Frist Wants Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

Yahoo! ^ | June 29, 2003

[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."

[DAnconia55]

Why do you think the libertarians get only 1-2% of the vote, tops? There is no groundswell for the libertine movement. Zero. If you drove the "puritans" (read, practicing Catholics, Evangelicals, Baptists, and others) out of the GOP, they'd be lucky to get 10-15% of the vote. Meanwhile, the Scumocrats would sweep into office.

You overestimate yourselves.

Twelve percent of the 1994 voters identified themselves as members of the Christian Right in exit polling.

http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:hZnkcJFekNoJ:capo.org/kuyper/kuyper_briefs/k_brief_jan96.html+percentage+of+voters+identifying+themselves+as+religious+right&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 From my first Google search. We can continue if you prefer? I'm sure Dick Morris has some data somewhere.

12%. 12% who are really the captives not the jailors, can't be dictating anything.

They are easily replaced.

6% stolen from the Demons = 12%.

I'll trade. And you have no where to run.

[HairOfTheDog]

Especially what a man or a woman are (probably in terms of born genital phenotype). I agree 100%. Let there be no wiggle room for the "living Constitution" crowd.

Oh good.... Now you want our constitution talking about genitalia.

[NittanyLion]

How can I not see that prescription drugs are a more important issue than the destruction of traditional marriage?!!

Should I take that to mean you couldn't think of any tangible effects this ruling will have?

[mrobison]

Look what the cat dragged in... (so to speak)

[Antoninus]

This proposal is the equivalent of a Clintonian cruise missile strike at the most politically safe targets.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Such an amendment will be a great start to an overwhelming backlash. If the GOP is smart, they could ride it to huge victories. (I know, that's a big IF).

A Federal Marriage Amendment will galvanize a bunch of very diverse groups: Biblebelt Protestants, practicing Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Orthodox and Conservative Jews, Muslims, innercity blacks, hispanics, working class and rural whites, etc. This issue has juice....

[The Red Zone]

Well the SCOTUS has been ******* around with it for years.

[mrobison]

You can take that to mean that you pretending the terribly important tangible effects of prescription drugs are more important than the destruction of marriage makes you look silly. (Or worse.) Nobody here takes you seriously. Why should I?

[RobbyS]

Is homosexuality inborn? We don't know. Maybe it is something that happens to a kid growing up. We don't know. Is it simply a matter of choice? Most likely, like most behavior it is a combination of all three. The question is: Is it right behavior? Someone has to make that decision.

Anyway, religious opinion is not quite as simple as you seem to think. To give you an example, consider a Catholic discussion of the history of the institution.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm

[The Red Zone]

Orthodox and Conservative Jews

The so called Conservative Jews joined their Reform friends in the looie-liberal slide long ago.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It will not be illegal for Churchs noty to perform gay marriages, it is a direct violation of their religious beliefs, a point easily proven.

Here's the thing.

We cannot both continue to demand that the Feds stay out of our Churches, and that they enforce our religious beliefs in the form of Amendments, Laws, and statutes.

Trust the Founders, and allow the issue to be decided by the States.

[First Amendment]

Why we would even consider placing that much importance on what gays do is beyond me!

Why, not another liberaltarian wheat farmer with lots of straw to make strawmen with!

Let me get this to you in language that you understand - I don't give a flying f**k what faggots do to each other IN PRIVATE.

But I do care what is taught in schools, what is shown on TV to skulls full of mush, what is shown in movie theatres to millions of impressionable kids, what faggots do to each other and youth that they catch in parks and beaches, what is disgustingly displayed on city streets in "Gay Pride Parades", laws that force businesses to hire faggots in full drag (a law that I believe will be signed by Gray Davis soon if he hasn't yet), religious organizations forced to hire faggots, faggots in the BSA, etc etc etc.

GOT IT???

[The Red Zone]

Before someone gets your post nuked let me say BRAVO COWBOY FOR SAYING IT LIKE IT IS

[Antoninus]

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.

Please. If the GOP ever wanted to self-destruct, they would continue to p!ss off the social conservatives. If you were right, about social conservatives making up 10% of the population, I suspect the libertine-arians would be garnering more than 1-2% of the vote.

You're living in objectivist fantasyland. Give my regards to Dagny Taggert.

[Senator Pardek]

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.

All joking aside, was she implying that it's OK for a woman to engage in sodomy and spit out a man's issue?

[PhiKapMom]

That was really nice! I knew you were not taking me to the woodshed. LOL!!! Lived on both coasts (So Cal, NH, and MA), but living here in Flyover Country is refreshing!

Have always been like this when I feel strongly about something -- get on my soapbox and speak my mind! Just count me one of those annoying glass half full types! You know good will win over evil and I consider the Clintonites and their supporters evil!

[HairOfTheDog]

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.

I dont care what gays do.... I do however care about the priorities and issues the Republican candidates will be fighting for. I don't want this on the agenda. We make the gay agenda relevant only because we consistantly give it the stage at the expense of issues that actually could get us votes.

[NittanyLion]

You can take that to mean that you pretending the terribly important tangible effects of prescription drugs are more important than the destruction of marriage makes you look silly.

How so? Why is it that you can't seem to name anything tangible to reinforce your claims that this should be our #1 priority? Clearly you have strong feelings about this - I should think you could name many straight off the top of your head.

(Or worse.)

Is that your thinly-veiled attempt at calling me gay? Incidentally, I'm a heterosexual male.

Nobody here takes you seriously. Why should I?

Really? Nobody, huh? I hadn't seen the FreeRepublic poll on whether I'm a serious poster or not. Could you direct me to it?

[Antoninus]

Wanna bet? 50.00 lizard skins Antoninus,not in our lifetime.

Sorry, but my $50 is already earmarked for Rick Santorum, the ACLJ, and/or the Federal Marriage Amendment campaign.

[Tribune7]

The social conservatives are generally former Dems. The next batch to be stolen are socially conservative blacks --which is a good chunk of the black population, btw -- and when that happens the Dems are dead.

Where would the libertarians go anyway? Stay home? Get Dems elected? High taxes, welfare state, pre-pre K? A complete firearm ban?

Social conservatives don't ask for a whole lot. Basically, if the Supreme Court read the Constitution as if it were written in plain English and not some arbitrary code there would be very few "moral issues" involving the federal government.