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."
What's even funnier is that not having bothered to do a minute of research on this, they chose instead to listen to the doom and gloom brigade, and are ready to declare defeat, in spite of the fact that States already posses the right not to honor the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution when it comes to marriages.
"There are three commonly recognized categories of marriages contracted in another state that will not be recognized in the forum state. First, marriages that are contracted by domiciliaries of the forum state in another state for the express purpose of evading the law of the forum state are deemed invalid. E.g., Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216 (1934) (marriage entered into in Florida, in violation of D.C. prohibition against remarriage within certain amount of time after prior divorce, invalid in D.C.); Barbosa-Johnson v. Johnson, 174 Ariz. 567, 851 P.2d 866 (Ct. App. 1993) (appellate court holding that evidence did not sustain finding that parties had married in Puerto Rico for the purpose of evading the law of Arizona). See generally Uniform Marriage Evasion Act, 9 U.L.A. 480 (1942) (N.B.: The Uniform Marriage Evasion Act is superseded by the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, and was officially withdrawn from consideration by the drafters in 1943).""Second, states have refused to recognize marriages that are solemnized in sister states when the parties are of a level of sanguinity that is forbidden in the forum state. E.g., McMorrow v. Schweiker, 561 F. Supp. 584 (D.N.J. 1982) (rule recognizing foreign marriages does not apply to incestuous marriages); Catalano v. Catalano, 148 Conn. 288, 170 A.2d 726 (1961); In re May's Estate, 305 N.Y. 486, 114 N.E.2d 14 (1953)."
"Third, states have refused to recognize marriages that are solemnized in sister states when the parties are not deemed of sufficient age to marry, as determined in the forum state. E.g., Wilkins v. Zelchowski, 26 N.J. 370, 140 A.2d 65 (1958)."
We should examine existing law before deciding that the best course of action is to hand more power to the Federal Government.
Luis
P.S. And if we don't overturn the Defense of Marriage Act before it's challenged in Federal Court, the next Amendment will be the one defining the right of same-sex couples to marry.
You want tangible effects? Here's one:
We can radically contract government. There is no longer a need for legislatures, legislators or for that matter states and the citizens who vote in them.
We can save loads of money on government by having two branches of government. One would be the new Temple on the Mount, SCOTUS. The other would be a triumverate of libertarians, libertines and leftists.
Totalitarianism can be done on the cheap.
The issue is, obviously, not "sodomy" but the matter of the primacy of privacy. If so, then many societal structures come crumbling down. And this will yield great conflict.
This erodes a moral foundation that was critical in the creation of this particular nation. People liken it to slavery, but that's not really so...slavery was, at its heart, an economic issue -- to the South, particularly.
This is different. Economics cries, "live and let live!" Indeed, most people, even those who base their beliefs on morality, do.
But, here, you have an issue ("sodomy") that most would prefer, in all situations, to hold their noses and ignore. And it has been thrust into the limelight as a precedent for all manner of human degradations including drug abuse and prostitution.
This will make trouble. Deep trouble.
The kind of trouble that turns nations, eventually, to civil war and disipation.
That's the only point I was attempting to make.
I am afraid that on the current Supreme Court there will be at least 7 votes saying that a gay marriage in Massachusetts (assuming they adopt gay marraige, as expected) must be given full faith and credit in every state. And I don't know that the Supremes will be wrong from a constitutional standpoint.
Nonsense. I'd suggest you do a bit of research before making unfounded and inaccurate claims of this sort.
This has what to do with the American government? Nothing.
Homosexuality causes your genetic code to DIE, because fags cannot reproduce
Now if only economic and social fascists would engage in some behavior that would cause this.
When your sex organ makes contact with a poop shoot, you expose your blood supply to all sorts of diseases
But only if gays do it, right?
And you're EXACTLY The type the GOP needs to kick out.
And no. I like women, thanks.
Yeah.... I know that you cussed at me, use very coarse language and called me a libertarian, which I am not. You must have called the wrong number.
BS. They couldn't pass it in California, Vermont or Hawaii. The Hawaians set a precednt. Judical Activists found a right for homosexual marriage and the residents of Hawaii amended the state constitution to tell their rogue court where to stick it.
I heard Senator Frist say today, the State of Massachusetts is likely to pass a State Constitutional Law recognizing Gay or Lesbian couples as married. Other states may pass a Law saying there is no marriage between Gays or Lesbians.
Now because each State has to recognize the Constitutional Law of another State all the Gays and Lesbians would go to Massachusetts, get married and then go back to their state and it would have to be accepted by that state.
So the Gays and Lesbians would have to be recognized in every state they live in as a married couple with all the benefits of a married couple even though the people of that state didn't want it that way.
This is the proposed Amendment
.......SECTION 1. 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.'
Joint Resolution
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.