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."

[mrobison]

It is a fact: Churches will be required to perform homosexual marriages or lose their right to perform any marriages.

When this happens, we'll just send the appropriate state authorities to you for values clarification.

[Kahonek]

Impervious to reason, huh? You are thinking only a little more clearly than my tape recorder...

[NittanyLion]

Give me a specific example where one of the previously-mentioned factors was the basis for the Catholic church refusing to perform a marriage.

My wife's cousin was refused marriage in a Florida Catholic Church because, while her husband was Catholic, she was not. Yet this church is still performing marriages.

[NittanyLion]

It is a fact: Churches will be required to perform homosexual marriages or lose their right to perform any marriages.

Cite your source or stand discredited. By continuing to spout this nonsense you expose yourself as either ill-informed or deliberately misleading.

What is it about the separation of church and state you can't seem to grasp?

[george wythe]

It is a fact: Churches will be required to perform homosexual marriages or lose their right to perform any marriages.

Divorce has been legal for several years.

My Church refuses to marry people who have been divorced.

My Church has never been forced to marry divorced people.

Why would my Church be forced to marry practicing homosexuals?

Why is my Church not forced to marry divorcees?

[george wythe]

You are thinking only a little more clearly than my tape recorder...

Is mrobison is 'bot?

[NittanyLion]

In short, "special" rights are the very same rights that others already have and take for granted, but who become thoroughly 'annoyed' when granted to others. These are the same sort of people who want a head-start on a sprint race - and get thouroughly angry if forced to begin from the same starting line as everyone else.

Exactly.

[DAnconia55]

as history teaches barbarians defeat decadents in the long run as decadents weaken the civilisation which nourishes them

And from which examples do you come up with THAT fascinating theory?

Oh! Wait! Let me...

Pat Robertons's "How Rome Fell Because of Oral Sex : Vol 1"

Seems to be a favorite of all our Fundie FR brethern.

[DAnconia55]

I'm not certain everyone understands exactly what sodomy is. I suspect many think it's only an act gay people can commit.

They aren't. And for some of the worse... even when told... they still can't believe that normal hetero people do it. And ask for statistics :)

Which were duly provided... ...and ignored.

[dmz]

Go cook yourself some arroz con pollo.
_________

wow. clearly the funniest and most intelligent post on this thread so far. /sarcasm

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Note that I didn't hear a lot back after I pointed out the relevant fact of Rome's official religion at the end.....

[solomangrundy]

You're reading far more into it than is actually there. The SCOTUS did not afford anything to homosexuals that isn't already afforded to heterosexuals. It is easy to be an armchair interpreter of the Constitution, quite another to have the job of doing it as the SCOTUS does. They have made the interpretation differently than you. You don't like their interpretation. There are many interpretations that SCOTUS has made over the decades that many people did not agree with. But the job of making those interpretations is theirs, not yours.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Congressional email is sorted. You must have a mailing address entered in the email and that address must be in the zone for a congressman's constituents. They then print out that email and reply to it like it was a snail mail letter. All others are deleted.

[GraniteStateConservative]

I'm opposed to amending the Constitution, but marriage contracts are a valid enterprise for the state. There's nothing wrong with defining it in the Constitution. My question is how would this affect hermaphrodites?

[Kahonek]

"My question is how would this affect hermaphrodites?"

Same problem for transsexuals. It depends on the state. Different states define them differently. If the state says they are male, they may only marry females and vice versa.

[A Navy Vet]

More Fedgov intrusion...this is a state matter.

Here's an Amendment for you Ms. Musgrave: Congressional term limits with in-session time restraints.

[Redcloak]

Do you really want conservative justices who will happily ignore parts of the Constitution they don't like? When a liberal justice does this, it's condemned as "judicial activism". How is it any different when a conservative does it? The proper way to deal with an undesireable ruling from the Supreme Court is to amend the Constitution; not to appoint justices who will tamper with it.

[A. Pole]

If you echo the arguments of Islamofascists, people will rightly wonder whose side you're on.

Militant sexual decadents are similar to the free market fundies. The first ones make Islamists look attractive by comparison and the later ones make Commies looking good.

Both groups are busy dismantling Western civilisation from inside. Commies and Islamists do it from outside so they are easier to deal with.

[RobbyS]

When was the last time that an amendndment was passed to override a supreme Court decision? That would be the 14th Amendment, which overrode Dred Scot,and this is after a civil war and with the Southern states represented by carpet-bag regimes under the thumb of a rump Congress.