Top Senator Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage - FRist,TN

Yahoo! News ^ | 6/29/03 | Peter Kaplan - Reuters

[NormsRevenge]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican leader of the U.S. Senate said on Sunday he supported a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

Reuters Photo

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist expressed concern about the Supreme Court's decision last week to strike down a Texas sodomy law. He said he supported an amendment that would reserve marriage for relationships between men and women.

"I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between, what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined, as between a man and a woman," said Frist, of Tennessee. "So I would support the amendment."

The comment, during an interview on ABC's "This Week" program, comes days after the U.S. high court struck down sodomy laws that made it a crime for gays to have consensual sex in their own bedrooms on the grounds the laws violated constitutional privacy rights.

The court's decision was applauded by gay rights advocates as a historic ruling that overturned sodomy laws in 13 states.

Conservatives have expressed their fears that the June 26 ruling could lead to the legalization of gay marriages.

The marriage amendment, reintroduced in the House of Representatives last month, says marriage in the United States "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."

Amending the constitution requires the approval of two thirds of each of the houses of the U.S. Congress and approval of 38 state legislatures.

Frist said he feared that the ruling on the Texas sodomy law could lead to a situation "where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned."

"And I'm thinking of, whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home, and to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern," Frist said.

Frist said the questions of whether to criminalize sodomy should be made by state legislatures.

"That's where those decisions, with the local norms, the local mores, are being able to have their input in reflected," Frist said.

[DoughtyOne]

How can you ban Gay marriage now? On what grounds could it be denied without the Supremes nullifying it?

I also want to see how the government justifies no-knock raids now that whatever adults choose to do in their homes is okay.

[af_vet_1981]

He should rather call for someone to submit articles of impeachment against the six unrighteous judges who are misleading the Republic.

[friendly]

On what grounds could it be denied without the Supremes nullifying it?

Amendments trump Supremes.

[Arkinsaw]

How can you ban Gay marriage now? On what grounds could it be denied without the Supremes nullifying it?

The Supreme Court can't declare a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Yes, this moron actually wants to change the Constitution. Do these people seriously have that little to do that someone actually comes up with this?

Maybe we could get a constitutional amendment that only allows Congress to conduct session for 30 days a year, if this is the stuff they are coming up with...

[Viva Le Dissention]

The Supreme Court can't declare a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional.

I'm not so sure of this. It's certainly never happened, and I've been involved in several heated discussions over this very subject on this board.

I think the most you can say is that it has never been done before.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you. Then I would suggest this ammendment be lengthy and address a multitude of 'rights' that deviants should be prevented from having, including beastiality and the presentation of this carp to our young children in school. And I might add, forbit schools from promoting their degenerate and anti-American agenda as well.

[Sonny M]

As much as I like this amendment, and support it, I do honestly believe this is just a weak attempt to energize the base and motivate them. I don't think he is being genuine. Never the less, its not something thats not possible to pass. I would prefer the language read as something not banning, but specifying what marriage is and limiting it to a man and a woman (also human, I know sicko out there will look for a loophole).

[Holden Magroin]

The Supreme Court can't declare a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional.

No, but they can pretend it says something it doesn't. From "Nor shall any state...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," the Supreme Court somehow created a right to discriminate against white people.

[Sonny M]

I'm not so sure of this. It's certainly never happened, and I've been involved in several heated discussions over this very subject on this board.

The reason it never has happened is because its simply not allowed. Thats why the supreme court "re-interprets" amendments to say what they want them to say. Using "re-interpretation" and the concept of "living and breating" amendments, allows them to pull the stunts they do.

By definition alone, unconstitional means against the constitution, if its an amendment, its a part of the constitution, it not possible for it to be against itself.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

"How can you ban Gay marriage now? On what grounds could it be denied without the Supremes nullifying it?"

With all due respect, this question reveals a real lack of understanding regarding our governmental system.

[navyblue]

"How can you ban Gay marriage now? On what grounds could it be denied without the Supremes nullifying it? "

By doing exactly what Senator Frist is proposing. Adding an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which specifically defines marriage in the United States and all it's territories.

SCOTUS cannot override the Constitution. But I imagine that we will then have the problem of defining exactly what is a man and what is a woman. After all, if we don't even really know what "IS", is.

[friendly]

I would suggest this ammendment be lengthy and address a multitude of 'rights' that deviants should be prevented from having, including beastiality and the presentation of this carp to our young children in school. And I might add, forbit schools from promoting their degenerate and anti-American agenda as well.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

[Dan from Michigan]

I can not back this. Good idea, wrong method.

I can not support any constitutional amendment banning ANYTHING, even murder. The constitution was created to limit GOVERNMENT, not the freedoms of individuals.

Gay marriage is a state issue. The feds did the right thing with the defense of marriage act. That's good enough there. This fight belongs in our state capitiols.

And on the state level, I would support a ban on gay marriage.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

What? Where do you people come from? The Supreme Court is in place to interpret the law. I guess you think the Supreme Court can get rid of the Bill of Rights? Geezus.

[Houmatt]

If you are going to be talking about rights, this, above all, should be pointed out:

Nobody has a right to marry.

If there was such a right, there would be no limits.

[dead]

I think the constitution is fine as it is. I wish people would stop trying to change it.

[Viva Le Dissention]

It's happened in other countries (India and Germany, I believe, but I'm truthfully not sure about Germany), and I certainly think it could happen here, given the right circumstances. I doubt that an amendment banning gay marriage, regardless of its intellectual shortcomings, would be the one to make it happen, but let's say there was a constitutional amendment to strip Muslims of due process rights. This certainly flies in the very face of the goals of the constituion.

The question then becomes whether there are "higher" principles for which the constitution stands which are superior to the actual text of the document. I would argue that there are certain liberties and rights that are so fundamental to a free society that they cannot be changed by any government fiat, or a free society would simply no longer exist.

[navyblue]

And in my personal opinion, that is determined ONLY by the grouping of the X and Y chromosomes in the human gene system. You of course are entitled to your opinion.