Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/30/2003 6:26:21 PM EDT
[url]http://www.timesdispatch.com/frontpage/MGBDSSJTJHD.html[/url]
Frist backs gay-marriage ban THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Jun 30, 2003 WASHINGTON - The Senate majority leader said yesterday he backed a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage in the United States. Sen. Bill Frist, 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 it violated the defendants' constitutional privacy rights. The ruling invalidated the Texas law and similar laws in 12 states. Frist said he supports an amendment that would ban any marriage in the United States except a union of a man and a woman. Same-sex marriages are legal in Belgium and the Netherlands. Canada 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. 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.
View Quote
This has been too long in the making. Glad to see someone in DC has some gonads. I'd also like to see a Constitutional Amendment banning Affirmative Action and abortion-as-birth-control.
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 6:34:06 PM EDT
YES!!!!!!!! Here's ta you Senator Frist! [beer] CRC
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 6:41:46 PM EDT
awesome! [beer] Try to end run the legislatures and the constitution? End run that!
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 6:46:50 PM EDT
Next is banning gays having guns. [devil] Then only missionary position (insert favorate STATE SPONSORED postion here) for everybody. Then NO TALKING about things the majority don't agree with... [soapbox]
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 6:55:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Phased_Plasma: Next is banning gays having guns. [devil] Then only missionary position (insert favorate STATE SPONSORED postion here) for everybody. Then NO TALKING about things the majority don't agree with... [soapbox]
View Quote
Speech is one thing. Actions are another. Funny, my copy of the constitution has the right to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the RKBA and lots of other stuff but it seems to run out of paper right at the amendments saying it is okay to murder your children, bugger some other guy and declare unspoken imagined priveleges and rights over white folk. Maybe you could send me a copy of yours. FWIW, there is no right to privacy. Though if I had my druthers there would be.
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 7:05:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By drjarhead: Speech is one thing. Actions are another. Funny, my copy of the constitution has the right to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the RKBA and lots of other stuff but it seems to run out of paper right at the amendments saying it is okay to murder your children, bugger some other guy and declare unspoken imagined priveleges and rights over white folk.
View Quote
You forget that the Constitution simply outlines and limits the powers of government, not the rights of the people.
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 7:14:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By drjarhead: Speech is one thing. Actions are another. Funny, my copy of the constitution has the right to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the RKBA and lots of other stuff but it seems to run out of paper right at the amendments saying it is okay to murder your children, bugger some other guy and declare unspoken imagined priveleges and rights over white folk. Maybe you could send me a copy of yours. FWIW, there is no right to privacy. Though if I had my druthers there would be.
View Quote
I'm not implying amendments to commit crimes against people, but consenting acts of two parties don't strike me as crimes (whether I find those acts repugnant or not). I think Amendment IV covers privacy The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I'm against legislating religious values, or morals in general, because who's do you pick? That's what the Taliban was all about. Go ahead, try changing the contitution, make it easy, then the antis will delete the 2A. I also despise flag burners, but I don't think it should be unconstitutional. [flamesuit ON]
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 7:25:45 PM EDT
Pandering to the base in the very least, or at the very most depending how you look at it. However, it will never pass muster.
Link Posted: 6/30/2003 7:47:20 PM EDT
the 4th covers illegal search and seizure, not really privacy. The gov can still listen from without, use infrared imaging, etc. FWIW, I am totally against this as well as routine carstops and searches. Go on everyday. Further, your business info is routine sold, held and used, AND it is likely that one day your medical info will be a matter of public record if not your DNA sequence as well. I think a comparison to conservatives with regards to the Taliban is grossly overstated. I've beaten this to death in other threads and I have to pull another 14 hour day tomorrow. As for flag burners I guess they have that right. Don't I have a right to freedom of expression in return[):)]
Top Top