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."

[Kevin Curry]

If Bush doesn't take a public stand in favor of it his silence will be interpreted as resistence to it and it may have a very difficult time getting passed.

[AFPhys]

Perhaps, SK, getting back to the original intention of tax INCENTIVES for marriage would help? I typically loathe such social engineering, but since a strong family is the most important indicator of success in life for a child, it is time to get back to that. We've tried the other over the past 50 years and it is now certain that approach fails.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

A Constitutional amendment sounds like an excellent idea. Polls are showing overwhelming support, including very high support from traditional 'Rat constituencies. The Court overstepped its bounds, and the best message to them is to slap them with an amendment that tells them in no uncertain terms that they are wrong.

[Carry_Okie]

Frist wants a Constitutional amenment for this when he hasn't the nards for a real filibuster over confirmation of an appellate judge?

Puhleeze.

[HairOfTheDog]

I think for this Amendment to have a chance, that the President will need to push for it.

I would sure hate to sacrifice him for that cause.

I was gonna leave this debate wasn't I?

[Kevin Curry]

Your argument has been debunked many, many times Kevin.

By whom, Luis? Even your sodomy-lovin' heroes on the SCOTUS didn't buy into your bogus math. You're beyond a joke, Luis. You actually buy into the tinfoil hat liberal fiction that a "gay" and "lesbian" denote exotic, immutable new genders. That's the only way, illogical though it is, you can maintain the delusion that there are actually four separate classifications of male and female and two of them are being discriminated against.

You math is 1+1=4. It doesn't get any loopier than that.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Whether you like it or not, character counts!

[sasportas]

I agree with you.

If I understand FreeRepublic aright, this is supposed to be a conservative forum. Who on earth ARE these anti-family people posting on this thread? DU infiltrators? Liberaltarians? Compromisers? Dare I say it, are they themselves sodomites? Surely they don't fancy themselves conservatives!

By definition, they can't be. A conservative, if he is in fact one, would be fighting to conserve values conservatives have always stood for. Nothing is more basic to human society than one man, one woman.

As far as I am concerned this is the big one. Let the chips fall where they are going to fall. This has got me riled like nothing I have ever experienced. If we can't stand on the right side of this issue none of the rest even matters.

[AFPhys]

Rewarding the "disease" by encouraging it or ignoring it as we do now is not the answer, either. An amendment will be a start in the queers being led to again realize their behavior is just that.

[Brandon]

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

I agree with you. Frist is raising this as a fundraising issue, not a serious proposal.

[HairOfTheDog]

Congratulations! You have been worn down and conquered by the anti-family, anti-American, homosexual lobby. Within a decade I expect to see you supporting pedophile rights.

Wrong number.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

There are better ways to spend legislative time.

Baloney! The best legislative time is when the legislature is out of session. Less time in session, less harm to society.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Why we would even consider placing that much importance on what gays do is beyond me!

I can only assume you have no children.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I don't know how the problem will be solved, I don't think is a solveable problem.

I think that we need to step back and tone the hysteria down. I don't for one minute believe that because the two guys down the street who have been living together for ten years as an apenly gay couple, have a piece of paper from the Clerk of the Circuit Court stating that they are married, the rest of us will stop getting married, raising families, and living a Christian life.

It should absolutely be left to the States to define what a marriage is, as the Constitution says. There wll undoubtedly be a State that will recognize same-sex unions of one sort of another, probably a Civil Union.

The States should then appeal to Congress to create a fourth exemption to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and set the standards for how each State could follow suit. Once again, leave the decision to the States, they can decide whther they will recognize same-sex Civil Unions (marriages not performed by clergy) or not.

The problem with the Defense of Marriage Act, is that it legislated a general exemption to the Full Faith and Credit Clause without there ever having been a conflict that needed to be resolved. The Constitution did not give that power to Congress.

Our culture is changing, and trying to stop change of this magnitude is like trying to block the sun with one finger. We may not be able to stop the changes, but we should be able to impact it.

And it's going to be rough sailing ahead too, better believe it.

It's never easy when a Biblical, Constitutionally approved, revered institution as old as time itself is challenged.

Look what happened when Lincoln did it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

No Kevin, I understand that laws should be applied equally to all citizens, and that people in the US are neither men, or woman, or heterosexuals, or homosexuals...they are all citizens. With equal rights and priviledges, and equal potection under the law...even if you, me, and the rest of the nation approve of their choice of the gender of the cirizen whom they wish to enter into an intimate relationship with.

It is noted however, than finding yourself incapable of rebutting my post, you reverted to your usual style of insults and ad hominem attacks.

[AFPhys]

There is no way that social issues are hurting the GOP. The libertarians may just as well vote Green - mainstream GOPers such as me could not care less. There are far more Demodogs (like my sister) who care deeply about social issues and nevertheless vote for the antisocial Dems than there are libertarians such as yourself. Bringing this issue into sharp focus will help, not hurt, the GOP.

As I said to another poster, the best testimony as to the truth of what I am saying here will be the silence of the Demodog politicians as they hope nobody notices how they vote on this issue. Only those from SanFrisco and such small locales will even make a peep.

[First Amendment]

Our culture is changing, and trying to stop change of this magnitude is like trying to block the sun with one finger. We may not be able to stop the changes, but we should be able to impact it.

Social Darwinism. Men-evolved-from-apes, all change is inevitable and onward and upward. Our benighted ancestors didn't know about gay rights, poor ignorant fools. Now, with societal progress, we know better. Social evolution. Moral relativism. The only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth.

Since it's inevtiable, lie back and enjoy it, or at least tolerate it.

It is our duty, our right, and our only real happiness to fight for what is the natural law of the universe. The alternative is chaos in our time.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...you can maintain the delusion that there are actually four separate classifications of male and female and two of them are being discriminated against."

Never said that at all, so don't put words in my mouth out of a need to find something to answer back with, and then call me names for something I never said.

There is actually only one classification...citizens, some a male, and some are female. A majority of Texans were granted the right to sodomy when the Texas legislature decriminalized it for 97% of its citizens. The rest of the population of Texas sued to be granted the same rights as the majority.

Texas enacted a bad law and it got us all in real trouble.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Social Darwinism."

Do we today live in the same society that the Founders did, under the same morakl standards?

You wouldn't live there.

They would be scandilized at our society in general, not just the gay thing. Society moves forward, and there's plenty of proof of that available.

Where's slavery? Where's Jim Crow?

Where are the hippies?

Everything changes.