“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.”
And
“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.”
This was Scalia’s exact line of argument in his dissension for the minority.
It was fun to hear Rush Limbaugh moaning this morning about the “extra-constitutional” Supreme Court decision. I think Rush needs to re-read his Constitution.
I tend to agree that social policy choices should be made by the legislature rather than the judiciary when, as is the case with sodomy laws, the constitution is silent on the issue.
But Frist is an idiot. Class, compare and contrast the following excerpts from the article:
“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.
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.”
So let me get this straight, Billy Boy: you oppose a nationwide rule on sodomy because you think local norms and mores should be given their say, but you also favor a constitutional amendment that would mandate one nationwide rule on gay marriages? Make up your fucking mind, jackass.
I’m a conservative, but what I hate even more than liberalism are stupid conservatives.
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t think anyone of the lawyers here are constitutional lawyer, but it seems to my laymans eye that this could be construed to say that gay marriage shall not be denied. I mean, its discriminatory to allow men and women to marry but not men and men and women and women, right?
That argument has already been tried and rejected. Granted, the argument was made under current law (which already protects against gender-based discrimination by state governments, under the 14th amendment). Current law subjects laws that discriminate by sex to “heightened scrutiny,” but federal courts decided that same-sex marriage could be prohibited even in the face of that. I guess if the ERA passed, the courts might view it differently, but I tend to doubt it.
