Posted on 06/29/2003 5:51:41 PM PDT by mrobison
By WILLIAM C. MANN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Senate majority leader said Sunday he supported a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage in the United States.
|
Sen. Bill Frist (news, bio, voting record), R-Tenn., said the Supreme Court's decision last week on gay sex threatens to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned.
The court on Thursday threw out a Texas law that prohibited acts of sodomy between homosexuals in a private home, saying that such a prohibition violates the defendants' privacy rights under the Constitution. The ruling invalidated the Texas law and similar statutes in 12 other states.
"I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned," Frist told ABC's "This Week."
"And I'm thinking of whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home ... to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern."
Asked whether he supported an amendment that would ban any marriage in the United States except a union of a man and a woman, Frist said: "I absolutely do, of course I do.
"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. So I would support the amendment."
Same-sex marriages are legal in Belgium and the Netherlands. Canada's Liberal government announced two weeks ago that it would enact similar legislation soon.
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., was the main sponsor of the proposal offered May 21 to amend the Constitution. It was referred to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution on Wednesday, the day before the high court ruled.
As drafted, the proposal says:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state under state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
To be added to the Constitution, the proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Frist said Sunday he respects the Supreme Court decision but feels the justices overstepped their bounds.
"Generally, I think matters such as sodomy should be addressed by the state legislatures," Frist said. "That's where those decisions with the local norms, the local mores are being able to have their input in reflected.
"And that's where it should be decided, and not in the courts."
A most excellent observation. Well put.
We will find out now if indeed there is a majority that will "preserve what remains."
For one, I don't think so. I think we are outnumbered here. It isn't the number of gays vs. the number of straights. It is the number of those who believe that morality is the primary requirement in a Republic vs. those that think individual choice and relativism should rule the society.
And on those terms our victory is much more in doubt.
Good points. Really, as far as I am concerned, marriage as a legal (as opposed to romantic and religious) concept mostly died when the state legislatures adopted no-fault divorce. What is really needed, but won't happen for many decades, is to go back to having divorce limited to situations in which the suing party is not at the fault and the one being sued is at fault. If both parties are at fault, the couple should be forced to stay together for the sake of the children, or, if child abusers, jailed. In the first half of the last century, this system was ridiculed because of divorcing husbands and wives who made a mockery of the law by staging infidelity. However, the difficulty in showing one side to be at fault contributed to a low divorce rate and more stability for children.
What happens if two men want to get married and one gets a sex change to accomodate the law :)
You're way too impressed with your side. Seriously.
You really don't understand that social conservatives are but a tiny handful of people in a vast ocean of American citizens.
You're not even 10%.
You don't matter much any more.
A lot of the noisy social conservatives will whine and moan. Any nothing will happen.
Unless W gets wise and takes my advice above :) Then you'll never matter again. And you won't be able to hold the GOP hostage anymore.
Certainly not with the current Senate. You'd have to get every R and almost half the Ds to get the necessary two-thirds.
I doubt you could get two-thirds of the House either.
He's too much a dainty man at a time we need terminators in the Senate Republican leadership.
That's why I'm wondering if Senator Frist really intended to put himself right in the middle of this firestorm.
It would be more like Dr. Frist to bypass an issue such as this.
Then you are on the wrong planet. Or you could spend several years reading all of Dickens' books.
It isn't the people who don't want sodomy shoved down their throats that brought up the subject in the first place.
Not really. The number of people who want to change their sex is low enough that I wouldn't worry about it.
A man sticking his pecker up another man's anus performs an unhealthy act. We should try to discourage it. Those who do this are not heroes. They may be pited but they should not be honored.
Secondly, I have no problem with transferring health benefits, Social Security, pensions, inheritance tax waivers etc. to a widow because that widow very likely sacrificed herself to perform the most important job in society -- being a mother. I do have a problem with a man removing himself from the labor force so he can play house for another man.
With some of these things -- such as Social Security -- it might be better to change it so the benefits may be willed to whomever. And I certainly think we should get rid of the inheritance tax.
But this is not the status quo and homosexual men should not get any of the privileges of marriage since they can not bear any of the responsibilities.
The only reason for the state to involve itself in marriage is to protect mothers and children.
Marriage might actually be applicable concerning lesbians and artificial insemination. BUT, it should be recognized that this is a contract involving all of society, and those breaking it should expect to feel consequences.
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.