Do these people never learn?! Frist backs Ban on Gay Marriage.

[Nubclear]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid...s_and_lesbians

Someone didn't learn too much about politics, did they?

[Az]

A constitutional ammendment?!

[*End Is Forever*]

He's a Republican, of course he'll never learn.

[GePap]

The Dem's in the Senate will kill it. As for putting it in the constitution anyweays, man, one of the dumber proposed ammendments.

[Provost Harrison]

What a bigoted tw@t...

[Asher]

Top Senator Backs Amendment Banning Negro 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 Negro marriage.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist expressed concern about the Supreme Court's decision last week to strike down a Texas law legalizing sexual intercourse between black people. He said he supported an amendment that would reserve marriage for relationships between white 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 white man and a woman," said Frist, of Tennessee. "So I would support the amendment."

The comment, during an interview on ABC's "This Week" program, comes days after the U.S. high court struck down discriminatory laws that made it a crime for Negroes to have consensual sex in their own bedrooms on the grounds the laws violated constitutional privacy rights.

The court's decision was applauded by equal rights advocates as a historic ruling that overturned laws legalizing slavery in 13 states.

Conservatives have expressed their fears that the June 26 ruling could lead to the legalization of Negro marriages.

The marriage amendment, reintroduced in the House of Representatives last month, says marriage in the United States "shall consist only of the union of a white man and a white woman."

Amending the constitution requires the approval of two thirds of each of the houses of the U.S. Congress and approval of 38 state legislatures.

[Gatekeeper]

Good grief. Our damn leaders just want to f*ck up the U.S. Constitution everytime they get a f*cking hair up their arses. If it isn't the flag amendment, it's now this.

It's great having leaders who seem to ignore abuses in the corporate world but, God forbid, they rush into your bedroom if they think you're doing something not socially correct.

Gatekeeper

[ixnay]

Wow, he's an idiot.

[Gatekeeper]

O yea, America, home of the brave and home of the free. (Unless you're gay and burn the flag, in which case you're a scumbag who should be run out of the country. And if you're black, Latino, disabled or just plain "not cool," well ... we won't run out of the country, but we'll make your life tough.)

Yes, we have great leaders in Washington, D.C. Crap like this makes Stupid White Men such easy targets for their reactionary counterparts among the leftist ranks. One big vicious circle, I tell ya.

Live and let live. It's that simple. But do we want simple? Oh, no! That's too complex a concept to understand. And, golly, wouldn't the world be a boring place if nearly everyone subscribed to that silly concept of simplicity?

Gatekeeper

[Asher]

Linked from that CNN site:
http://www.cultureandfamily.org/arti...pers#undermine

[MichaeltheGreat]

He's just pandering to the thumpers. It's not like Frist or the Republicans are looking to a big gay vote anyway.

I'd be surprised if such an amendment even made it to the floor of both houses. The chance of getting a 2/3 majority in either house is never in hell.

[Atahualpa]

and thats the Republican LEADER of the Senage

oh my...

[Gatekeeper]

True, MtG, but it's still aggravating. And they always want to alter the U.S. Constitution with material that, if it ever passed, would make us look like damnable fools to (hopefully) more enlightened people in the future.

Hell, while we're at it, maybe we should go back to counting African-Americans as two-thirds a person (or whatever the fraction was in the U.S. Constitution so long ago). Maybe we oughta just go back to preaching the Gospel to those heathen Native Americans. Blast from the past, man! Yeah, them good old conservative values!

**sigh**

Gatekeeper

[The Templar]

I don't see why these guys want to add an amendment to the Constitution when they seem unable to comprehend the current amendments.

I quote: "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."

Obviously Frisk can't read or can't understand the First Amendement and its jurisprudence which separates church from state. Sacraments are ecclesiastic issues, not governmental issues.

Someone should also point out to this cracker bigot that the local mores in plenty of places frown on interracial marriage. Does Frist think racial bigots should be able to locally enforce their retrograde morality? Or does Frist only support homophobic bigotry?

[Jon Shafer]

This is why Christians should not be allowed to hold office.

[oedo]

Originally posted by Asher
Linked from that CNN site:
http://www.cultureandfamily.org/arti...pers#undermine

Soon, sex was placed under the microscope. In 1919, an entrepreneurial homosexual, Magnus Hirschfeld, founded the Institute for Sexology in Berlin, Germany.8 The Institute studied the burgeoning homosexual subculture, which was challenging traditional family morality in film, stage and in the increasingly decadent "cabaret" culture of post-World War I Germany. As historian Paul Johnson notes, "Stage and night-club shows in Berlin were the least inhibited of any major capital. Plays, novels and even paintings touched on such themes as homosexuality, sado-masochism, transvestitism and incest; and it was in Germany that Freud’s writings were most fully absorbed by the intelligentsia and penetrated the widest range of artistic expression."9 Meanwhile, "the Church, and, above all, the comfortable, industrious middle classes, were savaged and ridiculed."10 In such an atmosphere, Adolf Hitler was able to persuade millions of Germans that he alone could restore decency and order, despite the fact that many of his earliest supporters in the "Brownshirts" were sexual deviants themselves.11

I didn´t read any further. this is so close to holocaust denial, the provider of this page should get a letter from the public prosecutor.

[Ecthy]

while I can understand the ban on homosexual marriage, that of ethnic minorities is hilarious.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Our damn leaders just want to f*ck up the U.S. Constitution everytime they get a f*cking hair up their arses.

Why should they be held to a higher standerd than the judges?

[Dis]

my state already passed a ban on gay marriage recently.

actually the way it was worded- it said marriage can only be the union between a man and a woman.

So it certainly is possible to have a ban on gay marriage.

[Dis]

by the way, I don't think gays should be getting married.

[Ecthy]

the sense behind marriage is the foundation of a family. that means reproduction. even if they adopt (and screw) a child, they don't reproduce. so it's not the real thing and therefore shouldn't be considered equal.

[Sheik]

A ban on gay marraige is absurd. I don't think it is possible to make a reasonable case that gays getting married effects the rest of the population in a negative way. This is America.

[Sava]

I almost wished that the Christian religion was correct... heaven and hell, etc... then I could bask in contentedness knowing that these ****ers will burn in hell.

[Dis]

why would they burn in hell?

[Sava]

IIRC, loving thy neighbor and such is a prerequisite for heaven. Also, using the Lord's name in vane is against the rules also. And creating a constitutional amendment based upon some sick, bigotted, hateful interpretation of God's will is certainly taking his name in vane.

[oedo]

Originally posted by Sava
IIRC, loving thy neighbor and such is a prerequisite for heaven. Also, using the Lord's name in vane is against the rules also. And creating a constitutional amendment based upon some sick, bigotted, hateful interpretation of God's will is certainly taking his name in vane.

exactly
those wannabe-christian fundamentalists should read the bible for a change.

[Dis]

that's just one of those commandment thingies.

all you have to do is have faith in jesus christ as your saviour and you are set for life- and afterlife.

I like low maintenance religions

[Sava]

all you have to do is have faith in jesus christ as your saviour

a popular Protestant idea... which is again, a convenient interpretation. Consider this:

Person A: Leads a good, moral life, never sinning or breaking a commandment. But never believes in Jesus.

Person B: Murder millions, but accepts Jesus on his deathbed.

I'm sorry, but Person A is going to heaven, Person B is going to hell... assuming Christianity is correct.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
True, MtG, but it's still aggravating. And they always want to alter the U.S. Constitution with material that, if it ever passed, would make us look like damnable fools to (hopefully) more enlightened people in the future.

Hell, while we're at it, maybe we should go back to counting African-Americans as two-thirds a person (or whatever the fraction was in the U.S. Constitution so long ago). Maybe we oughta just go back to preaching the Gospel to those heathen Native Americans. Blast from the past, man! Yeah, them good old conservative values!

**sigh**

Gatekeeper

There are several reasons why they want to put their crazier issues into constitutional amendments.

1) This is the only way some of this stuff would be constitutional

2) They get more bang for their buck by proposing such dramatic measures, ie the press pays more attention.

3) They actually don't want to pass these measures because they either don't believe in them personally or they believe that the issue is a winner for them just as it is. Thus, they can whip up their supporters by proposing radical things and still assure that the issue is alive for the next campaign by arguing for an amendment that they are never going to get passed.

[Dis]

hey I don't write the rules. I just go by what those latter day saints say when they come to my door