 Reuters Photo |
Posted on 06/29/2003 12:32:00 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican leader of the U.S. Senate said on Sunday he supported a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.
|
|
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.
I think your right about germany, never the less, if our scotus did it, there would be nothing that would at that point stop say the president, from essentilly ignoring there ruling, and saying "go ahead and endorce it yourselfs" (this actually has happened in the US, I think it may have been Jackson, and I think he actually used those words).
Never the less, Declaring an amendment unconstitional, would essentially draw a crisis on the spot, as the system of checks and balances would essentially be destroyed. The check on the supreme court is constitutional amendments, there is no other real check. Appointments aren't even a real check, and impeachments are not a solid check either, those amendments are what keeps the court from essentially usurping all the power of the executive and legislative branches.
YOu could and would have an instant dictatorship if they could declare amendments unconstitutional, hence why they dance around it by calling the document living and breathing. More likely then not, if say all 9 said an amendment was unconstitional, then there would be nothing to stop congress and the president from also ignoring the constitional in total either, and basically ignoring SCOTUS, or simply declaring they they can now outrank scotus. All crazy and hypothetical to be sure, note, that the constitution is explicit enough to declare that it is the supreme law of the land, and specifies how to make an amendment, and that it does trump anything and everything else. It also specifies the only way to change an amendment or get rid of one, it to amend again. SCOTUS overruling the law of the land, is hence illegal, by violating the check and balance, and usurping the amending process would bring about more then impeachment, it could actually result in there arrest. (scary stuff).
Marriage is not one of those.
Crazy as this may sound, the strongest supporters of the flag burning amendment, according to every poll I have ever seen, seems to come from people in the middle. Hard right conservatives in general don't like or aren't to keen on actually having a flag burning amendment, liberals also abhor the idea, but the majority of americans do support it.....untill you change the wording of the question around.
If it is not legally recognized by the state, it does not matter who performs the ceremony. A marriage without a license is not legal, and the state will not, in most states, grant such a license to a same-sex couple.
It's not rocket science.
...but it is a sacrament, which Frist seems to think qualifies it for federal protection!
Did Frist just have a Rick Santorum moment? Oh dear.
Do you oppose the Thirteenth Amendment?
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.
I wish marriage WOULD remain a state issue. But right now, with the Lawrence decision, it is only a matter of time before the homosexual lobby convinces the Supreme Court to rule that ALL states MUST recognize same-sex "marriages." That is what this amendment would prevent.
At the very least they seem to be trying awfully hard to write off the million plus gay votes which Bush received in the 2000 election. I suppose we'll have to wait & see what, if anything, Sullivan does with this; he seems to be on a roll lately...
FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT (H.J.Res. 56)
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
This amendment does not "ban" anything so much as it DEFINES marriage and explicitly PREVENTS the judiciary (the least accountable branch of government) from imposing same-sex "marriage" on an unwilling populace. The people of each state could still vote to establish "civil unions" (though I myself would oppose such legislation in my state).
Santorum's analysis of wht SCOTUS was up to was prescient. Frist got carried away.
Most of the bones in my body drive me toward federalism and freedom for people to live where they want based on community standards but because the SCOTUS has gone "rogue" again, I'm 100% behind a Constitutional Amendment reserving marriage to one man and one woman.
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.