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.

[aristeides]

I have a vague recollection that the 18th Amendment (which contains within its terms no exception for sacramental or other religious uses of intoxicating beverages) was interpreted to contain such an exception implicitly, so that there would be no conflict with the First Amendment.

[ellery]

You don't see a difference between one state outlawing something and outlawing something via Constitutional amendment? The first is based on the recognition that different communities have different norms and values. The second is a fundamental change to one of the most brilliant and enduring documents in history. In the second case, we should tread very, very lightly.

[Rebellans]

This has no chance of getting the 2/3 of all votes needed, and even if it does, it has absolutely no chance of getting ratified by 38 states. Here are 15 states that will not ratify (only 13 needed): ME, MA, VT, NY, NJ, CA, MD, DE, CT, RI, WA, OR, MN, WI, HI.

Huh? Even liberal Californians passed (by a hefty margin) an amendment to their state constitution defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Several other states which you mentioned have passed similar amendments. Why do you say they would not ratify a federal amendment? The public support is there; we just need to present the issue to the voters and let them decide.

[jwalsh07]

In the second case, we should tread very, very lightly

Then what is the remedy for a rogue SCOTUS with a political agenda?

[bluebunny]

Oh so he was the one that started the drumbeat. I wouldn't know because I hit the MUTE button when I see him on TV.

[Dubya]

Good for FRist.

[jwalsh07]

He or she is whacky, Hawaii amended their state Constitution to define marriage as one man, one woman.

[aristeides]

I strongly support such an amendment as well. It would only prevent the most obviously undesirable possible consequence of Lawrence, but it would also serve as a rebuke to the Supreme Court, and thus might persuade the court to interpret Lawrence narrowly.

[aristeides]

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."

Frist may have been reading our discussions of Limon.

[88keys]

Clearly? Hardly...

Clearly I'm not a "scholar", LOL! But it seems to fall under "equal protection", is what I thought...if the Texas law had applied to all citizens, I think it would have been Constitutional, which is why I wish the Supremes had just stopped with that, rather than expanding on this one ruling to "discover" a "right to privacy" which very well could be used to excuse/permit any number of "bad behaviours"...not that we should have the "morals police" running around, but this broad ruling potentially opens way too many doors, not the least of which is the rights of states to make laws...

(aside to The_Pickle: if a "right" is not "enumerated", it should not be presumed to not exist, but also it shouldn't be necessarily presumed to exist, either, should it?! Isn't that why legislators legislate, with the consent of the people?!)

[bluebunny]

Does the state part of a amendment have to be passed by the voters or the legislatures?

[kms61]

Wow. it's good to know our Congress is on top of THE most pressing threat to the survival or our nation

HUGE /sarcasm tag

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you. I should have known that but then I have forgotten some of the technical relationships between the three branches. As has been pointed out, it is important though.

[AntiGuv]

He or she is whacky, Hawaii amended their state Constitution to define marriage as one man, one woman.

Hawaii did so by ballot initiative because the legislature refused to do so. You cannot ratify an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution via ballot initiative...

[AntiGuv]

"...when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress..."

[Torie]

Well, there is always a change of personnel. Look at it this way. Nobody will be confirmable now. (That is one huge problem as I said before with the grounds of this decision; we all have so many more questions we want answered by nominees; indeed, I think the decorum of having nominees being allowed to evade stating the current state of their opinion candidly should be put into the dumpster.) So they die off one by one, until only the two youngest are left, Scalia and Thomas.

[Rebellans]

I hate to say it, but the Bill of Rights has already been modified quite substantially. In addition to Amendment XIV, which greatly changed the relation between the states and Washington, thousands of court cases over the years have had the effect of ignoring established rights (e.g., to bear arms) and fabricating new ones (e.g., abortion). I would much rather have the people of the several states amending the Constitution than five lawyers in black robes.

[ellery]

The suggestions in this thread sound reasonable: either impeachment, or Congressional involvement.