Planning vacations around sodomy

Agreed, though I still think the first quote is the stupidest. I read this when I got to work, and I thought "Huh?"

"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."

That's the quote. Now, what he's saying is, the zone of privacy is being eroded....

And his solution for this is to make private consensual acts illegal?

He and I have very different views on what the word "privacy" means.

[elSicomoro]

The article on MSNBC has more detail, including this gem:

"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."

Okay, you think it should be on the local level, but then you want a Constitutional amendment?

Dummy.

[vsp]

The gay marriage issue is an odd duck, because marriage is a civil institution with civil implications (custody, taxation, divorce, inheritance, etc.) that also has religious implications and traditions wound into it.

For one thing, it's not as if one needs to be religious at all in order to get married, to belong to any particular religious faith, or to have a member of some clergy perform the act. A Justice of the Peace, a captain at sea, or some guy in an Elvis suit in Reno all qualify to certify the deed, if the relevant paperwork is in order. About the only governmental restrictions on marriage are that (a) you can't be married to someone else already, (b) you are old enough, sane enough and sufficiently unimpaired by drink to provide legal consent, and (c) the government gets its license fee and all the papers are filled out.

Therefore, it's the _governmental_ function of marriage (the "civil union," so to speak) that should be the important and relevant part. Whether the Catholics recognize Jewish marriages, the Methodists recognize Buddhist marriages or any church recognizes atheist marriages should be secondary to whether the _state_ recognizes them as being valid. I am an atheist, myself -- if Church X disapproves of my marriage, why should I give a rat's ass? They're not my church, they're not my problem.

So why should a union of two people be restricted to particular gender combinations, once the religious implications are removed from the debate? The answer is obvious -- there is no good reason why it should. Let the legal definition be inclusive, and let the churches decide for themselves who they'll marry and who they won't. If the Catholics or the Baptists declare homosexual marriage to be blasphemy, fine -- they don't have to perform them themselves. The homosexual couple can then go shopping for a church that better fits their beliefs and lifestyles, or just go to the Justice of the Peace and avoid that contention entirely, and if the Baptist He-Man Homo-Haters Club has a problem with that, that's _their_ problem.

Yet our Senate Majority Leader not only believes that the decision of who can and cannot be state-recognized belongs in the churches' hands instead of the state's, but that the very notion of non-church-approved unions is so catastrophic that the Constitution needs to be amended to prevent it. Again -- WHY? I keep hearing the "destroying the integrity of marriage" argument from religious and conservative pundits, and I just... don't... get it. Why does what someone _else's_ church (or lack thereof) believe about marriage inherently threaten what _you_ and _your church_ believe about it?

Not to mention that the vast majority of Constitutional amendments _defend_ and _enumerate_ rights, not restrict them. About the only similar "no laws shall be passed allowing this" amendments that come to mind are the thirteenth (abolishing slavery, which was a no-brainer) and Prohibition... and we saw how well _that_ went.

[SteveDallas]

OK. "marriage is a sacrament." "Sacrament" is a very specific religious term that in my opinon has no place in a political discussion like this. (Frist may be fascinated to know that some Christians denominations don't actually recognize marriage as a sacrament. Of course, he probably considers members of denominations like that such as myself as decadent moral relativists who aren't really Christian at all.)

Now, the other thing is... if you're going to offer this line of argument about marriage....... isn't the logical conclusion that sexual activity between a man and a woman who are not married should be made illegal? I mean come on, if we have the attitude that people should be married because it's a Good Thing(tm), then surely the LAST thing we want is for folks to think they can just do the deed with no wedding license. I'm waiting to watch one of our friends in Congress introduce this one!!

OK, now, one more thing I'll just post here instead of starting another topic. Look at Justice Scalia's dissent. He complains that if you follow the majority's reasoning we'll no longer be able to outlaw bestiality, bigamy, pedophilia, masturbation... MASTURBATION??? Oh come on! What jurisdictions have laws against masturbation?

Originally posted by vsp
They're not my church, they're not my problem.

http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2871

[vsp]

Originally posted by SteveDallas
Now, the other thing is... if you're going to offer this line of argument about marriage....... isn't the logical conclusion that sexual activity between a man and a woman who are not married should be made illegal?

In some states, it _was_ illegal. (I say "was" because I'm not _entirely_ sure if Lawrence invalidated fornication laws as well as sodomy laws. There may well be another court challenge down the road.)

Looking at this <a href="http://www.sodomy.org/laws/">handy chart</a>, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia all had anti-fornication statutes on the books. North Carolina even banned "opposite sexes occupying the same bedroom at a hotel for immoral purposes, falsely registering as husband and wife," for cryin' out loud. I believe some other states still had laws that prohibited having sex with someone who believed that they'd be marrying you, and then breaking off the relationship. Potentially tacky, yes, but illegal?

Originally posted by dave
http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2871

Heh. Okay, THAT church was a problem, but screaming at the PUC and the utility company itself has kept the calls away for a while now.

[xoxoxoBruce]

In 1971 I tried to register at the Stone Mountain, Georgia campground. I wrote my name and address and number in party 2. the woman handed it back and said I couldn't have a campsite unless I wrote Mr and Mrs on the card.

[vsp]

In _1998_ or so, I attempted to rent a room in upstate PA. When the clerk asked me if I was married and I said "no," I was refused the room, and given a brief lecture about how his was a "family establishment." Since I hadn't specified who would be joining me or for what purposes, I found this quite amusing, as did the motel owner across the street who had no problem taking my money.

[Griff]

The "marriage is a sacrament" comment is a very disturbing view into the mind of a statist. In Frist's world the government sanctifies the bond between two people. Good thing we're sending troops around the world to fight people who want to combine religion and government.

I hereby advocate the violent overthrow of the government of the United States. And by violent overthrow, I mean throwing wet peas at them until they step down from office.

[Undertoad]

More on the "marriage sacrament" item (via here):

Begin, if you will, with the Senator's own theocratic assumptions. The Senator is said to be a devout Presbyterian. If so, he should go back to his catechism. Marriage is simply not a sacrament in his religious tradition. Marriage is a Christian sacrament in Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and high church readings of Anglican Christianity. For Presbyterians and most Protestants, generally, who limit sacramental acts to those actually commissioned by Jesus as a means of grace, marriage is not a sacrament. It is an ordinance, a religious act governed by teachings and practices of the church, but it is not a sacrament.

The Presbyterian senator would, thus, impose on us all via the Constitution an understanding of marriage which is held only by his Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and some Anglican constituents. God save his Moslem, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and agnostic constituents, for whom the very word "sacrament" has no meaning. God save his Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Pentacostal constituents, for whom marriage is not a sacrament. God save his heterosexual constituents, to say nothing of his homosexual ones, who believe that a committed relationship is its own means of grace, which does not depend on constitutional definitions, justifications, intrusions, or protections.

[vsp]

^-- Yeah, and atheists can just wait out in the hall until all this is worked out...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Just because your an atheist doesn't mean that God doesn't love you.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Just because your an atheist doesn't mean that God doesn't love you.

Another sig. line alert!