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."

[HairOfTheDog]

This could be such a fracture point.

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

[demlosers]

Fine with me.

[Antoninus]

folks, the constitution is a very serious document and should not be cluttered with every popular idea that comes along (even good ideas qua ideas).

I agree. Which is why the Supreme Court should not have arbitrarily inserted a "right to sodomy" (or a "right to abortion" or a "right to pornography") into it in the first place. They did it by extra-legal, despotic judicial fiat. We want to use the Constitution the way the Founding Fathers envisioned. You treat the Marriage Amendment as if it weren't serious business. Given our current cultural climate, neck deep in sludge driven by illegally imposed judicial lawmaking, I say that it is very serious business. Is there any doubt it'll help curb the rot and head off future corruption?

The simple approach is to appoint justices who do not see a conumdrum within a penumbra with every case but rather a clear reading of the founding fathers' document.

Yeah, we thought we'd been doing that for 30 years since Roe v. Wade and look how far we've gotten: 6-3 vote in favor of a "right to sodomy." Washington is a foetid cess pool of corruption that eventually turns weak but conservative individuals like Sundried O'Connor into moral relativist dopes.

It's past time for the people to impose their check on this nonsense.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

None of that stuff you listed matters in the least if we live in a depraved nation.

*snoresville*

Acquisitive greed of power and wealth from other nations is not a respector of the ethics of the target nation.

[A CA Guy]

Not a bad move, in all honesty, probably 75% of the country at least would approve of such an amendment.

[El Gato]

This is a total waste of time and energy - folks, the constitution is a very serious document and should not be cluttered with every popular idea that comes along (even good ideas qua ideas). The simple approach is to appoint justices who do not see a conumdrum within a penumbra with every case but rather a clear reading of the founding fathers' document.

I aggree, as to the marriage amendment. However the whole affair, plus the Affirmitive Action debacle, put into stark relief a glaring weakness in the Constitution, that is allowing judicial activism. Now that could be the subject of a more general amendment, one that changes the structure of the government, although not necessarily very much. Let the Supreme Court continue to rule on the Constitutionality of the laws, but make them do it within a few months to years of the time a law is passed. If it passes muster then, it's constitutional until modifed by the other two branches, at which point they get a crack at the modifications. Perhaps set up a new parralel judical body to do that, and take the Constitutionality review power out of the hands of the current Supreme Court, since it was never specifically granted to them in the first place, let their rulings only apply to the case before them. The other Court would be the one that could strike down laws, you might even want to make it a requirement that they review them before they take effect. You'd have to have some provision for striking down unconsitutional state laws as well, but retaining the notion of only having a limited time after passage in which to do so.

[redbaiter]

The Left is all too effective at trivializing the Constitution, let's not give them any help.

[BikerNYC]

And, meanwhile, the only way to stop the activist Supremes is to pass an amendment to the Constitution, in language that even they can't ignore.

Oh, I don't know. Look at the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law .... Sounds about as clear as you can get, but...

[Steve Eisenberg]

I've got a better solution: just get rid of all government control over marriage. Marriage no longer has any meaning in our society other than for the people who view it as a religious institution, so I say de-legalize marriage and let the church handle it.

What about the children?

Sofa King may indeed be pointing the direction of the future, with the government not caring one bit that the kids were born out of wedlock, and continuing to vigorously enforce child support paid by men who mostly no longer live with their child's mother. Except for strong faith communities, the future for the nation's children seems to be one in which broken families are the norm. Sofa King, explain to me how this is NOT your plan.

[Antoninus]

Life has gotten way too serious to put up with hysterical social conservative crap anymore.

Hey, then just ignore us. Spend all your times on the "War on Terror" threads. I don't recall anybody asking specifically for your opinion. As the libertarians say, if you don't like it, just turn the channel (or switch threads in this case).

[Sabertooth]

wow a republican with balls never seen that before

Hush, or David Souter will be breaking out the scented stationary.

[El Gato]

Why?

It will keep the laws that protect married couples, from being applied to "couples" in which neither partner, nor the "relationship" as a whole, needs any such protection. Most such laws were passed when one spouse worked and the other raised the kids, and even those passed more recently mostly have the protection of the children as their basis, or of the "non-working" spouse. In a homosexual relationship, since both are the same, and there are no children from the relationship, the same factors of interest to society just don't exist.

[mdittmar]

This is mute,the SCOTUS has made the decision on the Constitutionality of this issue,any new law will be overturned.

You could say we got screwed up the a$$.

yuck,yuck.

[Antoninus]

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

Hey, don't blame us if you're completely out of touch...

[PhiKapMom]

Remember we had millions of the religious right who stayed home and didn't vote and they would far outnumber the gays. They had better get off the dime if we start pushing this issue and go vote this time.

I don't care if we lose the gay vote because we will be standing in principal and the religious right should see that!

[El Gato]

And, meanwhile, the only way to stop the activist Supremes is to pass an amendment to the Constitution, in language that even they can't ignore.

No such creature. As things now stand, They can ignore whatever they choose.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Nope - I can't ignore it. Just as your fellow traveller Pat Buchanan snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with that nasty speech in 1992, you people are trying to do that again for 2004 with a bunch of meaningless crap that will wreck GOP chances with dumb sound bites that will be played over and over by Dem candidates.

This time, it is infinitely more serious in result from the standpoint of national security - because the Truman style dems are not likely to be in in the lead.

[AntiGuv]

Yep, that's a valid point. I was simply providing the figures as an FYI.

[Antoninus]

This is mute,the SCOTUS has made the decision on the Constitutionality of this issue,any new law will be overturned.

Uh, 30 second education...

We aren't calling for a mere "law," but a constitutional amendment. Such an amendment becomes part of the Constitution and CAN NOT be overturned by the Supreme Court. In fact, they are bound to defend it.

[don-o]

Hope you are right.

In 1989, I saw clearly, the rollback of Roe v Wade, off Christians in the streets and in jail.

We lost. Hope you can do better this go around.

Note: Watch out for the big talkers with big wallets.