• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proposed anti-gay Amendment

iankaplan

Scholar
I
Joined
May 16, 2003
Messages
90
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../ap/20030630/ap_on_go_co/frist_gay_marriage_4

Senator Frist, the majority leader, wants to try and amend the constitution (!) to say that gay marriage is forbidden.

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."
Click to expand...

He rather DISINGENUOUSLY adds:

"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."
Click to expand...

He seems to feel that the Supreme Court's ruling throwing out the Texas law in some way condones all sorts of "illegal activity" if it occurs inside homes. In my opinion, he DOES NOT truly feel this way. This is misdirection at its purest.

If the Constitution of MY country has an amendment added to it which bans gay marriage, I will renounce my citizenship.
 
I read about this on another messageboard and was truly gob-smacked.

First of all, if the SCOTUS has ruled that sodomy is not illegal, then precisely which "illegal activity" will the legalisation of gay marriage facilitate?

And secondly, if it is sodomy itself to which he objects, then precisely how does he propose that we deal with those heterosexuals who practise it within or without the "sanctity" of marriage?
 
I find it very disgusting that people think that the state has a right to regulate peaceful relationships between human beings, and even more so when it involved their sexual activities. I'm so sick of these hyper-religious homophobes trying to impose their ideologically bankrupt religious beliefs on the rest of society.

And I'm with you, if such a ammendment gets past I will renounce my citizenship as well.

Edited for typos
 
I'm assuming that amending the COTUSA is not a simple process. Can someone walk me through the steps involved from the time someone proposes this amendment until the time it is ultimately ratified or rejected?
 
iankaplan said:
If the Constitution of MY country has an amendment added to it which bans gay marriage, I will renounce my citizenship.
Click to expand...
The only laws I can imagine causing me to reconsider citizenship would be ones having some immediately perceptible effect on the actual legal rights or duties of at least one person.
 
Thanks for that link ceo_esq, that site is very informative (I love the failed amendments section).
 
Another political ploy. The real power brokers in the Republican Party would never go through with this for the same reason they would never ban abortion. They're just throwing a bone to the increasingly marginal religious fanatics.

To quote a Congressional Aide (originally appeared in an issue of _TNR_):

"The last thing in the world the White House would want is that Roe v. Wade is overturned... The reason being that it would energize the nation's pro-choice constituency, and it would cause a hyuge fissure in the Republican Party, which has generally been harmonious over the issue because of the belief that the pro-life position will never truly be tested."

The same reasoning applies here. Scalia's opinion recognized that the Court has given into the "so-called homosexual agenda." Liberals won the culture war.
 
Cain, I hope you're right. Actually, I'm pretty sure you're right. I don't believe such an amendment would ever be passed, or even taken seriously. But, dammit, the idea that a Senator would engage in doublespeak so transparent is maddening. I guess I better get used to it, huh?
 
Anti-Gay amendment is not going to happen. It doesnt take more than common sense to figure that one out. It goes against Americas equality of everyone issues. Whats next, an Anti-Jew Amendment...
 
Yahweh, did you read the article? It isn't literally an "anti-gay" amendment. It is an anti-gay marriage amendment. I'm sorry if the title of my thread confused you, I was just trying to be succinct. And I was pissed off!
 
Many states, including my "liberal" California, have already passed "Defense of Marriage" laws (just as many states already have rather strict laws against abortion).

If anything did happen it would get quickly overturned. These are the desperate expressions of a dying moral conservativism.
 
Cain said:
Another political ploy. The real power brokers in the Republican Party would never go through with this for the same reason they would never ban abortion. They're just throwing a bone to the increasingly marginal religious fanatics.

To quote a Congressional Aide (originally appeared in an issue of _TNR_):

"The last thing in the world the White House would want is that Roe v. Wade is overturned... The reason being that it would energize the nation's pro-choice constituency, and it would cause a hyuge fissure in the Republican Party, which has generally been harmonious over the issue because of the belief that the pro-life position will never truly be tested."

The same reasoning applies here. Scalia's opinion recognized that the Court has given into the "so-called homosexual agenda." Liberals won the culture war.
Click to expand...

I don't think liberals won anything of any value whatsoever. They certainly haven't won any war. The war is actually just beginning, IMO.

JK
 
The GOP is playing an increasingly dangerous game by embracing this kind of right-wing play -- proposing something they know can never pass. It appeals to right-wing and Christian whackos, yes, but younger people can put 2 and 2 together. The GOP will kill its own future unless it stops supporting whacked out right-wings schemes like this. In 20 years, the party will be dead unless it starts changing now. No one really cares about gays or gay marriage anymore -- only dumbasses, rednecks and religous kooks.
 
I decided I support Frist on this one, for no other reason than I'm a bitter jackass who has to make life difficult for other people. Maybe if life had been better to me, I wouldn't be this way.

Don't go thinking if you're straight and married that you've escaped my scorn either. You're on my hate list as well. :)
 
iankaplan said:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../ap/20030630/ap_on_go_co/frist_gay_marriage_4

Senator Frist, the majority leader, wants to try and amend the constitution (!) to say that gay marriage is forbidden.

...
Click to expand...

iankaplan, I do not think that you really have anything to worry about this issue working into an amendment, for it is really just an issue for this politician to help build his support when it comes time for his next election.

So far, I have seen such talk about amending the US Constitution for:
Equal Rights,
Balanced Budgets,
Anti-Flag Burning,
Anti-Abortion, and the
Changing the Presidential Term Limits.

So far, none of these issues have come to pass.
 
American said:
I decided I support Frist on this one, for no other reason than I'm a bitter jackass who has to make life difficult for other people. Maybe if life had been better to me, I wouldn't be this way.

Don't go thinking if you're straight and married that you've escaped my scorn either. You're on my hate list as well. :)
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing; your self-analysis explains a great deal.
 
heh, he can't even keep his logic straight in the same interview.

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.
Click to expand...
okay, and then he goes on to say...

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."
Click to expand...
so, he supports a Constitutional amendment, which requires approval of the federal legislature in addition to the states (and affects all states once enacted). But, he also supports states making their own decisions based on local norms. So, which one is it? Do you want to force your morals on the states that disagree with you, or do you want the states to decide for themselves?

You know, I really start to worry when government tries to regulate people's sex life. It's two consenting adults, and they're not hurting anyone else, so how is it any of the government's business?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom