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."
That's what they used to tell women if they got raped - if it's inevitable, just lie back and enjoy it. But the better answer is to fight like hell.
Well, with the exception of the 10 percent figure. There are probably 20-25 percent who yet think that morality is critical to the condition of a society, and another 10-15 percent who would lean toward that direction.
I think you'll find that Hair and many others will come to my rescue regarding the matter of whether I am one of the "crazies" keeping W. "hostage".
But you miss, by a pretty fair margin, the kind of impact that this matter will have on the American nation.
Huh? Is your state imprisoning people it caught committing sodomy? I don't think this ruling has anything to do with "sexual predators".
In fact I wonder if America isn't being continuously cursed at worldwide in Allah's name by millions of p***ed off Muslims. If they can't terrorize us to death from without, they'll try to demon us to death from within.
Name some tangible impacts that outweigh that of (to use my earlier example) prescription drug coverage.
So start reading Dickens and let those of us who care continue the fight. Those who don't care should get out of the way. If you really don't care, that is.
Oops my apologies. I must have misread. Tired, I suppose.
are probably 20-25 percent who yet think that morality is critical to the condition of a society, and another 10-15 percent who would lean toward that direction
Ah yes. No doubt. But that's not what I'm talking about. How many of them believe it is right for the government to enforce their every whim? I even have a poster here on another thread who doesn't seem to be aware that 'normal' heteroseuxals engage in 'sodomy'. How many of THOSE are there left? The ones who would ban anything, just because it is fun. Not many.
It's time for a realignment.
Social issues are hurting the GOP. Time to get radical with freedom, and lighten up a bit on the social issues.
Make the face of the GOP Steve Forbes, not Pat Robertson.
Well if anyone should be incensed at the stupidity of the sodomy-privacy argument in Lawrence, it should be a doctor. Nobody's closer to seeing the effects on public health.
If I were a psychologist, I'd wonder why you use the word "hysterical" all the time. I might also wonder why you are so full of hate and how that relates to what you do in your spare time....
Perhaps morality will yet defeat the tyranny of opinion and individual choice. I'm not going to hold out too much hope. But I live where morality loses 7-3.
And BTW, don't you ever get off your soap box -- many of us are counting on you to keep us motivated.
I will presume you are a male freeper.
So to your statement above, I will say that it is only because you are not a young ripe 12 year old starting into puberty.
Therefore the gay and lesbian agenda taught in some schools of "how do you know unless you try it." will not be indoctrinated into your more mature brain.
You also state; "The other day I was talking to my Dad, who as a JP in Vermont is prepared to resign rather than perform a civil union." Then you said you asked him a few questions and in answer to your question, he agreed that he believed gays were born that way etc.
Then why would he resign before preforming the civil ceremony?
Remember Anita Bryant's anti-gay crusade back in the 70s? She actually gave an interview in which she said that gay sex was like cannibalism because they swallowed sperm. When someone pointed out to her that heterosexuals do a good deal of that too, she tried to insist that while a few warped heterosexuals might do that sort of thing, it was because they'd gotten the idea from gays.
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.