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."

[Classicaliberalconservative]

No, No, No. By proposing a consitutional amendment banning gay marriage we are stating that currently it is legal and consitutional. It is not and never will or should be.

[HairOfTheDog]

Well, I fear this is only the beginning of the summer of talking about gay people, so I will think more about it I am sure...

Right now.... I have reached overload on it. I have the patience for about 2 minutes of interest in 'the trouble with gays' and that has long passed. I will check back in a month.

[Republican Wildcat]

yeah, that's the ticket--alienate 90% of the base and that'll gain you a larger share of the electorate.

How many people think the face of the GOP is Fred Phelps? Probably a few idiotic morons, but that's about it.

[Antoninus]

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

Notice that this same argument didn't apply on the "right to sodomy" case.

[jwalsh07]

And the second they try to FORCE an employer to pay benefits is the instant I'll oppose them with everything I have

LOL. You may as well jump ship now because you're boat has a gignatic leak called "fundamental right". Of course Kennedy waxed poetically about "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions."

But what he meant but didn't have the balls to say was that homosexuality is a fundamental right and due all the government and private largesse that they can suck out of those entities.

[mrobison]

You're bordering on pathological with that single-minded focus on the inane. Too bad - you're probably a decent Republican when the tin foil hat comes off.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It does, that's the exact idea.

It may be OK to marry at 14 in Kentucky, but it's also OK for Florida to not recognize that union because of the age of the individuals involved.

What we are talking about doing, is turning over the right to define marriage to the Federal government.

What do you think they are going to do with that ability?

[Kryptonite]

They had better get off the dime if we start pushing this issue and go vote this time.

I suspect the "religious right" finds your pandering offensive.

If "we" consistently stood for traditional family values instead of selling out for the gay vote which has never materialized and never will, the GOP would not just hold advantages in Congress and the White House, but would hold such a position of domination across the country that the radical left couldn't enjoy the power they still hold, and wouldn't dream of moving farther left to appease their constituency.

Don't blame any GOP problem on the religious right. They don't deserve blame, the GOP does.

[jwalsh07]

Notice that this same argument didn't apply on the "right to sodomy" case.

Cripes, how could one not notice.

[deport]

Americaunited...... Where did you get the numbers (1% and 95%) you cited in your post #12? That flys in the face of the exit polling data from the 2000 election..... see below

---

				GORE	BUSH	BUCHANAN	NADER
	Are you gay, lesbian or bisexual?
	% of total		category	% of category
	4		Yes	71	24	1	4
	96		No	48	48	1	3

---

PKM, Rove used a number like 4 million that sat out the election in 2000..... I don't know where he got his number as I've never been able to find it spelled out. I think he was using a figure like 19% should be the religious right contingent but only 14% claimed to have voted according to exit polling data... Of that 14% some 19% voted for Gore.... A little over 105 million voted in 2000 so each 1% is a little over a million people....

---

				GORE	BUSH	BUCHANAN	NADER
	Part of the religious right
	% of total		category	% of category
	14		Yes	19	79	1	1
	83		No	55	41	1	3

[mrobison]

Hard to argue that about the voting rights of women. Doesn't work.

[PhiKapMom]

I just checked my email and this was in it from the AP Wire that AOL sends! The last two paragraphs deal with Schumer and the story is updated from an earlier version.

Gay Pride Parades Celebrate Court Ruling

By TERENCE CHEA
.c The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets Sunday for Gay Pride parades, energized by the Supreme Court's ruling that struck down laws against sodomy and a decision by Canada to allow gay marriage.

In New York, Atlanta, Seattle, San Francisco and other cities, revelers marched, danced and carried banners congratulating the Supreme Court for its landmark ruling as rainbow flag-waving crowds lined the streets.

``There's such a resonance, such a sense of movement,'' said Marty Downs, a community organizer with the New York Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center. ``This year, it feels really political.''

Even before the ruling Thursday that struck down a Texas law banning sodomy, the committee that puts on San Francisco's massive parade, one of the best-attended events in the state, had decided to infuse this year's festivities with a more activist bent.

``We got a couple of breaks in the last few weeks, with Canada legalizing gay marriage and now the Supreme Court,'' said Supervisor Tom Ammiano, one of two candidates vying to become San Francisco's first gay mayor this year. ``It looks like Sandra Day O'Connor watching `Will & Grace' really paid off.''

Despite this year's historic backdrop, the events in cities around the country maintained their colorful, Carnaval-like atmosphere. They featured naked cyclists, fluffy pink boas and floats swaying with singing drag queens.

As in years past, the lesbian motorcycle group Dykes on Bikes got the San Francisco parade off to a roaring start with hundreds of leather-clad and topless women astride motorcycles.

``It's a big party,'' said Jeffrey Sykes, 37, who has attended at least 10 Gay Pride parades in San Francisco. ``It's a chance to let it all hang out and celebrate who we are.''

The parade's theme was ``You Gotta Give Them Hope,'' a campaign slogan that belonged to San Francisco's first openly gay city supervisor, Harvey Milk, who was assassinated along with Mayor George Moscone 25 years ago this November.

The SF Pride Committee also used the occasion to encourage people to lobby the state Senate to vote for pending legislation that would grant gay couples most of the same legal and financial benefits as married heterosexuals. Police would give no crowd estimates.

As they basked in the Supreme Court decision, many participants said they looked forward to a new era of equality and respect.

``We're all together, one family,'' said Armando Gonzalez, 21, of Issaquah, Wash., who took part in Seattle's parade as a member of a youth choir made up of both gay and straight singers. ``There are no barriers.''

On June 10, an Ontario appeals court ruled as unconstitutional Canada's definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman - paving the way for legalized gay unions there.

Then last week, the U.S. Supreme Court made its 6-3 decision that apparently swept away laws in a dozen states banning oral and anal sex for everyone, or for homosexuals in particular.

Both supporters and critics of the decision were quick to suggest it could lead to other legal advances for gays and lesbians - including the right to gay marriage - and organizers said a feeling of hope would carry over to the marches and celebrations this weekend.

Chicago's parade drew between 375,000 and 400,000 people, according to parade coordinator Richard Pfeiffer. Organizers of the Atlanta Pride Festival, now in its 33rd year, said they expected a crowd of 300,000, the largest in the parade's history. The ruling was cited as a factor in the big turnout.

``You couldn't ask for a better reason to come out and celebrate,'' said Philip Rafshoon, owner of Outwrite Bookstore in Atlanta's traditionally gay Midtown neighborhood. ``A lot of people think (gay sex is) immoral. And, unfortunately for them, it's not illegal anymore.''

One participant in the St. Louis PrideFest said this year's parade seemed more vibrant, more celebratory than previous years. She attributed the large crowd in part to the Supreme Court ruling, but that wasn't all.

``We're becoming more comfortable in our own skin,'' said Robin Hanson, 41, a doctoral candidate at Saint Louis University. ``I've been 'out' for 20 years and there have been a lot of changes in acceptance since then.''

St. Louis police had no crowd estimates, but organizers predicted as many as 15,000 to 50,000 would attend the weekend of activities.

Speaking through a megaphone at the New York parade, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, took note of how much the political landscape for gays and lesbians had changed with a few short days.

``Let's hear it for gay pride,'' Schumer shouted. ``Let's even hear it for the Supreme Court - who ever thought we'd say that!''



06/29/03 22:10 EDT

[PhiKapMom]

I thought that was the figure he used if not more! I just posted an AP story about the parades across the country celebrating their victory. Cannot find the link yet to post it on the forum!

[Antoninus]

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.

Too bad. It's an issue and I for one intend to push all my elected officials on it very hard. Taking a pro-traditional marriage stance is a net win for us if done properly. Every time the issue's been put to a vote in a state (even California!) the homo-promo side lost -- badly. Admittedly, we might lose in Massachusetts, though. The horror!

[GovernmentShrinker]

So I see you couldn't come up with any justification for the inherent conflict in your positions.

[mrobison]

"...a sense of movement"??????!!!!!!!!

It's worse than we thought!

[NittanyLion]

You're bordering on pathological with that single-minded focus on the inane.

Hmmm. While I'm prioritizing a multitude of issues, you see one to the exclusion of all others. Better try going down a different route...

Too bad - you're probably a decent Republican when the tin foil hat comes off.

Tin foil? I went back and checked and, in fact, I didn't substitute "UFO" for "prescription drug benefit". Perhaps you have me confused with someone else, or maybe aliens ate your brain. LOL.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Oh boy...here we go. The ride is going to get bumpy.

[mrobison]

Aliens ate the brains of anyone who won't fight against same-sex marriages.