Proposed anti-gay Amendment

[iankaplan]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/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."

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."

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.

[reprise]

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?

[Jet Grind]

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

[reprise]

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?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by iankaplan
If the Constitution of MY country has an amendment added to it which bans gay marriage, I will renounce my citizenship. 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.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by reprise
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?
Here's a concise overview of the process:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

[reprise]

Thanks for that link ceo_esq, that site is very informative (I love the failed amendments section).

[Cain]

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.

[iankaplan]

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?

[Yahweh]

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...

[iankaplan]

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!

[Cain]

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.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Bigotus Maximus. ;)

The Senator has obviously lost a little thing I call a conscience. At least on this issue.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Cain
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.

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

[Jon_in_london]

SCOTUS? Sounds like some sort of male genital gland.

[Genghis Pwn]

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.

[American]

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. :)

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by iankaplan
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/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.

...

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.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by American
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. :)

Thank you for sharing; your self-analysis explains a great deal.

[Samus]

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. 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." 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?

[DavidJames]

"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,"

And sadly, it works

"but younger people can put 2 and 2 together. "

Possibly, but I haven't seen evidence of this.

"The GOP will kill its own future unless it stops supporting whacked out right-wings schemes like this. "

Again, it's a strategy that is working.

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."

no comment :)

By the way, very good analysis :)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
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.

If homosexual marriage was a benefit to society, why was it never allowed in 2,000 years of western civilization?

I am against homosexual marriage.

JK

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


If homosexual marriage was a benefit to society, why was it never allowed in 2,000 years of western civilization?

I am against homosexual marriage.

JK

IF slavery is so wrong,
THEN why has it been going on since the dawn of civilization?

Just because most people have been repeating the same mistake for thousands of years does not make it correct.

[Suddenly]

From Genghis Pawn:
No one really cares about gays or gay marriage anymore -- only dumbasses, rednecks and religous kooks.

From Jedi Knight:
I am against homosexual marriage.


Also fron Jedi Knight:
If homosexual marriage was a benefit to society, why was it never allowed in 2,000 years of western civilization?

Here's a quote for you from a review of John Boswell's
Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe :
Briefly stated, Boswell's argument is that for a period of over a thousand years (roughly between A.D. 500 and 1500), the Catholic and Orthodox churches of Europe sanctioned a ceremony that permitted the life-long union of same-sex couples. There is nothing startlingly new about this assertion. For years, liturgiologists and anthropologists have been aware of these ceremonies.

http://www.ualberta.ca/~di/csh/csh12/Boswell.html

[renata]

This may be one of those issues that policians support purely to pander to a constituency, knowing full well it will never pass. There is no risk with being associated with unmainstream legislation, but one can easily posture to a particular subgroup.

There are, sadly, many examples of that, from all parties.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Suddenly
From Genghis Pawn:


From Jedi Knight:



Also fron Jedi Knight:


Here's a quote for you from a review of John Boswell's
Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe :


http://www.ualberta.ca/~di/csh/csh12/Boswell.html

But that was connected to the Roman Empire and the empire fell hard after it allowed the soddomization of its institutions.

The question is, how long will America last?

JK

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


If homosexual marriage was a benefit to society, why was it never allowed in 2,000 years of western civilization?

I am against homosexual marriage.

JK

One reason may be that for most of the last 2000 years, longer in fact, marriage was about money. It was about property and control of property, and it was about children to leave property too...marriage was not generally a joining of equals, it was about a man taking a women as property, or joining of families to increase economic and political power.

For most of that period of time, for example, women were -- by law -- prohibited from owning property in their own name, working at most professions, representing themselves in business, voting, etc. While exceptions exist, they are the rare women. It is through marraige that women, their property, their rights, their potential economic power (either as individuals or as family heirs) were controlled.

Another example of the economic import of marriage (a kind of reverse example) is one of the main reasons the Catholic church forbid married priests after about the 12th Century, was because of a understandable fear in a essentially fuedal society that Priests would pass land, riches, seas, dioces (sp?) down from married generation to married generation ... creating a hereditary wealthy priesthood concentrated in families.

It is only in the last 100 years or so, with the changing status of women (something JK believes to be wrong in any event) -- i.e. votes, ability to own their own property in their own right, etc. that traditional "marriage" (as JK would define it) has come under attack...because the institution no longer does what it was supposed to do.

Thus, if you want to protect traditional marriage, than you'd best begin by denying women their political, economic and human rights and reduce them to the state of infancy that traditional marriage (and the laws to enforce it) reduced them to.

What is facinating to me, is that JK is one of the most rabid and Islamists you can find. Islam, in its practice in most of the Islamic world, promotes the kind of "traditional" marriage (and status of women) that JK's remarks would indicate that he favors.

[c0rbin]

You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination. -- Leviticus 18:22

One cannot lie with a man as with a woman. It's not possible. The plumbing is different.

Jeeze!

The Bible is such a great source for knowledge.:rolleyes:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


One reason may be that for most of the last 2000 years, longer in fact, marriage was about money. It was about property and control of property, and it was about children to leave property too...marriage was not generally a joining of equals, it was about a man taking a women as property, or joining of families to increase economic and political power.

For most of that period of time, for example, women were -- by law -- prohibited from owning property in their own name, working at most professions, representing themselves in business, voting, etc. While exceptions exist, they are the rare women. It is through marraige that women, their property, their rights, their potential economic power (either as individuals or as family heirs) were controlled.

Another example of the economic import of marriage (a kind of reverse example) is one of the main reasons the Catholic church forbid married priests after about the 12th Century, was because of a understandable fear in a essentially fuedal society that Priests would pass land, riches, seas, dioces (sp?) down from married generation to married generation ... creating a hereditary wealthy priesthood concentrated in families.

It is only in the last 100 years or so, with the changing status of women (something JK believes to be wrong in any event) -- i.e. votes, ability to own their own property in their own right, etc. that traditional "marriage" (as JK would define it) has come under attack...because the institution no longer does what it was supposed to do.

Thus, if you want to protect traditional marriage, than you'd best begin by denying women their political, economic and human rights and reduce them to the state of infancy that traditional marriage (and the laws to enforce it) reduced them to.

What is facinating to me, is that JK is one of the most rabid and Islamists you can find. Islam, in its practice in most of the Islamic world, promotes the kind of "traditional" marriage (and status of women) that JK's remarks would indicate that he favors.

Well, lucky for the world that I do not support Islam because if I did Islam would rule the world.

Your feminist interpretation of marriage is old news. The tired mythology of women in bondage, women as 'property', women 'denied' rights because of the evil institution of marriage is nothing more than radical leftist attacks upon normal society.

That's right, normal society. Marriage has always granted the state empowerment. The importance of marriage is obvious as it provided children to be indoctrinated in future generations of the nation-state and marriage provides stability for everyone in the community.

There is nothing wicked about the accumulation of wealth over generations. That is what America is all about. It is the right of the individual to pass wealth along to following generations. Western culture was propelled by the citizens latching onto this basic prosperous trait.

So tell me, how does homosexuality really benefit the nation-state? The average age of the homosexual at death is 39, while spending years, perhaps even decades dying from diseases that there are no cure for. So even if homosexuals were allowed to marry, they will cripple the fiscal power of the nation-state (as it is already being crippled by AIDS/HIV and other devastating behavioral diseases) via lengthy illnesses and then the nation-state responsibility to care for the 'widows' of those who manage to survive longer than 39. Is the country ready to pay that price?

That is the question that I have. If people in marriages widow at 39, then the Social Security payments go to the spouse until they die. So now we are creating a legal population that can collect Social Security payments from a dead spouse starting at age 39, when in the normal heterosexual marriage population those benefits were paid at the mid 60's level and beyond for those surviving spouses. Combine that with all the other programs and America will be bankrupt from homosexual marriage.

But look, as an American who has grown to understand the overruning of this country by communists, don't think my observations matter. They don't. America's days are numbered because of the revolutionary activity of extremist groups like the homosexual lobby and while I see it, don't think that my facts matter because they really don't.

JK

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Well, lucky for the world that I do not support Islam because if I did Islam would rule the world.

Your feminist interpretation of marriage is old news. The tired mythology of women in bondage, women as 'property', women 'denied' rights because of the evil institution of marriage is nothing more than radical leftist attacks upon normal society.

That's right, normal society. Marriage has always granted the state empowerment. The importance of marriage is obvious as it provided children to be indoctrinated in future generations of the nation-state and marriage provides stability for everyone in the community.

There is nothing wicked about the accumulation of wealth over generations. That is what America is all about. It is the right of the individual to pass wealth along to following generations. Western culture was propelled by the citizens latching onto this basic prosperous trait.

So tell me, how does homosexuality really benefit the nation-state? The average age of the homosexual at death is 39, while spending years, perhaps even decades dying from diseases that there are no cure for. So even if homosexuals were allowed to marry, they will cripple the fiscal power of the nation-state (as it is already being crippled by AIDS/HIV and other devastating behavioral diseases) via lengthy illnesses and then the nation-state responsibility to care for the 'widows' of those who manage to survive longer than 39. Is the country ready to pay that price?

That is the question that I have. If people in marriages widow at 39, then the Social Security payments go to the spouse until they die. So now we are creating a legal population that can collect Social Security payments from a dead spouse starting at age 39, when in the normal heterosexual marriage population those benefits were paid at the mid 60's level and beyond for those surviving spouses. Combine that with all the other programs and America will be bankrupt from homosexual marriage.

But look, as an American who has grown to understand the overruning of this country by communists, don't think my observations matter. They don't. America's days are numbered because of the revolutionary activity of extremist groups like the homosexual lobby and while I see it, don't think that my facts matter because they really don't.

JK

I note that nothing you've written refutes the historical interpretation...save to try and cast it as somehow discredited because you've called it "femnist"...the points remain valid and true.

Second, I particularly like this quote:

So tell me, how does homosexuality really benefit the nation-state?

It seems so odd coming from you...as it is the kind of question a Stalinist, Maoist or Nazi would ask...what benefits the state?

Homosexulity doesn't benefit or not benefit the state. It just is, and to some degree it is a part of human nature and exists naturally. It is of a different quality than sex or gender, etc. but it is, and society should come to grips with it...both informally and formally.

But "benefiting the "nation state"? You old commie you! ;)

[Suddenly]

From Jedi Knight:
But that was connected to the Roman Empire and the empire fell hard after it allowed the soddomization of its institutions.



Doesn't it hurt to pull stuff out of your butt like that? How does this (even if true, which I doubt) change the fact that for roughly half of the last two thousand years the christian church sanctioned homosexual unions?

You claimed:
If homosexual marriage was a benefit to society, why was it never allowed in 2,000 years of western civilization?

[Suddenly]

Jedi, riddle me this:

Even accepting your unsubstantiated notion that gays live an average of 39 years, how does it follow that there will be a bunch of "spouses" wildly outliving a partner.

Won't both partners most likely die young?

Also, won't an official sanction of marriage encourage a behavioural change amoung homosexuals (monogamy) thus reducing number of AIDS cases?

[headscratcher4]

Indeed, if you were looking for an official system to promote a decline in the perceived homosexual promiscuity (a benefit, one would think to the "nation-state") than some form of recognized relationship (call it marraige) that governs the economic relationship between partners, etc. would be one way to accomplish that...i.e. a partner that fools around and leads to the disolution of the "marraige" might face significant financial consequences...

on the other hand, such penalties hasn't seemed to affected heterosexual extra-cirricular activities....so why try to crowd the issue with either logic, data, facts of history...

[Landis]

Here's something else to ponder (pay attention JK), if homosexuals are allowed to legally marry their status as tax payers will change. They will file taxes jointly and their combined incomes will be taken into account, thus pushing many people into higher income tax brackets. It will also disqualify many people from receiving government benefits (handouts) due to prior lower income status. The Republican's should be pushing for this, it reduces the welfare rolls, and increases the tax base without actually raising taxes.

Personally, if two people want to make a life long committment to each other and are willing to perform a legal ceremony, then I think this strengthen's our society. There will be less promiscuity and perhaps less spreading of VD and AIDS.

[Gem]

If homosexual marriage was a benefit to society, why was it never allowed in 2,000 years of western civilization?

The Spartans beleived that men who loved men were better in combat, because they thought that they would fight better next to their lovers.

The greeks, which I think we can agree as the root of western civilization, allowed homesexuality. Marriage was just a man claiming a woman to make offsprings. No love whatsoever.

Also JK, do you have any sources for homosexual men dying at 39?

Gem

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Suddenly
How does this (even if true, which I doubt) change the fact that for roughly half of the last two thousand years the christian church sanctioned homosexual unions?

Notwithstanding the questionable scholarship of John Boswell and others on the subject, this is a far cry from an established fact.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Gem
Also JK, do you have any sources for homosexual men dying at 39?
There was a famous study published in 1994 that concluded that the average lifespan of a homosexual American male was 42. However, the study has been criticized as unsound (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_obit.html).

[c0rbin]

What is facinating to me, is that JK is one of the most rabid and Islamists you can find. Islam, in its practice in most of the Islamic world, promotes the kind of "traditional" marriage (and status of women) that JK's remarks would indicate that he favors.

Game...


It seems so odd coming from you...as it is the kind of question a Stalinist, Maoist or Nazi would ask...what benefits the state?


set...


But "benefiting the "nation state"? You old commie you!


match

:D