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."

[PhiKapMom]

Who do you think I was blaming -- I said if we stood up for family values and then they should get out and vote! If we don't stand up for what is right, then the Republican leadership is to BLAME!

I happened to be from a state with a slate of Conservative Republican Congressmen/Senators and the religious right votes here because of that.

We have run some of the worst candidates and I have held my nose to vote for them rather than a RAT when I lived in other States.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Beacuse it was a bad law. It violated the due process clause of the Constitution.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

The Constitution grants the power to define marriage to the States.

Take the fight out of Washington, and bring it to the States.

[PhiKapMom]

I read that in my email and couldn't believe it! It is so new, it isn't at the regular websites that carry AP including my paper!

Bumpy is right!

[Antoninus]

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're out of your gord. A Gay Marriage Amendment would garner about 5% support, max. It would be defeated so quickly as to become the stuff of anecdotes. "Wow, that failed quicker than the Gay Marriage Amendment." Sorry, hombre.

[PhiKapMom]

We cannot do that! The SCOTUS will then interfer in State Laws like they did this time unless we can change the makeup of the Court.

The SCOTUS and States Rights seem to be at odds!

[Imagine]

Sorry so late to join this thread:

Let the world see the STRAIGHT, PRO-FAMILY EARTHQUAKE that is about to come! We need a STRAIGHT Movement -- shirts, bumper stickers, colors which represent male and female -- such as green and blue (or something other than pink or lavender) LETS GET IN THEIR FACE !!!!!

Homosexuality:

Homosexuality is deviant sexual behavior and a mental illness.

Homosexuals: 1) subject their body parts to uses nature did not intend, such activities often presenting immediate risk to the participants; 2) are prone to greater suicide, depression and other mental disorders and deficiencies than the heterosexual population at large; 3) are prone to far greater sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, than the (normal) heterosexual population; 4) molest young people (pedophilia) at a far greater rate than heterosexuals; 5) engage in degrading sexual promiscuity, oftentimes engaging in risky sex with many partners during the same event; 6) are engaged in aggressive and widespread efforts to indoctrinate our children by introducing the homosexual lifestyle using public schools as the primary indoctrination “vehicle” and likewise, through the movie/music/TV industry, with the dual goals of gaining school-age acceptance of homosexuality and encouraging sexual activity among children, especially same-sex experimentation; 7) view most everything through a mindset heavily biased in favor of the homosexual lifestyle and culture, which renders them mostly useless when asked to opine on matters that normal heterosexuals better resolve.

The mental deficiencies described herein applying to homosexuals shall not be confused with the deficiencies associated with the left wing democrat/socialist/marxist/ feminist/environmentalist minds, etc., which have their own distinct set of mental disorders.

This doesn't even touch on what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.

[jwalsh07]

People underestimate the resonance this issue has with the apolitical. Even in Massachusetts they collected enough signatures to bring it to referendum. The democrats in the state legislature violated the law last year and did not set up the referendum.

You wanna know why? Two reasons.

The homosexual lobby is very well connected and powerful in Mass number 1.

But more important is that the dims must have polling data telling them they'll lose even in Massachusetts.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Trouble is, the federal government has to classify people as married or not married, for it's vile tax system. This tax system includes, among other things, tax-advantaged retirement accounts which remain in place while the owners may change their state of residence repeatedly. And I am simultaneously a resident of two states for tax purposes -- both states have their own laws about the definition of "resident" for tax purposes, and I fit into both states' definitions.

[NittanyLion]

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

Well, hopefully they'll also give conservatives all the time and money needed to address the important issues. And since I don't see that happening...I remain dubious as to this issue's importance in the entire scheme of things.

Feel free to have the last word.

[Antoninus]

Antoninus vs. the lion. That's what I'm talkin' about.

Yeah, the lion won on earth (at least in the original contest), but we all know who really wins in the end. No worries!

[Luis Gonzalez]

By your twisted logic then, a law which prohibited the practice or participation of Jewish religious ceremonies would not be discriminatory as it would disallow Muslims and Gentiles from participating in, or conducting Jewish religious ceremonies as well.

Your argument has been debunked many, many times Kevin.

Give it a rest.

[Antoninus]

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

Act maybe. We're talking Amendment here, bud.

[mrobison]

Last word: Families are forever.

[Fred Mertz]

This country is doomed if Frist is proposing this as an amendment.

He's trying to make hay.

It's like the anti-flag burning amendent......a sideshow.

Amendments shouldn't be for trivial issues, but for the greatest good.

There you have it.

[Rebellans]

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

You misunderstand the amendment. It would not give the Federal government the right to define marriage; it would explicitly define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. No court or government official could then change that definition.

If we, the people, don't define marriage, then the courts are going to do it for us, and in a manner contrary to the will of the people. I, for one, would rather have the people decide.

[deport]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/30/nyregion/30PARA.html?ex=1057550400&en=db23cd48375e8972&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--gayprideparade0629jun29,0,1276451.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=usa&q=gay+parade

[Mo1]

The Constitution grants the power to define marriage to the States.

I agree .. but the Supreme Court opened on a whole can of worms with this case ..

I'm getting a headache just thinking of all the attack ads from the left ..

It's gonna to be one long summer

[Imagine]

HUCK THE FOMOSEXUALS !

[Torie]

Why do I get this feeling that my favorite pit bull that I helped "trained" this week, among others, has broken away from his leash, and is now round and about in the neighborhood, snaping and biting? Give em hell. :)

[mrobison]

Yeah, the REAL Lion.

Doesn't get much better than C. S. Lewis!