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."

[El Gato]

Look at the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law

Or the Second's "shall not be infringed". That language doesn't even restrict itself to Congress, as pre-20th century judges pointed out on more than one occassion.

[PhiKapMom]

I knew you were -- I just thought it was a great post to add on about how many from the religious right camp stayed home the last time.

I cannot think of anything that would rally them more.

Our RAT Attorney General here in OK is going to be releasing prisoners because of this ruling -- they are scum that are locked up and now they will be back on the streets. Said the beastiality (sp) part of the Constitution would still stand though!

This whole deal is disgusting!

[Sofa King]

---

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.

---

Government ALREADY doesn't care whether or not children are being born in wedlock, or whether or not a child who was born in wedlock's parents get divorced. Government regulation of marriage has done nothing to lessen either. You've failed to demonstrate how de-regulating marriage will increase the number of children who effectively only have one parrent.

[Antoninus]

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

And we don't have all that much of the "gay" vote to lose, anyway. Meanwhile, the groundswell that the GOP could gain would be epic. We could literally sweep to an historic, across-the-board nation-wide victory that would make the Dems a minority party for decades. The argument must be presented as pro-traditional marriage, not anti-gay for this to succeed.

If only our leaders have the courage and the political acumen to carry it off..........

Pray!

[PhiKapMom]

Exactly! A lot of half empty glass people around here tonight! You are so right SCOTUS cannot overturn a Constitutional amendment! I am ready to go gather signatures here in OK tomorrow if necessary!

Let's put the cards on the table on which Party is going to stand up for Marriage!

[MinuteGal]

Sen. Frist is perfectly safe in saying he supports a constitutional amendment because it's an event that will never happen. His rhetoric sounds good to despairing conservatives, however.

The senator should more realistically concentrate on breaking the liberals' judicial appointments roadblock but this looks like it isn't going to happen either. He's too much a dainty man at a time we need terminators in the Senate Republican leadership.

Leni

[Mr. Mojo]

How can this possibly be a losing issue for republicans? Force the dim presidential candidates to take a stand that 75% of Americans support.

Bullseye.

I just hope the Administration sees it that way.

[PhiKapMom]

I am praying!

You are so right -- needs to be pushed as the pro-traditional marriage!

[Antoninus]

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

Really, that's all the homo-promo types have is a huge amount of money to spread their propaganda. However, this "sodomy rights" decision might bring some really big money into play that's been on the sidelines for years to support this amendment. We can hope.

But what do I know? I'm just a small talker with a very small wallet. However, if enough of us can get together....

[BikerNYC]

Let's put the cards on the table on which Party is going to stand up for Marriage!

Very true. Be it first, second or third.

[Mr. Mojo]

More ammendments are not the answer. All America needs to do is get conservative, constitutionally loyal people into office.

Oh, is that all? And how successful have we been at doing that?

[mdittmar]

Uh, 30 second education...

Ain't gonna happen.

The Constitution of the United States
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

[PhiKapMom]

I am a Bush Republican and have been since 1994 when I lived in Texas and I support Senator Frist in this.

Believe most Republicans will also support it and the religious right will be right there with us. Any conservative should be working to make sure that Gay Marriage is outlawed.

Our RAT Attorney General here in OK said that is going to cause the release of sex offenders and could ultimately lead to overturning pedofilia convictions.

We cannot stand by and do nothing! Time to draw the line in the sand!

[jackbill]

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

I said "in language that even they can't ignore".

e.g. Marriage, in any context, in any state, any, is a union of two people of different sexes, genders or whatever you want to call them. People of the same sex don't qualify, in any manner, shape or form.

That should do it.

[PhiKapMom]

Bet you will get the Southern Baptist Convention to open their wallets and there are some big bucks there!

[Always Right]

Did he think that people being gay were personal decisions or were they "just born that way." He agreed they were born that way.

Here all along I thought people were born of free will....it's a dangerous path to start to blame genetics for every deviant behavior there is, besides it just ain't so.

[The Red Zone]

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.

However, we've seen what they can do with a clause they want to find in the Constitution. Such as the cancerous commerce clause gripping its slimy tentacles around anything with the remotest touch upon commerce between the states, or the "right to privacy" in Roe v. Wade and now in Lawrence. Or what they can do with clauses they don't like, such as the "shall not be infringed" of the 2nd Amendment. How do we know that this Frist Amendment won't be greeted with SCOTUS eyes that read it with the implied modifier "only on alternate Wednesdays"?

[mrobison]

You ARE Always Right.

Neal A. Maxwell said: "No one was foreordained to fail or to be wicked."

[Antoninus]

I am ready to go gather signatures here in OK tomorrow if necessary!

I'm with you! And check this out:

Alliance for Marriage

You'll notice that the folks on the home page are Black. Is there an issue more tailor-made for the GOP to unite with Black voters over? This could be HUGE! (or even hugh).

Are there any other "Marriage Amendment" efforts out there? We need to unite behind one of them and not dilute the field.