# Senator Frist wants Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 29, 2003, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211 "2003-06-29T20:04:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211/161 "2003-07-02T00:26:35Z")
> [@](#): > > …and more interested in sticking it to social conservatives… Not that there’s anything wrong with that… ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211/162 "2003-07-02T00:28:36Z")
I would suspect that it is the weight of social respectability and acceptance that comes with the term “marriage” that many people want; something which does not carry the freighting that would obligate other people to recognise the validity of a partnership does not in fact provide all the benefits. For me, the intangible benefits are the most important ones, and those are the ones that come with the “friggin’ label”. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211/163 "2003-07-02T01:10:46Z")
Let’s see: a separate status would mean a great deal of potential doubt as to whether any particular law, past or future, that dealt with marriage would include civil union or not. It would cause havoc when dealing with immigration and other authorities in other countries - “are these people married or not?” It would greatly weaken our already shaky position regarding comity agreements with other states. The label _is_ important. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211/164 "2003-07-02T01:27:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gobear \* > **Hitler may have sent some gay people to their deaths in Auchwitz, Treblinka, and Dachau, but I’m sure they were just the rude ones who had it coming. Right, Tars?** :eek: :eek: :eek: I can’t believe you said something so utterly reprehensible, **gobear**. And that’s saying something, as I’ve had a generally low opinion of you recently. Are you SERIOUSLY implying that **Tars** condoned (or would have condoned) the murder of homosexuals by the Nazi regime? :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211/165 "2003-07-02T01:29:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Not that there’s anything wrong with that… \*\* Actually, there is. Opposing a good policy choice just to stick it to the other side only serves to contribute to a corrosive political atmosphere that makes real change possible. Far better to find what common ground you can and pass a workable compromise. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Lilairen_ > **I would suspect that it is the weight of social respectability and acceptance that comes with the term “marriage” that many people want; something which does not carry the freighting that would obligate other people to recognise the validity of a partnership does not in fact provide all the benefits.** Got news for you, dearie: you can’t legislate “respectability and acceptance.” Win your tangible benefits from the government, and win hearts and minds elsewhere. > [@](#): > > Originally posted by matt\_mcl\* > \*\*Let’s see: a separate status would mean a great deal of potential doubt as to whether any particular law, past or future, that dealt with marriage would include civil union or not. \*\* No, it would not. Cast the law as “those in civil unions have all the rights and responsibilities of those in marital union, and are subject to all laws dealing therewith.” Problem solved. \*\* > [@](#): > > It would cause havoc when dealing with immigration and other authorities in other countries - “are these people married or not?” It would greatly weaken our already shaky position regarding comity agreements with other states. The label is important.\*\* Both of these problems arise regardless of the label, and the label simply doesn’t change the underlying issue (namely, to what extent is one governmental entity required to recognize the acts of another governmental entity?). If you think that question is going to turn on a label, you’re kidding yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211/166 "2003-07-02T01:30:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*…that makes real change possible. \*\* Er…make that **im** possible. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211/167 "2003-07-02T01:49:24Z")
“Marriage” is a marker of “respectability and acceptance”. This was the primary difference I noticed when I began to participate in one, _dearie_. A “civil union” is unacceptable to me as an end results for gay folks precisely because it is creating a category that does not have that sociological weight behind it so those people who don’t want to accept the legitimacy of same-sex partnerships have an out without violating etiquette. Sweetie-pie snoogums. ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211/168 "2003-07-02T02:16:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jack Batty \* > \*\*Marriage is a sacrament in this country. Which is why, of course, we whore it out weekly on TV to sell fucking Snicker Bars \*\* Is fucking Snickers bars considered sodomy? (paging Marianne Faithfull…paging Marianne Faithfull…) ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211/169 "2003-07-02T02:34:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lilairen \* > \*\*“Marriage” is a marker of “respectability and acceptance”. This was the primary difference I noticed when I began to participate in one, _dearie_. > > A “civil union” is unacceptable to me as an end results for gay folks precisely because it is creating a category that does not have that sociological weight behind it so those people who don’t want to accept the legitimacy of same-sex partnerships have an out without violating etiquette. > > Sweetie-pie snoogums. \*\* Plus, “Will you be my civil partner?” just doesn’t have the same ring to it\* as “will you marry me”? \*Bad pun intended ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211/170 "2003-07-02T02:38:30Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **Dewey Cheatem Undhow** _ > > It’s a friggin’ label for cryin’ out loud. Who cares what it’s called so long as you and your S.O. get all the benefits you’ve been yearning after? But isn’t it interesting how the conservative and religious politicos are the ones that have the problem with that “friggin’ label.” > [@](#): > > It’s comments like this that make me think you’re less interested in improving the way society treats gay people and more interested in sticking it to social conservatives. Could you please point out where I said this? I don’t remember saying this. > [@](#): > > I mean, really: if you could tangibly improve the lives of thousands of your gay brethren with a fairly benign compromise, you’d throw it all away over a goddamned name? Could you please point out where I said this? I don’t remember saying this. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211/171 "2003-07-02T02:43:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Biffy the Elephant Shrew \* > \*\*Is fucking Snickers bars considered sodomy? > > (paging Marianne Faithfull…paging Marianne Faithfull…) \*\* Dude, it was a _Mars_ bar, not a _Snickers_. [sub]How come I never forget stupid shit like this, but I never could remember the stuff I had just studied five minutes before an exam?[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211/172 "2003-07-02T02:53:13Z")
> [@](#): > > Are you SERIOUSLY implying that Tars condoned (or would have condoned) the murder of homosexuals by the Nazi regime? Of course not, you moron. I’m exaggerating the logical implications of implied statement that human rights are only for nice people who never raise their voices. Obviously, he would never condone it. Satire is wasted on people who can only read literal meaning into a sentence. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211/173 "2003-07-02T03:10:17Z")
What did you mean by that? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211/174 "2003-07-02T03:31:58Z")
One practical problem to place on your agenda, **Dewey** – our treaties with Canada call for mutual recognition (comity) of marriages solemnized in the other country. But Quebec civil unions are not “marriages” (big surprise in a country that passed DOMA! ) ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211/175 "2003-07-02T05:37:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lilairen \* > **"Marriage" is a marker of “respectability and acceptance”. This was the primary difference I noticed when I began to participate in one, _dearie_.** And marker or no, you will not achieve any more “respectability and acceptance” from the label attached to your particular union. Those inclined to recognize homosexual relationships as respectable will do so regardless of what they are called. Those inclined to think otherwise won’t accept you no matter how your union is described. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Esprix \* > \*\*But isn’t it interesting how the conservative and religious politicos are the ones that have the problem with that “friggin’ label.” \*\* Unsurprising, given that the term “marriage” is inexorably intertwined with a religious institution. I say throw the religious folks a bone on this one. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Polycarp_ > **One practical problem to place on your agenda, Dewey – our treaties with Canada call for mutual recognition (comity) of marriages solemnized in the other country. But Quebec civil unions are not “marriages” (big surprise in a country that passed DOMA!)** I’m not sure that matters. If Canada decided to recognize bigamous marriages, I don’t think any court in this country would say such a mutual recognition treaty mandates that the US also respect that arrangement. The US isn’t about to let other countries dictate its progress on this issue. I don’t think the particular label another nation affixes to such unions affects the outcome of such matters at all. (FYI, will be away from the boards for about a week starting in…oh, a few hours. Insomnia + very early flights = a bad, bad thing). ---
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211/176 "2003-07-02T12:15:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lilairen \* > **A “civil union” is unacceptable to me as an end results for gay folks precisely because it is creating a category that does not have that sociological weight behind it so those people who don’t want to accept the legitimacy of same-sex partnerships have an out without violating etiquette.** Not that I want to put a damper on anyone’s righteous fervor, but coming from a country that has had gay marriage since 1989, I may perhaps offer an observation ? In Denmark, gay marriage is formally known as “registered partnership” and it carries with it the same privileges and obligations that a boring ol’ heterosexual marriage does. The interesting part is that although the paperwork may say something else, everybody refers to it as marriage, even those (few) opposing the entire idea - mainly those religious folks who never really got used to the idea that people can and do get married at city hall in the first place. It works. You can’t legislate what people will call the union among themselves - but please note that even now, opponents in the US are using the term “gay marriage”. ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211/177 "2003-07-02T14:56:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*(FYI, will be away from the boards for about a week starting in…oh, a few hours. Insomnia + very early flights = a bad, bad thing). \*\* But having you and your poorly veiled bigotry gone for a week is a very, very good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211/178 "2003-07-02T16:29:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > \*\*Dude, it was a _Mars_ bar, not a _Snickers_. > \*\* Or, since it didn’t really happen, it _wasn’t_ a Mars bar and _not_ not a Snickers. Or something. 😕 (As for Bill Frist, he can _suck my dick_.) ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211/179 "2003-07-02T17:59:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > Unsurprising, given that the term “marriage” is inexorably intertwined with a religious institution. I say throw the religious folks a bone on this one. First, as one of those “religious folk,” I’m not interested in “being thrown a bone.” Second, “marriage” has been the term for the civil union in monogamy of non-religious people for at least 200 years. To stick to Moderzators for examples, I’m quite confident that **Czarcasm** and **David B** consider themselves “really” married to their wives, and would scoff at the idea that their relationships are “inexorably intertwined with a religious institution.” Rather, as **gobear** and **Joe Cool** and I were able to get spelled out to a mutual agreement some months ago, “marriage” actually consitutes three distinct things: [ol][li]A recognition by the state of a state of monogamous union between two people[/li][li]A relationship ordained by God (considered sacramental in nature by some) in which a couple becomes one in the eyes of God[/li][li]A committed monogamous relationship felt to exist by the two people involed, regardless of what church or state has to say about the idea[/ol][/li] There is no doubt in my mind that many gay couples are married in sense 3. And many churches are in favor of enabling them to be joined in sense 2, though many, many more are dead-set opposed. The problem lies in allowing the latter group to dictate the limits of sense 1. I have seen churches which teach that “atheists are not really married” because their weddings and marriage did not conform to sense 2 – are we to forbid them the right to consider themselves married and avail themselves of the legal rights extended married couples on that account? > [@](#): > > I’m not sure that matters. If Canada decided to recognize bigamous marriages, I don’t think any court in this country would say such a mutual recognition treaty mandates that the US also respect that arrangement. The US isn’t about to let other countries dictate its progress on this issue. I don’t think the particular label another nation affixes to such unions affects the outcome of such matters at all. My point, which you seem to be carefully sidestepping, is that we have a treaty under which marriages in one country are extended recognition by the other, in very close parallel to the comity required by the Full Faith and Credit clause prior to the decision of the Republican majority in 1996 that it was their moral obligation to supersede the explicit text of the constitution in an effort to “protect the sanctity of marriage.” You can pose hypothetical examples all you like – we decided to abrogate a treaty with our nearest neighbor because we didn’t like their adoption of something advocated here by a minority. If my friend in northern New York with a ScotiaBank account should marry his girlfriend and then die, would the Ontario courts be justified in refusing her the money because “she wasn’t married in Canada?” And how does this differ legally, if at all, from my giving **jeremy** a parcel of land here in North Carolina and having this state refuse **scott evil** title to it after **jeremy** ’s death? Bigamy, bestiality, incest, and all the other red herrings were not at issue; I gave a specific, non-hypothetical case. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2003, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211/180 "2003-07-02T18:06:34Z")
> [@](#): > > But having you and your poorly veiled bigotry gone for a week is a very, very good thing. **Mockingbird** , please, _dial it back._ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-frist-wants-constitutional-amendment-banning-gay-marriage/185211.md?page=10)