Limp-Fristed Amendment

Mr. Roper alert! Mr. Roper alert!

Hot off the Supreme Court's sodomy ruling, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has seized the moment by pushing for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, Village People medleys, and Paul Lynde references from all future National History standards. Oh hell, let's just call it a fag-burning amendment already.

Ironically, only a few months back, gay groups were pretty misty-eyed about Frist, with The Advocate hailing his "inclusive" gestures.

At least the boys at National Review's The Corner will be happy.

Comments

[Anonymous]

at least they work through rule of law (i.e. changing the constitution) instead of having unelected judges make up rules...

[Anonymous]

banning gay marriage = fag burning

hyperbole alert!

[Xrlq]

Not only is it hyperbole, it's also a missed opportunity. There are plenty of intelligent arguments to be raised against the amendment in question, not the least of which is federalism and states' rights. So what does Gillespie do? Overlook the real issues and whine about a "fag-burning amendment" instead. Too bad.

I'm beginning to think that maybe there is reason, and then there is Reason?, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

[Anonymous]

The South will rise again. And a thousand Antonin Scalia's will bloom. Wops will unite with rednecks. Guidos and whitetrash will join in rebirth and harmony.

[Croesus]

A judge making a decision is working through the "rule of law." Now, you may not like the way the interpret the Constitution, etc., but it is nevertheless the "rule of law." A process was followed, and a decision was made. Its not as if judges makes decisions without said process, and without the prompting of the litigants who have brought the case before them.

[Stickler]

Hey, Xrlq: THIS IS A BLOG. Not every entry has to be a long, closely reasoned argument. Sometimes there's just a pointer and a joke. You want something more involved, go to the homepage or pick up the magazine.

[Anonymous]

untrue, as with decisions like Brown vs. Board where the past ruling was ruled unconstitutional, so clearly there is a standard above the judges

[Anonymous]

fag burning, what a funny joke! ha ha ha

[Xrlq]

Stickler:

I don't expect each individual entry to be long or closely reasoned, but I do expect each entry to be reasonable or, if it is meant to be a joke, funny. This "fag burning" nonsense was neither.

[David 2]

The role of the judiciary is not to serve as the rubber stamp for government. That's how tyrannical governments operate.

If politicians don't like having their laws overturned, then they should stop writing and passing bad laws in the first place. They should, instead, get their sorry butts back to junior high school and retake their basic civics courses and this time pay attention to the subject matter at hand.

[Anonymous]

you missed out a good post on the affirmative action ruling -- you could have accused republicans/nro of supporting "negro burning."

now that would be even more hilairious! after all, thats what blogs are about.

[James Merritt]

So is the joke "fag burning" or is it Senator Frist?

Either Frist is so ignorant (if not ignorant, then contemptuous) of our history and form of government, or he is cynically trying to score publicity points for re-election, a future power bid, etc. I guess the latter, but any way you paint it, and even though this amendment doesn't stand a chance in hell, the whole situation is scary and depressing: how DO we send such ninnies and twits to Washington? Hasn't this guy just proved himself unqualified or unworthy of being a US Senator?

Behold the Senate majority leader, folks. Behold the standard bearer for the once-alleged party of small government and personal responsibility. Then behold the candidates labeled "Libertarian" on your ballots. Vote for them. Or not. But run like hell from the Demos and GOP. With jokes like Frist and his Demo counterparts in office, the oft-maligned Libertarians are looking more and more like serious stuff.

[Anonymous]

Nothing will be done. Lott got shafted for his praise of that Nazi Storm Thunder. But Santorum was praised by the President for his remarks on fags. What do you think will happen to the Fist? Praise Him.

[Anonymous]

how is attempting to legally change the constitution to reflect common law anti-libertarian?

[Stickler]

"I do expect each entry to be reasonable or, if it is meant to be a joke, funny. This 'fag burning' nonsense was neither."

As opposed to your brilliantly funny comment about reason and Reason? Now THERE'S a knee-slapper!

[Anonymous]

new record for violation of Godwin's Law!

[Anonymous]

See? God Wins.

[PJ]

Xlrq: Your comment might make some sense if the onlyible reason someone who doesn't like Frist's amendment would mention it is to argue against it. Instead, Nick offers some useful information about gay groups' initial reactions to Frist. You don't have to like his joke, but whining that he didn't write the blog entry that YOU would have written is not very becoming.

[Jim]

To the anon poster above.... amending the constitution to reflect common law is anti-libertarian if the common law in question is anti-libertarian. Denying gays the same legal rights as heteros (the right to a legally binding union) fits the bill of antilibertarian in my book.

[Anonymous]

I think the gay community is paranoid now and is going to get out and shout loud and hard until they nag everyone into submission.No reason or logic there.

[Anonymous]

I know fags are an exciteable lot, and they're quick to get their panties all in a twist, but c'mon.

All you cocksuckers have to learn to deal. Frist is a principled legislator working for his constituents. This is what legislators do. If you don't like it, don't vote on it. But if it does pass with a two-thirds majority, live with it or get out and move to fucking Canada or something. And if it doesn't? Well, I won't be crying about it unlike some stool softeners who are already shitting themselves and it's only just been proposed. So buck up, this is America. May the best man (or fag) win. We'll soon see what this country is really made of. Patience.

[Anonymous]

ok, then we should extend all rights to children and handicapped people. to do otherwise is anti-libertarian. thousands of years of common law be damned.

[skinner]

Exactly, I personally find the whole idea of parents claiming rights of their children by "gentics" to be distasteful and anti-libertarian. The kids should make up their own mind -- or maybe it should be up to whoever grabs them and makes a better claim. Afterall, there is not a single clause in the Constitution regarding the concept of "parenting", therefor the Supreme Court should decide who is and who isn't a parent, and hopefully do away with such shameful, savage and barbaric genetic claims. No doubt the conservative nazis will now want a constitutional ammendment to enshrine genetic parenthood as a protected right - the bastards!

[Perry]

Thought it was interesting that Frist said that the right to ban private homosexual conduct should be left to the states, but somehow the right for homosexual marriage should be decided by the feds?

[Xrlq]

Jim:

From a libertarian perspective, everyone has a right to form what ever unions they want, but no one has a "right" to have such unions recognized. That "right" consists of whatever the statute says it does, no more and no less.
For a state to recognize certain unions (straight, monogamous, not incestuous, etc.) as legally binding, while declining to recognize others as such (gay, polygamous, incestuous, etc.), is neither libertarian nor anti-libertarian; it is "alibertarian."

[Anonymous]

quiet fag burner!

[James]

Everyone needs to get real. Marriage is now just a strong committment to going steady with 50% of the assests at stake. As the old saying goes, "times a-changin" so the institution of marriage needs updating to reflect the social changes of society.

[Anonymous]

5000 years of history be damned. next up: the institution of parenthood

[Anonymous]

Look it wasn't until the Renaissance that children we're even considered "childs." They were just little people, unromanticized nor given speshul privileges.

[Anonymous]

that's a myth. true they were not whiny brats, true most were serfs/slaves whatever, but genetic parenthood was still a recognized status. yeah there were times when the courts changed that status on an individual basis then (adoption, wards of the state, etc) as there are now, just as there is and was divorce.

[James Merritt]

To no-name:

Speaking only for myself, I am more worried about Frist's obvious casual relationship with federalism, and believe the Libertarians would do a better job of respecting that principle. I do think it is unlibertarian to enshrine irrelevancies into the supreme (and most difficult to change) law of the land. Marriage, and the morality of it, are civil and personal issues that are properly the concern of city and county ordinances and state law, IF THAT MUCH. I don't like how they has become the subject of much federal legislation and regulation. The thought that an amendment covering those topics might actually be tacked onto our national constitution is just repulsive. How about an amendment specifying the colors and placement of traffic lights, while we're at it? After all, the specifications of traffic lights affect millions more people than the circumstances of marriage do, and isn't the promotion of a national traffic code an important part of regulating interstate commerce??? Geez! Let's get our priorities straight!

[John Thacker]

Of course, Joe, there's still the question of what happens if the 10 year old daughter says that she does consent. Perhaps the best response is to shrug one's hands and say that such things will be rare. However, it is possible.

[joe]

Minors can't consent to legal contracts. Their parents can consent for them, but the inherent conflict of interest in this case cannot be overcome, so no deal.

Plus...ICK!!!

[D.Osmond]

Bigamist Mormons are going to have a field day with this one!

[John Thacker]

I have to think that this is merely one of the unfortunate downsides of the manner of the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. I think that this quite decisively points out one of the problems with the decision.

The decision quite simply, combined with Romer v. Evans, convinced conservatives that the Supreme Court would be willing to eventually rule that gay marriage was a right, despite existing jurisprudence and now visible change in the Constitution. Neither state constitutions nor federal laws would be proof against this change. The only way to prevent it is with a clear Constitutional Amendment, while support is still sufficiently strong.

By rejecting the democratic method, by rejecting the principles of federalism and the state-by-state method, and by refusing to wait for these laws to wither away and die as public opinion fully shifts, but by insisting upon a Supreme Court ruling despite the lack of any relevant change to the text of the Constitution, the supporters of gay rights upped the ante. This is precisely the response I would have predicted-- by taking away all the other options of the cultural conservatives, they turn to the only one they have left.

In the long run, this could set back the chances of gay marriage for decades. And it's exactly why I refused to join in the cheerleading over Lawrence, because of objections to the jurisprudence.

[Owl]

John, what are you doing up so late? Scurrying around with such deep thoughts so early in the morning?

Careful! We eat mice, you know.

[Anonymous]

i can't wait to marry my 10 year old daughter!

[Kevin Carson]

This is another issue for Jesse's federalism thread, alongside affirmative action and sodomy laws.

I don't think it's any of the Feds' business how the states regulate marriage.

Of course, they're terrified that the Article IV comity clause will force other states to recognize what, say, Hawaii does. But the international law of comity, on which the clause is based, has always excepted laws which a state considers morally repugnant.

That's why the fugitive slave laws were necessary, from the slavers' perspective, to modify the application of the comity principle. It created a positive statutory obligation, regardless of the law of comity; and it removed the issue from the state arena, where most northern juries would refuse to recognize such forms of "property," regardless of what southern laws said.

In practice, this is just another example of what the GOP establishment means by the Tenth Amendment: the states are free to do as they please until the neocon social engineers decide that "we as a people" (gag) have spoken.

[joe]

"i can't wait to marry my 10 year old daughter!"

Given how much time social conservatives put into thinking about sexual morality, you'd think they'd happen upon the concept of consent at some point.

[Anonymous]

Consent is unfamiliar to both left and right. Nobody consents to taking drugs, smoking, eating fatty foods, not studying, etc. This is all forced on them by some evil superior power.

[Xrlq]

Kevin:

I agree that both precedent and a common-sense reading of the full faith and credit clause (I assume that's what you mean by "comity clause") would not require a state that prohibits gay marriage to recognize a gay marriage from a state that allows it. Unfortunately, the Court has just shown that it can't be trusted to abide by either common sense or its own precedent. Thus, the idea of a constitutional amendment is not necessarily a bad one. This particular proposal is, however, as it prohibits not only the federal constitution, but also state constitutions, from being construed to protect gay marriages. There's no need for that.

[Croesus]

Anon. Poster,

The nuclear family that we recognize today is a rather recent phenomenon in the history of humans.