Top Senator Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage - FRist,TN

Yahoo! News ^ | 6/29/03 | Peter Kaplan - Reuters

[jwalsh07]

Persumably, not something ala Limon. :)

You persume correctly there counselor. LOL

[Jim Noble]

but I can't recall the Congress having exercised the right.

ex parte McCardle should refresh your recollection.

[AntiGuv]

Other than the "widely reported" assertion (I will take you word for it), just why is it clear? Did Kennedy mention Burger's pompous reference explicitly?

Yes, indeed he did. Search for Burger: Lawrence v Texas.

[Torie]

OK, I see it now. Whether Europe was mentioned in response to Burger, or just to point out that mores have changed since the "dark ages" on both sides of the Atlantic, is still arguable. But I think your punch hit something, and I hate you for it.

[AntiGuv]

But I think your punch hit something, and I hate you for it.

LOL! That's the best laugh I've had in a while! :^)

I need to get out more..

[aristeides]

The references to foreign law are secondary to the point in both Bowers and Lawrence. More central to both are the attempts to summarize the history of the crime of sodomy under American and common law. And on that Bowers, for all its unpleasant tone, strikes me as far more accurate than Lawrence. I'm no expert on the history of the law of sodomy, but Kennedy's potted history struck me as being as tendentious and distorted as Blackmun's history of the law of abortion in Roe.

[BibChr]

Whew? I thought the title said he opposed it!

Dan

[Gritty]

ex parte McCardle should refresh your recollection.

So it seems.

OK. So Congress hasn't seen fit to challenge the Court for 135 years. That's a long time. As Congress seems to have forgotten how to do it and as they seldom bother to read the Constitution themselves, somebody ought to point out the obvious to them.

Now the Court is in the full fledged business of legislating their druthers from the bench and has been for years, it is time for Congress to get busy nosing into what the Court feels is now it's business and not the business of Congress, or the States, or - Heaven forbid - the people!

Maybe it's time to defund these punks?

[aristeides]

I think Congress likes to have the unelected courts handle the hot potatoes.

[Non-Sequitur]

Senator Frist is the one talking Constitutional amendments. Since his problem is with homosexuals to begin with I'm wondering why he is resorting to half measures.

[Grut]

Re-read post #44, and continue to do so until you finally understand what I am saying.

1: Frist wants to use federal power to protect 'sacraments'.

2: Religious marriage ceremonies are sacraments, at least Christian ones are.

3: Therefore, if states refuse to recognize some (specifically, gay) church-officiated marriages, Frist must want to use federal power to force them to do so.

What's so hard about that?

[ellery]

It still seems to me that sodomy is almost irrelevant here -- the fundamental issue here is whether or not SCOTUS has a right to decide for the states issues that are not explicity reserved for the federal government under the Constitution. The issue could be drugs, abortion or any other flashpoint.

I personally believe that what two consenting adults do in their own home is nobody's business -- but I still oppose the idea of federal judges overruling the decision of duly elected Texas legislators.

[Skywalk]

And you think that individuals were the ones that truly had the power to enforce the state of chattel slavery in the United States? And do you think a law that FREES a large segment of our population was a limit on the freedom of individuals?

By that logic, laws against murder are a limit on freedom(which technically, they are, but that's to guard the life and freedom of the potential victim.)

[Skywalk]

When was homosexual sodomy a capital crime under Roman law, and does the fact that the law was ignored have any effect on views of the enforceability of the law? Also, isn't one of the main tests of a law whether it gains compliance? In fact, isn't that THE test(beyond such questions as righteousness, liberty, etc) ?

[Rebellans]

tortoise wrote:

The Constitution exists to limit governments, not individuals -- this is a stupid idea. You don't write laws with the Constitution.

I responded by pointing out that Amendment XIII DOES limit individuals (by prohibiting them from engaging in slavery) and DOES write a law into the Constitution.

The Federal Marriage Amendment would hardly be an assault on freedom. Homosexuals (and everyone else) would still be able to do whatever they want in their private lives. The amendment simply states that, as far as the U.S. is concerned, marriage is legally defined as a union between a man and a woman, and courts may not impose another definition of marriage on the populace. Again, here is the text of the amendment:

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

[AntiGuv]

When was homosexual sodomy a capital crime under Roman law, and does the fact that the law was ignored have any effect on views of the enforceability of the law?

Never a crime per se. Theodosius issued an edict in 390CE reaffirming the "imperial hatred" against male prostitutes and Justinian later elevated his own 6th Century injunction to the status of "divine law" - although taxation of homosexual prostitution continued throughout as a valuable source of Byzantine imperial income....

[Skywalk]

OK, once I saw Theodosius it made sense. I barely consider that era to representative of "Rome."

What I find hilarious about people discussing the long-standing laws against sodomy is that 1)European Christianity is still descended from a culture that abhorred homosexual sex between men.

2)Slavery was an accepted practice around the world for millenia. It is true that many white Christians did stand up for abolition of all slavery, but that was a BREAK from the tradition, not a continuation of some abolitionist tendency in Christianity or Judaism. It is telling that there is nothing in the Bible that really endorses abolition of slavery, therefore are we to believe that such things are of value as Western tradition?

Not comparing banning sodomy to slavery, but not all traditions in the West are of equal value, either moral or practical.

[Houmatt]

3: Therefore, if states refuse to recognize some (specifically, gay) church-officiated marriages, Frist must want to use federal power to force them to do so.

4: You are a buffoon. You completely ignored what I said in post #44, opting instead to make breathtakingly stupid comments like the above.

If you don't know what the hell you are talking about, then why waste my time or anyone else's?

[litany_of_lies]

Wish I could agree. The Supremes' ruling represents a seismic shift. My assessment is that thanks to the ruling, liberals and many moderates won't "overrule" the court on a hot-button issue relating to gay rights.

More importantly, the CA legislature (which is the deciding factor here, NOT a voter initiative) is bought and paid for by the radical gay movement. They won't ratify even if their voters burn the phone lines and the Internet to a crisp in support of ratification.

[AntiGuv]

I just tracked down the following link, if you're interested, which explains how the ratification convention process works (you're quite correct about the 21st):

Constitutional Topic: Ratification Conventions

I was wondering how it all works; looks like each State has its unique guidelines. Could be exciting if this makes it out of the Congress specifying the convention process of ratification!