Frist Wants Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

Yahoo! ^ | June 29, 2003

[RobbyS]

Oh, I forgot There WAS the amendment that gave Congress the power to impose a progressive income tax after a 1894 decision of the Court overturned an act of Congress incorporating such a tax.

[Redcloak]

So then your solution is to amend the Constitution through judicial activism. How conservative of you.

[Republican Wildcat]

Oh well, you are obviously clueless. I'm through wasting time on you. Good day.

[Ken H]

I think a lot of people are reading too much into Frist's comments.

They were in response to a question and his response was awkward, IMO.

"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."

He is worried about a zone of privacy being encroached upon to the point of condoning crimnal activity?

Doesn't he mean expanded? Otherwise, it makes no sense.

But then, no Senator can really say he's concerned about a zone of privacy in your home being expanded.

"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."

There's that "zone of privacy" again.

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."

I don't doubt him. However, that is not the same as saying he will put it high on the agenda and lead the fight, which is what he really must do for the Amendment to have a chance.

As far as I know, he's not said anything further since these Sunday comments.

[NittanyLion]

However, that is not the same as saying he will put it high on the agenda and lead the fight, which is what he really must do for the Amendment to have a chance.

Nor should he. There are too many more important issues in need of attention.

Of course, if concentrating on this amendment distracted Frist & Co. from the task of passing more huge entitlements perhaps I could be persuaded...

[Ken H]

That was fast!

The hearings in the House could be interesting if this thing really looks close to passing.

If there's any issue that could cause skeletons in closets to be revealed, this is it.

[steve-b]

free market fundies

The "Address" bar says FR, but the content says DU....

[steve-b]

Name one church that has refused to perform a marriage ceremony based on any of the factors you mentioned that retained its civic authority to perform marriages after that refusal.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!

Churches refuse to marry non-members of their sect all the time -- and in some cases refuse to marry people on all sorts of grounds (I'll bet you can't find one interracial marriage consecrated in the chapel of Bob Jones University) -- and yet continue to conduct marriage ceremonies for their preferred clients.