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."

[NittanyLion]

People underestimate the resonance this issue has with the apolitical.

Now THAT is an argument that makes sense to me. If conservatives can play this issue to their political benefit I can understand expending the time and energy.

I wonder though how the mushy middle feels about it...remember how Bush played to minorities in 2000 as much to garner support from centrist women as from the minorities themselves? Intuitively it seems like this same bloc would be in favor of allowing same sex marriage, though I have no data to support that.

[mrobison]

Be cool, man.

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks! I finally found it on TBO with the Schumer comments. I kept coming up with the article minus Schumer -- the latest one tonight had Schumer I got in my email.

[jwalsh07]

You know, you're sense of humor is vastly improved since your arrival at FR. I think it's been a good experience for you. LOL (for real). Funny guy.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The State of Texas enacted a bad law, even in the dissenting opinions that was a running theme.

States cannot enact laws that violate the Constitution, this one violated the 14th Amendment.

Notice the State in question is one of only four that enacted same-sex anti-sodomy laws.

Sodomy laws in Florida are constitutional as they make the act illegal for all citizens.

To grant the power to define marriage to the Federal Government is a time bomb, and it will blow in our faces just like every other time we have turned over a State's right to the Feds.

Most people here think that I have some twisted belief in homosexuality, I don't. I am simply trying to focus people on the facts of the issue, and pointing to both what I think was done wrong by Texas that brought us to this point, and what we should do to avoid catastrophe in the years ahead.

[Imagine]

Not when they're in our schools and leading our children into the homosexual lifestyle. I get rather un-cool (to understate things.)

[mrsmith]

"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. "

Luis, the Supreme Court wil rule that it is demeaning to gays and therefore a violation of their 14th amendment rights for a state not to recognize their "marriage".
Whether there is a DOMA or not.

That is one of the few certain inferences from this bizarre ruling.

[Luis Gonzalez]

We the people are the States, not the Feds.

"No court or government official could then change that definition."

Prohibition...remember that Amendment?

[mrobison]

We need cool heads to get this constitutional amendment through. It all makes me sick, too. Let's just get this done. Use that energy constructively to fight for this and support Frist.

[Rebellans]

Sodomy laws in Florida are constitutional as they make the act illegal for all citizens.

Not according to our all-wise SCOTUS.

[Kryptonite]

If we don't stand up for what is right, then the Republican leadership is to BLAME!

Agreed.

But it's not just about standing up for what is right, it's about doing so effectively. The Republican Senate leadership, for example, has come up empty with regard to the nominations of Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owens. The message is that the Republicans are so lacking in effectiveness that many are beginning to think it may be more productive to look elsewhere for representation.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Trouble is, the federal government has to classify people as married or not married, for it's vile tax system."

So then, grant them a Civil Union which would define their relationship.

[Antoninus]

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

Sorry Fred. I might have agreed with you a week ago. However, the SCOTUS decision has made this issues suddenly non-trivial. If they had just stayed the heck out of it, this hornet's nest wouldn't have gotten stirred up.

We have one check on a rogue court bent on rule by judicial fiat. I for one hope we use it.

[Antoninus]

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.

Well said! Amen!

[PhiKapMom]

I am with you! Time to get off the dime and get those nominations through the Senate and do what it takes to get them approved is what I think!

[Rebellans]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Amendment XVIII did not define "intoxicating liquors." This amendment explicitly defines "marriage."

[Fred Mertz]

This move is a political play. It means little in the big picture, but it's a barnburner here tonight;^)

[Mo1]

To grant the power to define marriage to the Federal Government is a time bomb, and it will blow in our faces just like every other time we have turned over a State's right to the Feds.

I have the same fear of it being a time bomb ... but I also can't deny that others here do have a point on what WILL happen down the road.

So how is this problem to be solved

[jwalsh07]

On a more serious note, you should probably be on retainer for the opinions on law that I swipe from you here.

Send me a bill and I'll consider it. :-}

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

And no, I do not favor gay marriage. It is just that conservative politicians constantly spin their wheels on fringe issues while our nation slides furhter and further into Fabian Socialism.

This is not a fringe issue. This tears at the very fabric of society. It rips apart the sacrament of marriage, making it a joke.

This is something we need to get behind. Now that sodomy is legal, we've got to use the momentum to fight this. You certainly know that THEY are going to use the momentum to establish all kinds of rights they never had before - gay marriage just one among many. Next will be adult/child sex, incest, bestiality, and whatever else they have in mind.