Posted on 03/03/2004 7:15:54 AM PST by chance33_98
Legal, Civil Rights Arguments Fuel Gay Marriage Debate
By Lolita C. Baldor Associated Press Writer Published: Mar 3, 2004
WASHINGTON (AP) - Saying same-sex marriages are likely to spread across America like a "wildfire," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist exhorted Congress Wednesday to embrace a constitutional amendment banning them.
"We simply will not let activist judges redefine that definition of marriage," the Tennessee Republican said a gathering of anti-gay marriage activists. "We will not let activist judges redefine - I would say radically redefine - what marriage is, and that is a union between a man and a woman."
Frist's broadside opened what promises to be a divisive election-year battle on Capitol Hill.
Using the Massachusetts high court ruling permitting same-sex marriages as an impetus, Frist said that Congress should not wait until the states make a final decision on the subject.
With gay marriages already being performed in California and New York, "the wildfire will begin and in many ways it already has begun," he said. "Same sex marriage is likely to spread through all 50 states in the coming years. It is becoming increasingly clear that Congress must act."
The Senate Judiciary Constitution subcommittee also is focusing on whether Massachusetts judges overstepped their bounds and eroded traditional marriage.
Gay rights supporters are fighting back, framing the issue as America's next civil rights battle.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called Wednesday's hearing to examine the "judicial invalidation of traditional marriage laws." Cornyn supports a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
"Judicial activism has made the defense of marriage a national issue that can only be addressed at the national level," Cornyn said.
In November, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-3 that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry.
Thousands of gay weddings have been performed in San Francisco since Feb. 12, when the city began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Last week, President Bush last week called on Congress to quickly pass an amendment prohibiting gay marriages.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who effectively wrapped up the Democratic presidential nomination on Tuesday, says he is against gay marriage but would oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to bar it.
In testimony prepared for delivery Wednesday, Yale University Professor R. Lea Brilmayer said a constitutional amendment to determine what Massachusetts can do within its own borders would be wrong.
"It is for the people of Massachusetts to say what their constitution should say," she said. "This premise is the basic principle of federalism, upon which the American constitutional system as a whole depends."
But other legal experts disagree. Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, who is also expected to testify, said the Massachusetts ruling could invalidate Nebraska's ban on same-sex marriages.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton tried to leave the gay marriage issue up to the states. But Bruning said recent court decisions indicate that federal courts may eventually allow same-sex marriages.
The arguments for and against a constitutional amendment also fall along social and civil rights lines.
Ron Schlittler, policy director for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said people trying to build a life together, whether straight or gay, should be treated the same.
Pastor Daniel de Leon Sr. of Santa Ana, Calif., in testimony prepared for the hearing, said marriage is for the benefit of children, not adults. He said efforts to stop gay marriage are not comparable to past opposition to biracial unions.
"Laws forbidding interracial marriage are about racism," he said. "Laws protecting traditional marriage are about children."
Gay rights groups said efforts to pass an amendment are an affront to civil rights.
"This is politics at its nastiest," said Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "It's a shame that the White House is orchestrating hearings to discuss whether gay families should have basic human rights protections."
Lawmakers are divided on the issue, with many expressing a reluctance to tinker with the constitution.
Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., said he supports civil unions between same-sex couples and would not vote for a constitutional amendment.
And Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who is a member of the subcommittee, said the debate "is not about activist judges. It's about politics - an attempt to drive a wedge between one group of citizens and the rest of the country, solely for partisan advantage."
Civil Rights, my a$$
Have they repeatedly been denied service in restaurants? Are they made to ride in the back of the bus? What a load of crap. Say anything in order to garner appeal/acceptance on a grand level.
Homosexual agenda:
Civil Rights = whatever we want, and you HAVE to accept it!
We will not let activist judges redefine - I would say radically redefine - what marriage is, and that is a union between a man and a woman. -Bill Frist
You GO!
Blacks angered by gays' metaphors
Joseph Brown: Gay Marriage Rites Vs. Civil Rights
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| The Stamp of Normality |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.