anal retent butt to build pressure for the coming election and to keep their minds off WMD

The same mentality always comes to the fore when humans attempt to evolve. Many didn't want to free the slaves. People just have to have somebody to look down on so they can feel their heaven in their bones. So so deeply sad.

No, this is about keeping marriage between a man and a woman. The way is has been since the beginning of time. We are animals who have 2 genders and it takes one of each to mate and reproduce - that is nature's law not man's To allow for "gay" marriage would mean that we spit in the face of science and nature( and God if you want to bring that into the discussion). How does "evolving" enter into the picture? Have we figured out how to perpetuate the species using homosexual sex? Nope so there is no "evolving" taking place.

CkG

**note the above may or may not represent this poster's real feeling. It is however a realistic view that could be taken.**

Should we also outlaw male/female marriages in which neither person wants kids? Marriage has nothing to do with "the beginning of time", it's a legal and cultural institution that we set up.

We aren't outlawing anything. This is to define what marriage is and constitutionally protect it before the USSC dictates it for us The beginning of time- meaning that since the inception of "marriage" it has always meant man and woman.

CkG

 

[rickn]

this guy is probably on jerry falwells payroll, or a member of his congregation. To bad for them the sinners outnumber the kooks.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: PipBoy

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Isn't this just an attempt to sew up the anal retent butt to build pressure for the coming election and to keep their minds off WMD

The same mentality always comes to the fore when humans attempt to evolve. Many didn't want to free the slaves. People just have to have somebody to look down on so they can feel their heaven in their bones. So so deeply sad.

No, this is about keeping marriage between a man and a woman. NO IT'S NOT. IT'S ABOUT SOME IRRATIONAL NEED I'M ASKING YOU TO EXPLAIN FOR FEELING THAT THERE'S SOME NEED TO KEEP IT BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN. WHERE DID YOU LEARN TO BE PROUD OF BEING SELFISH. The way is has been since the beginning of time. YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF TIME OR THE WHOLE STORY ON MARRIAGE BY ANY MEANS. We are animals who have 2 genders and it takes one of each to mate and reproduce - that is nature's law not man's THAT'S NOT NATURES LAW, THAT'S JUST A REPRODUCTIVE FACT. ANOTHER FACT IS THAT HOMOSEXUALS ARE BORN AS SOME 8 TO 12% OR SO OF THE POPULATION NATURALLY. To allow for "gay" marriage would mean that we spit in the face of science and nature NO, TO DENY THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A PART OF HUMAN NATURE WOULD BE TO SO SPIT. PLEASE STUDY THE BONOBO CHIMP, OF WHICH YOU AND ME ARE ALMOST GENETICALLY IDENTICAL( and God if you want to bring that into the discussion). I WOULD NOT BRING THE GOD YOU JUST MENTIONED INTO THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE THAT ONE IS A BIGOT. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE RAL GOD THOUGH IF YOU LIKE BECAUSE HE DOESN'T CARE. How does "evolving" enter into the picture? YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT KEEPING THINGS LIKE TIME IMMEMORIAL AND CAN'T ACCEPT THAT ANY CHANGE IS EVOLUTION. PLEASE DON'T BE SOPHOMORIC. Have we figured out how to perpetuate the species using homosexual sex? Nope WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING AT ALL. so there is no "evolving" taking place. CERTAINLY THERE ISN'T WITH YOU. WE ARE SPEAKING OF CULTURAL EVOLUTION. JUST AS YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO LIVE IN THE DARK AGES OUT OF WHICH WE EVOLVED, PEOPLE FROM THE FUTURE WILL BE HORRIFIED AT THE THOUGHT OF LIVING NOW. YOU WILL BE THE BACKWARD BARBARIAN OF THE FUTURE. IT ALL COMES FROM EXCESSIVE SELF IMPORTANCE. YOU'RE TOO SELF SATESFIED TO CHANGE. WHAT A CRYING SHAME. IF GOD HAD INTENDED US TO FLY HE'D HAVE GIVEN US WINGS. FORTUNATELY YOU AND YOUR ILK WILL BE ROAD KILL IN THE HEADLIGHTS OF A NEW AGE. YOU ARE ALREADY A LIVING FOSSILE. HOW DOES IT FEEL?

CkG

**note the above may or may not represent this poster's real feeling. It is however a realistic view that could be taken.**

Should we also outlaw male/female marriages in which neither person wants kids? Marriage has nothing to do with "the beginning of time", it's a legal and cultural institution that we set up.

We aren't outlawing anything. This is to define what marriage is and constitutionally protect it before the USSC dictates it for us The beginning of time- meaning that since the inception of "marriage" it has always meant man and woman. LIKE THAT MATTERS OR WAS EVER OF ANY IMPORTANCE. IT'S JUST YOUR BIGOTRY.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: PipBoy

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Isn't this just an attempt to sew up the anal retent butt to build pressure for the coming election and to keep their minds off WMD

The same mentality always comes to the fore when humans attempt to evolve. Many didn't want to free the slaves. People just have to have somebody to look down on so they can feel their heaven in their bones. So so deeply sad.

No, this is about keeping marriage between a man and a woman. NO IT'S NOT. IT'S ABOUT SOME IRRATIONAL NEED I'M ASKING YOU TO EXPLAIN FOR FEELING THAT THERE'S SOME NEED TO KEEP IT BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN. WHERE DID YOU LEARN TO BE PROUD OF BEING SELFISH. The way is has been since the beginning of time. YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF TIME OR THE WHOLE STORY ON MARRIAGE BY ANY MEANS. We are animals who have 2 genders and it takes one of each to mate and reproduce - that is nature's law not man's THAT'S NOT NATURES LAW, THAT'S JUST A REPRODUCTIVE FACT. ANOTHER FACT IS THAT HOMOSEXUALS ARE BORN AS SOME 8 TO 12% OR SO OF THE POPULATION NATURALLY. To allow for "gay" marriage would mean that we spit in the face of science and nature NO, TO DENY THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A PART OF HUMAN NATURE WOULD BE TO SO SPIT. PLEASE STUDY THE BONOBO CHIMP, OF WHICH YOU AND ME ARE ALMOST GENETICALLY IDENTICAL( and God if you want to bring that into the discussion). I WOULD NOT BRING THE GOD YOU JUST MENTIONED INTO THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE THAT ONE IS A BIGOT. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE RAL GOD THOUGH IF YOU LIKE BECAUSE HE DOESN'T CARE. How does "evolving" enter into the picture? YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT KEEPING THINGS LIKE TIME IMMEMORIAL AND CAN'T ACCEPT THAT ANY CHANGE IS EVOLUTION. PLEASE DON'T BE SOPHOMORIC. Have we figured out how to perpetuate the species using homosexual sex? Nope WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING AT ALL. so there is no "evolving" taking place. CERTAINLY THERE ISN'T WITH YOU. WE ARE SPEAKING OF CULTURAL EVOLUTION. JUST AS YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO LIVE IN THE DARK AGES OUT OF WHICH WE EVOLVED, PEOPLE FROM THE FUTURE WILL BE HORRIFIED AT THE THOUGHT OF LIVING NOW. YOU WILL BE THE BACKWARD BARBARIAN OF THE FUTURE. IT ALL COMES FROM EXCESSIVE SELF IMPORTANCE. YOU'RE TOO SELF SATESFIED TO CHANGE. WHAT A CRYING SHAME. IF GOD HAD INTENDED US TO FLY HE'D HAVE GIVEN US WINGS. FORTUNATELY YOU AND YOUR ILK WILL BE ROAD KILL IN THE HEADLIGHTS OF A NEW AGE. YOU ARE ALREADY A LIVING FOSSILE. HOW DOES IT FEEL?

CkG

**note the above may or may not represent this poster's real feeling. It is however a realistic view that could be taken.**

Should we also outlaw male/female marriages in which neither person wants kids? Marriage has nothing to do with "the beginning of time", it's a legal and cultural institution that we set up.

We aren't outlawing anything. This is to define what marriage is and constitutionally protect it before the USSC dictates it for us The beginning of time- meaning that since the inception of "marriage" it has always meant man and woman. LIKE THAT MATTERS OR WAS EVER OF ANY IMPORTANCE. IT'S JUST YOUR BIGOTRY.

CkG

I assume your part was the all caps?

I'm a bigot because I stated that marriage has always been between a man and a woman?

Please do not bury your comments in my posts like you did - it makes it look like I was the one posting jibberish

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Please do not bury your comments in my posts like you did - it makes it look like I was the one posting jibberish
---------------------------------------------
It was to point out just that fact that I put them there.

-----
----
I'm a bigot because I stated that marriage has always been between a man and a woman?
---------------------------------
No it's because you won't stop wearing etech's pink underware.

An intelligent reader might have notices, however, that my beef with always between man and woman is 1. a presumption you lack sufficient historical data to support as a flat out absolute and 2. is irrelevant to your intention to keep it that way.

My turn:

We used to live in caves. Do you want us to go back?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Please do not bury your comments in my posts like you did - it makes it look like I was the one posting jibberish
---------------------------------------------
It was to point out just that fact that I put them there.

touche

But it destroys the integrity of the quote when you bury your comments in there. The all-caps comments are infact the jibberish

CkG

 

[Gen Stonewall]

I think this amendment has less to do with states' rights and more to do with sanity.

What we really need is a constitutional amendment that bans all restrictions on marriage. That way I could marry my grandmother, or even my dog. Imagine: A romantic night at a gourmet restaurant eating my favorite food: Bone au jus.


:disgust:

By the way, these 3'-long quoted posts are somewhat annoying.

 

[Moonbeam]

In case you missed my edit:

I'm a bigot because I stated that marriage has always been between a man and a woman?
---------------------------------
No it's because you won't stop wearing etech's pink underware.

An intelligent reader might have noticed, however, that my beef with always between man and woman is 1. a presumption you lack sufficient historical data to support as a flat out absolute and 2. is irrelevant to your intention to keep it that way.

My turn:

We used to live in caves. Do you want us to go back?
-------------------------------
And as for my Capital remarks, they were like flowers on a thorn vine. Essence of Attar indeed.

 

[Warin]

Originally posted by: Stonewall
I think this amendment has less to do with states' rights and more to do with sanity.

What we really need is a constitutional amendment that bans all restrictions on marriage. That way I could marry my grandmother, or even my dog. Imagine: A romantic night at a gourmet restaurant eating my favorite food: Bone au jus.


:disgust:

By the way, these 3'-long quoted posts are somewhat annoying.

When is it sanity to criminalize people who make a choice based on genetic imerpative? To you think any reasonably sane person would make a concious choice to join a society as persecuted and denigrated as homosexuals are in American today? People choose homosexuality in the same way as you chose how tall you'll grow to be, or what colour your eyes are. The 'coming out of the caves' in this case is that science is getting to the point where we can recognize that sexuality is not a moral choice, but a product of genetics. It's something that has always existed in human culture.

Sadly, some folks seem to think that a 2000 year old manual on how to live life is the best choice for today...

Doesnt it say somewhere in the bible that working on the sabbath is a stoning offence? Or that disobedience to your parents warrants similar punishment? Correct me if I'm wrong.