[Non-Sequitur]

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist expressed concern about the Supreme Court's decision last week to strike down a Texas sodomy law. He said he supported an amendment that would reserve marriage for relationships between men and women.

He has no problem with the Texas law outlawing homosexual sex, so why not a Constitutional amendment outlawing homosexual sex? Why not a Constitutional amendment against homosexuality altogether?

[ellery]

You don't see a difference between one state outlawing something and outlawing something via Constitutional amendment? The first is based on the recognition that different communities have different norms and values. The second is a fundamental change to one of the most brilliant and enduring documents in history. In the second case, we should tread very, very lightly.