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."
Are you saying in Kentucky if it is legal and they recognize marriage at 14, but if that couple moves to another state when they are 18 or 21 where they don't allow 14 year olds to marry that state will make that couple remarry in order to receive benifits that marrieds are entitled to?
Anyway I think you are comparing apples to oranges
They way I understood Senator Frist, was if Massachusetts makes recognizing gay marriages A State Constitutional Law other states have to recognize that State Constitutional Law.
I'll agree to that, we have a lot bigger worries and fish to fry - from bio-terror to shrinking rights. Good thing though is we have a diverse group of people who can focus on each subject, and their meeting ground is FR.
This is not a light and transient cause. Back in the framers' day, marriage was sacred, and was a sacrament between a man and a woman. Today that view has been perverted, and the sodomites want to be have all the benefits of marriage. What a joke!
It sort of reminds me of Satanism, where they turn Christianity upside down - they mimic and deliberately skew Christianity. Sodomy is the same thing. The sodomites want to deliberately skew and distort the true meaning of marriage. It would be a deliberate slap in the face to all traditional conservatives, Christians, and moral people.
Just thinking... how many millions of people has AIDS killed? And now they've legalize the very thing that is responsible for these deaths. Does that make sense?!
Wrong. And you know it. The homos and their assistants are pushing and shoving. Why don't you want Republicans or conservatives to defend themselves?
"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."
I agree completely. I think the court's ruling is a slippery slope to similar judicial claims, such as gay marriage, and marriage between polygamists, pedophiles, incest, and subsequently child custody, foster parenting, and adoption to these couples.
I am sorry if you were offended by my strong language. I wasn't cussing towards you, just using emphasis. And as far as calling you a libertarian, your "reasoning" resembled theirs exactly.
Well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
They already have.
What a crock. The state has Justices of the Peace who can perform marriage. A minister is not required for the marriage to be legal. The state can not force a church to perform a ceremony that they find blasphemous. Ever hear of the First Amendment? That protects the church against just such actions. Try thinking before you engage your mouth.
I doubt that they are true constitutional ammendments. What you are probably referring to are state laws passed by state assemblies. These require 51% for passage where as constitutional ammendments typically require super majorities.
Right. Trivial petty stuff like families, childraising, stability, stable communities, kids having a mother and a father, silly useless stuff like that. Has little or no effect on the greatest good.
So is this sodomy decision for the greatest good? (I know it's not an amendment but it's going to force an amendment.)
Wrong. And you know it.
What sort of time frame are you looking at to get Congress to vote on this Amendment?
You're going to need two-thirds of both the House and Senate and then three fourths of State legislatures, which is 38.
IOW, 34 Senators or 13 States could exercise a veto over this Amendment.
Do you think you can get the necessary votes?
The time is long past - the Feds have already stolen most of the States' rights long, long ago.
OK.... me neither. But you aren't suggesting this constitutional ammendment on the table here will prevent that are you?
Constitutionally, of course, a President has nothing to do with whether an Amendment passes. But you know that Bush and Cheney won't be able to avoid it and a lot of the GOP Senators will take their cue from them.
Has Cheney expressed an opinion on this?
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.