Frist Wants to Ban Same-Sex Marriage by Amendment
mike weber
Top Senator Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
Sun Jun 29, 1:49 PM ET
By Peter Kaplan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican leader of the U.S. Senate said
on Sunday he supported a constitutional amendment that would ban gay
marriage.
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.
"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," said Frist, of Tennessee. "So I would
support the amendment."
<end quote>
I think that, perhaps, the good Senator should learn a bit more of the
history of Western culture and values.
Neil Belsky
> history of Western culture and values.
You didn't think the Neo Cons would let it stand without a fight?
Neil
When a man thinks with his stomach, he forgets his head.
When he thinks with his head, he forgets his heart.
And when he thinks with his heart......
He forgets everything!
Matt Austern
> On 6/29/03, 4:24:20 PM, mike....@electronictiger.com (mike weber) wrote
> > I think that, perhaps, the good Senator should learn a bit more of the
> > history of Western culture and values.
>
> You didn't think the Neo Cons would let it stand without a fight?
I don't think Frist is a neocon. This does not mean that I think
he's an honorable or decent person, mind you. It just means that
words have meanings, and distinctions are worth preserving. The term
"neoconservative" refers to a very specific intellectual tradition,
and, as far as I know, it's not an intellectual tradition that Frist
is part of.
The idea of passing a constitutional amendment to enshrine religious
doctrine comes much closer to the Christian right than to the
neoconservative movement.
Marilee J. Layman
weber) wrote:
><begin quote>
>
>Top Senator Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
>Sun Jun 29, 1:49 PM ET
>By Peter Kaplan
>
>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican leader of the U.S. Senate said
>on Sunday he supported a constitutional amendment that would ban gay
>marriage.
>
>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.
>
>"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," said Frist, of Tennessee. "So I would
>support the amendment."
If he really believes that, he should be working on getting rid of
civil weddings.
> <end quote>
>
><more>
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=2&u=/nm/20030629/ts_nm/congress_marriage_dc_4
>
>I think that, perhaps, the good Senator should learn a bit more of the
>history of Western culture and values.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Handmade Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Keith F. Lynch
> 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.
I hope nobody tells him that the vast majority of sodomy is
heterosexual, or he'll try to ban that, too.
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.
Kathy Gallagher
"mike weber" <mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote in message
news:3eff58b8...@news.ynt.sbcglobal.net...
> <begin quote>
>
> Top Senator Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
> Sun Jun 29, 1:49 PM ET
> By Peter Kaplan
>
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican leader of the U.S. Senate said
> on Sunday he supported a constitutional amendment that would ban gay
> marriage.
>
> 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.
>
> "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," said Frist, of Tennessee. "So I would
> support the amendment."
>
> <end quote>
Marriage was originally a property transaction. It is no longer such a
thing. If marriage is the joinging of two individuals, then let marriage be
for anyone who wants it. It''ll just increase teh revenues of the divorce
lawyers.
KG
mike weber
wrote:
>On 6/29/03, 4:24:20 PM, mike....@electronictiger.com (mike weber) wrot=
>e=20
>> I think that, perhaps, the good Senator should learn a bit more of the=
>
>> history of Western culture and values.
>
>You didn't think the Neo Cons would let it stand without a fight?
>
Of course not.
David G. Bell
<m1d6gw1...@Matt-Austerns-Computer.local>
aus...@well.com "Matt Austern" wrote:
I saw something a day or two ago, about th UK government looking at the
idea of a marriage-like property contract for gays which would clarify
some of the awkwardnesses, including non-property elements such as next-
of-kin rights.
The timing of this is suggestive. The way the system works, the idea
may just vanish.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"History shows that the Singularity started when Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
Neil Belsky
On 6/29/03, 10:25:37 PM, Matt Austern <aus...@well.com> wrote
> he's an honorable or decent person, mind you. It just means that
> words have meanings, and distinctions are worth preserving. The term
> "neoconservative" refers to a very specific intellectual tradition,
> and, as far as I know, it's not an intellectual tradition that Frist
> is part of.
> The idea of passing a constitutional amendment to enshrine religious
> doctrine comes much closer to the Christian right than to the
> neoconservative movement.
Most of the Neo Cons I've met have a viewpoint that integrates all
aspects (religion in only only part of it) of their lives into a single
philosophical wall.
Since the Shrub has taken power, many of the moderates (Powell,
Todd-Whitman are the prime examples that come to mind) have either been
betrayed, quit, or both.
Frist's financial dealings (his interactions with the HMOs as the best
example) tend to support his being a Neo Con.
Also, the Christian Right at the very least, gives the appearance of
being tied closely to the Neo Conservative movement.
Mark Atwood
>
> Most of the Neo Cons I've met have a viewpoint that integrates all
> aspects (religion in only only part of it) of their lives into a single
> philosophical wall.
Any other viewpoint is fractured and insane, and finally, quite
literally 'unprincipled'.
Otherwise, why even bother thinking at all, if you dont organize your
life around your principles?
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right,
m...@pobox.com | people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Neil Belsky
On 6/30/03, 7:12:07 AM, Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote
> literally 'unprincipled'.
> Otherwise, why even bother thinking at all, if you dont organize your
> life around your principles?
> --
> Mark Atwood
Speaking as a person who's principles are a polyglot of many different
schools of thought I know that how I think would be rejected out of hand
by anyone with a solid "Wall" based on a single philosophy.
Does this make me unprincipled as I see things? I think not.
Does it make me unprincipled according to people with monolithic
world/life view?
You betcha.
James Nicoll
weber) wrote:
>
><begin quote>
>
>Top Senator Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
>Sun Jun 29, 1:49 PM ET
>By Peter Kaplan
>
>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican leader of the U.S. Senate said
>on Sunday he supported a constitutional amendment that would ban gay
>marriage.
>
>"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," said Frist, of Tennessee. "So I would
>support the amendment."
If it's a sacrament, it's religious. If it's religious,
then as I understand the US constitution the State has no place
making policy to favor one sect's idea of marriage over any others.
A compromise might be to cease to legally recognise
any marriages at all. Civil unions could keep on occuring but
they wouldn't be marriages, since one is a legal arrangement and
the other a religious one, kind of like the difference between
the significance of a bar mitzvah and what happens when the same
kid hits 18. People could arrange suitable cult activities to occur
near the same time as civil procedures to make themselves feel more
comfortable but only the civil procedures would have any legal
standing.
James Nicoll
--
"About this time, I started getting depressed. Probably the late
hour and the silence. I decided to put on some music.
Boy, that Billie Holiday can sing."
_Why I Hate Saturn_, Kyle Baker
Manny Olds
> A compromise might be to cease to legally recognise
> any marriages at all. Civil unions could keep on occuring but
> they wouldn't be marriages, since one is a legal arrangement and
> the other a religious one, kind of like the difference between
> the significance of a bar mitzvah and what happens when the same
> kid hits 18. People could arrange suitable cult activities to occur
> near the same time as civil procedures to make themselves feel more
> comfortable but only the civil procedures would have any legal
> standing.
This fan speaks my mind.
--
Manny Olds (old...@pobox.com) of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"I personally would be happy to campaign not just on behalf of the 9 Noble
Virtues, but of Buddha's 8-Fold Path, the 12 Limbs of Yoga, the 7 Lucky
Charms of Leprechaun Wicca, the 666 Sayings of Satan, anybody the fuck
else who's got a list they'd like to post. And I really think that making
this point absolutely clear might be the only way to penetrate the thick
skulls of many public officials." -- St Loop
Mishalak
> I saw something a day or two ago, about th UK government looking at the
> idea of a marriage-like property contract for gays which would clarify
> some of the awkwardnesses, including non-property elements such as next-
> of-kin rights.
>
> The timing of this is suggestive. The way the system works, the idea
> may just vanish.
Really? I'm currious, why is the timing suggestive? Because when I had
heard about the civil union proposal in the UK I was quite hopeful.
Mishalak
Bernard Peek
<cher...@mishalak.com> writes
The news this morning is that there will be increased rights for
unmarried partners, which is likely to include gay partners. It was only
announced this morning so I don't have any details yet.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
www.diversebooks.com: SF & Computing book reviews and more.....
In search of cognoscenti
David G. Bell
cher...@mishalak.com "Mishalak" wrote:
Just after news of the US Supreme Court decision on Sodomy, as I saw it.
And the UK government is snarled up in embarrassing questions about how
it presented the case for war in Iraq.
Yes, it is hopeful, but I don't trust the bastards.
Randolph Fritz
>
> If it's a sacrament, it's religious. If it's religious,
> then as I understand the US constitution the State has no place
> making policy to favor one sect's idea of marriage over any others.
>
If the constitution is amended, then it's constitutional.
> A compromise might be to cease to legally recognise
> any marriages at all. Civil unions could keep on occuring but
> they wouldn't be marriages, since one is a legal arrangement and
> the other a religious one, kind of like the difference between
> the significance of a bar mitzvah and what happens when the same
> kid hits 18. People could arrange suitable cult activities to occur
> near the same time as civil procedures to make themselves feel more
> comfortable but only the civil procedures would have any legal
> standing.
This is actually near to the current situation, save that marriages
are treated specially by state contract law. The only circumstances
under which gay marriages would be legal now are if all states amend
their laws or if the supreme court overturned those laws. Neither is
anything to worry about that I can see.
Randolph
Manny Olds
Immigration and naturalization laws treat legally-married pairs
differently from other contracted mates.
--
Manny Olds (old...@pobox.com) of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"If after some time you can't imagine yourself anywhere else, then apply
for membership. You can belong without joining, but you shouldn't join
without belonging. The hard part is, only you can tell if you belong!"
-- Timothy Keck
Jim Battista
news:bdpaqq$2o1$1...@panix2.panix.com:
> A compromise might be to cease to legally recognise
> any marriages at all. Civil unions could keep on occuring but
> they wouldn't be marriages, since one is a legal arrangement and
> the other a religious one, kind of like the difference between
> the significance of a bar mitzvah and what happens when the same
> kid hits 18. People could arrange suitable cult activities to
> occur near the same time as civil procedures to make themselves
> feel more comfortable but only the civil procedures would have any
> legal standing.
I'd support that. I think that having ministers of whatever faith out
there doing Caesar's business WRT civil marriage is just wrong. And it
blurs the distinction between whatever sort of mystical holy union the
couple is getting, and the utterly boring and businesslike legal
changes.
--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.
John Bartley K7AAY (ex-KGH2126)
>Most of the Neo Cons I've met have a viewpoint that integrates all
>aspects (religion in only only part of it) of their lives into a single
>philosophical wall.
Yeah, they lifted the idea from Objectivism, but it does not work quite so
well, especially for folks on the outside of that wall. But, then, good
fences make good neighbors.
--
Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT.
Manny Olds
I am in an add position: what passes for clergy in a religion that doesn't
hold marriage to be a particularly religious thing at all, living in a
state that requires a "what passes for clergy" to officiate at
non-courthouse weddings. So I have ended up doing weddings for people who
are not of my religion and who were not interested in religious marriage
anyway, so they could get their ticket punched.
I always tell people "Say you are married in front of me and other
witnesses and I will sign your paper." So far, however, they have always
wanted a bit of foofadoodle to mark the occasion and I have obliged. (I
have a good non-denominational community-and-contract emphasizing wedding
ceremony if anyone needs one.)
I don't understand why people in this situation don't get their legal
paperwork signed when they are at the clerk's office anyway and then do
the foofadoodle when and how it is convenient. But most people (it seems)
are programmed to need a "real" wedding.
--
Manny Olds (old...@pobox.com) of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"The writers against religion, whilst they oppose every system, are
wisely careful never to set up any of their own."-- Edmund Burke
Andy Leighton
> In message <3f003...@omega.dimensional.com>, Mishalak
><cher...@mishalak.com> writes
>>David G. Bell wrote:
>>
>>> I saw something a day or two ago, about th UK government looking at
>>>the idea of a marriage-like property contract for gays which would
>>>clarify some of the awkwardnesses, including non-property elements
>>>such as next- of-kin rights.
>>> The timing of this is suggestive. The way the system works, the
>>>idea may just vanish.
>>
>>Really? I'm currious, why is the timing suggestive? Because when I
>>had heard about the civil union proposal in the UK I was quite hopeful.
>
> The news this morning is that there will be increased rights for
> unmarried partners, which is likely to include gay partners. It was only
> announced this morning so I don't have any details yet.
The news this evening suggests that the new (not-marriage) contract
will just be for same sex partners. It seems that it doesn't offer anything
to unmarried heterosexual partners (or even non-sexual relationships).
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Karen Lofstrom
> A compromise might be to cease to legally recognise
> any marriages at all. Civil unions could keep on occuring but
> they wouldn't be marriages, since one is a legal arrangement and
> the other a religious one, kind of like the difference between
> the significance of a bar mitzvah and what happens when the same
> kid hits 18.
Here I trot out my hobbyhorse. Let the bunds handle family law (marriage,
divorce, inheritance) and the territorial government merely enforce the
rulings of the various family courts. If one is a member of the Southern
Baptist Bund, then gay marriage is right out. However, join the
Universalist Bund and any arrangement of consenting adults is OK.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevermore
Timothy McDaniel
Paul Ciszek <pci...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>The ammendment that established Prohibition made a specific exemption
>for religious use of wine.
No, it didn't.
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxviii.html>
Amendment XVIII
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article
the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors
within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof
from the United States and all territory subject to the
jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have
concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have
been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the
legislatures of the several states, as provided in the
Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission
hereof to the states by the Congress.
>Whether or not this violated the establishment clause was irellevent
The entire act is at
<http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Documents/1920s/Volstead.html>. It
exempted sacramental wine, subject to permits and record-keeping.
Using
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/casesearch.pl?court=US&CiRestriction=%2522National+Prohibition+Act%2522+AND+sacramental>
I was unable to find any cases that came before the US Supreme Court
on this issue.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com; tm...@us.ibm.com is my work address
David Friedman
Jim Battista <batt...@unt.edu> wrote:
I also find the idea of getting the state uninvolved with marriage an
attractive one.
A friend of ours used to be an Episcopal minister--indeed, she married
us. I remember discussing marriage with her and discovering that one
requirement for the Episcopal church to marry you is (or, at the time,
was) that you can be legally married in the country where you are being
married. I objected that the church ought not to let the state make a
religious decision for it--the decision of who was permitted the
sacrament of matrimony.
Karen Lofstrom
> "This was completely legal. As this document from the Islamic Bund
> shows, I followed all the rules and met all the requirements when I
> killed my unfaithful wife and promiscuous daughter."
>
> Give me one law for all, please.
Where did I say that the bunds would make ALL laws? I said marriage,
divorce, and inheritance. Not criminal and commercial. Those affect
everyone.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member #462 of the Lumber Cartel (TINLC)
Karen Lofstrom
> You said you wanted to let the Bunds take care of "family law", and gave
> an example of a Baptist Bund. If we forbid the bunds from acting in
> maters of infidelity, unchastity, or racial issues, and do not let them
> make their own rules about child custody and child discipline/abuse, then
> there isn't much "family law" left for them to be in charge of.
Suppose that bunds could make laws about anything, but were limited in the
punishments they could impose. Fines or expulsion, that's all. The state
would be involved only in enforcing any rulings involving property (which
would include fines and inheritance).
Child discipline/abuse and child custody are difficult. I myself would
favor treating children like "guests" in the bund until they are old
enough to choose for themselves, in which case spanking would be right
out. I know that you can raise children without hitting them -- though
sometimes you have to restrain them, which is a grey area. Custody is also
difficult. A well-run bund would necessarily have laws which would spell
out in exquisite detail just what would happen if a couple split and one
wanted to leave the bund, one wanted to stay. Like a pre-nuptial
agreement. No one would want to commit to it unless it were fair.
Circumcision would also be a difficult matter to resolve.
You didn't bring up one area that could be the most difficult -- bund
schisms and bund property. Suppose a clique took control of a bund and
then fined everyone else to the limit of their ability to pay and then
expelled them. Leaving the majority outside, stripped of their assets, and
a minority gloating. If you let a territorial court rule on these matters,
then there's a possibility that a territory would use this to control the
bunds. But without some kind of arbiter or extremely well-drafted ground
rules, you could have some jolly smash-ups.
At least the consequences would be limited to everyone having to start
from scratch again -- like a bad divorce. Not at all as bad as a civil
war.
--
Karen Lofstrom SCIENTOLOGIST BAIT lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OT7-48 1. Find some plants, trees, etc., and communicate to them
individually until you know they received your communication.
Steve Cooper
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:34:47 +0100, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>
>>In message <3f003...@omega.dimensional.com>, Mishalak
>><cher...@mishalak.com> writes
>>
>>>David G. Bell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I saw something a day or two ago, about th UK government looking at
>>>>the idea of a marriage-like property contract for gays which would
>>>>clarify some of the awkwardnesses, including non-property elements
>>>>such as next- of-kin rights.
>>>> The timing of this is suggestive. The way the system works, the
>>>>idea may just vanish.
>>>
>>>Really? I'm currious, why is the timing suggestive? Because when I
>>>had heard about the civil union proposal in the UK I was quite hopeful.
>>
>>The news this morning is that there will be increased rights for
>>unmarried partners, which is likely to include gay partners. It was only
>>announced this morning so I don't have any details yet.
>
>
> The news this evening suggests that the new (not-marriage) contract
> will just be for same sex partners. It seems that it doesn't offer anything
> to unmarried heterosexual partners (or even non-sexual relationships).
>
There's not much point offering it to hetrosexuals. From all
I've seen its the same as marriage, without using the term.
You'll even need to go to court to get a divorce should the
relationship break down, with alimony and the all the other
implications that this brings.
So hetrosexual couples already have access to this, they just
get to call if getting married, which I'm sure will be the
common vernacular for the same sex ceremonies. We probably do
need a proper partnership registration scheme open to both
types of couple. But that will probably be a few years away.
Steve Cooper
David G. Bell
s...@jet.uk "Steve Cooper" wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me if the legal fine detail were to be different.
There might not be the accumulated biases that there can be in
conventional male-female marriage, gradually being eroded, such as
assumptions about who supports whom.
I could see some of that feeding into the law on conventional marriage.
JFW Richards
> In message <3f003...@omega.dimensional.com>, Mishalak
> <cher...@mishalak.com> writes
> >David G. Bell wrote:
> >
> >> I saw something a day or two ago, about th UK government looking at
> >>the idea of a marriage-like property contract for gays which would
> >>clarify some of the awkwardnesses, including non-property elements
> >>such as next- of-kin rights.
> >> The timing of this is suggestive. The way the system works, the
> >>idea may just vanish.
> >
> >Really? I'm currious, why is the timing suggestive? Because when I
> >had heard about the civil union proposal in the UK I was quite hopeful.
>
> The news this morning is that there will be increased rights for
> unmarried partners, which is likely to include gay partners. It was only
> announced this morning so I don't have any details yet.
The government spokesman on the Today Programme said explicitly that
these proposals were intended for gay partners in long term
relationships only and that unmarried hetrosexual couples would not be
covered as they already had the option of getting married and thus
enjoying the benefits that the proposals covered.
Regards
JFWR