the frist amendment

Conservative queer blogger and journalist Andrew Sullivan and I are in agreement today about some of the troubling subtext of Bill Frist's remarks, particularly in regard to his support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage because of his belief that "marriage is a sacrament," including a definition of it as being "between a man and a woman," and that this religiously influenced belief somehow should be reflected in law.

Sullivan also points out another problem in Frist's comments in support of amending the Constitution, an hypocrisy given that the conservative voice usually strongly voices support for state's rights, and that some already have condemned the Supreme Court decision precisely for, in their opinion, usurpation of a state's right to criminalize private sexual behavior:

Of course it was dismaying to hear Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist casually declare he favors writing permanent discrimination against gays and lesbians into the U.S. Constitution. Tampering with the Constitution as a way to prevent states deciding, as they always have, what constitutes a legal marriage would be an assault on federalism, an assault on gay citizens, and the equation of the meaning of the United States with active discrimination against minorities.