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."
Post #161.
My point is that there are many important issues to be addressed, and I don't feel this should be at the top of our priority list. Seems to me that this is a fair place to state my opinion.
Are you ambivalent about this issue or so opposed that you feel the need to convince people that gay marriage should be allowed?
I don't think gay marriage should be allowed, but in all honesty I can't get myself very worked up about it either way. I'm more concerned about terrorism, huge government subsidies, etc. as I stated earlier.
I can repeat it a few times if you'd like.
I agree wholeheartedly, and don't think I've argued against that point. Hopefully the President can do something about that very issue this summer, but until the court's composition changes I'm afraid there's little hope.
Oh, I agree.
And the second they try to FORCE an employer to pay benefits is the instant I'll oppose them with everything I have.
You can include me in that group, except for the part about critical importance.
Seems to me you're a libertarian, so nothing beyond your narrow focus of three feet and a cloud of smoke is important to you.
I wouldn't have expected anything more out of you. What a mature argument.
And for the record, again, I'm a Republican who voted for Bush in 2000. But believe whatever you'd like if it gets you through your day.
All women were forbidden from sexual intercourse with all women, and all men with all men. All+all+all+all==ALL
Get it?
Of all the justices, Sandra "Feeble Mind" O'Connor was the ONLY justice to buy into your bizarre math, Luis. The six sodomy-enobling justices didn't bite. Scalia ridiculed your math outright.
But you still can't let it go.
Time to go on the warpath against theft and gambling laws, Luis. Theft laws clearly discriminate against thieves, and gambling laws discriminate against gamblers. It just ain't fair, I tell ya!
Not to show any disrespect, but did you somehow miss what happened last week with the Supreme Court? It's too late for your argument, unfortunately. This amendment is needed (that is, assuming you think that marriage is important).
Read my posting at #180. I don't think any of the laws you posted would come into play if a State makes an amendment to their constitution saying same sex marriage is legal.
Fair enough. We'll let the readers decide, but just to recap: I asked you to name some tangible impacts of this ruling; you went on the all-out attack and avoided the issue.
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.