 Reuters Photo |
Posted on 06/29/2003 12:32:00 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican leader of the U.S. Senate said on Sunday he supported a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.
|
|
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist expressed concern about the Supreme Court's decision last week to strike down a Texas sodomy law. He said he supported an amendment that would reserve marriage for relationships between men and women.
"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," said Frist, of Tennessee. "So I would support the amendment."
The comment, during an interview on ABC's "This Week" program, comes days after the U.S. high court struck down sodomy laws that made it a crime for gays to have consensual sex in their own bedrooms on the grounds the laws violated constitutional privacy rights.
The court's decision was applauded by gay rights advocates as a historic ruling that overturned sodomy laws in 13 states.
Conservatives have expressed their fears that the June 26 ruling could lead to the legalization of gay marriages.
The marriage amendment, reintroduced in the House of Representatives last month, says marriage in the United States "shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."
Amending the constitution requires the approval of two thirds of each of the houses of the U.S. Congress and approval of 38 state legislatures.
Frist said he feared that the ruling on the Texas sodomy law could lead to a situation "where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned."
"And I'm thinking of, whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home, and to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern," Frist said.
Frist said the questions of whether to criminalize sodomy should be made by state legislatures.
"That's where those decisions, with the local norms, the local mores, are being able to have their input in reflected," Frist said.
Fortunately, this is all just blowing smoke; the proposal will die in committee and Frist will take credit for trying, without trying very hard.
Hyperbole and Misdirection. Senator Frist is implying that the USSC decision somehow condones illegal activity "because it was in the home" and that is a complete misrepresentation of the ruling.
The USSC decided that the Texas Law didn't pass Constitutional muster as it violated not only the 14th Amendment, but the very idea that the government has the power to intrude in the private relations of consenting individuals, not that illegal activity is somehow OK "in private".
The decision in no way approved of, nor denigrated, said activity, it simply stated that the Texas Legislature grossly overstepped their Constitutional mandated powers in passing the law in the first place.
Now I here you all out there screaming 10th Amendment and I will address that simply by saying that your 10th Amendment argument presupposes that the State had the right to impose this Law in the first place. That's a starting point, not an ending point my friends. The 10th Amendment States that:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
As you can see the key phrase in regards to this case, in my opinion, would have to be; nor prohibited by it to the States. The question before the court wasn’t; is homosexual sex protected by the Constitution but, was the Law prohibiting it Constitutionally correct?
Some would argue that the Constitution doesn’t guarantee us a right to privacy, nor does it guarantee us the right to homosexual relations. This seems to be a favorite argument of the “if the Constitution doesn’t say you have the right then you don’t have the right” crowd. These people often pass themselves off as some type of all knowing Constitutional Gurus yet seem to forget one simple thing, the 9th Amendment. You know the one I’m talking about right? That pesky little Amendment that says:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
So much for the Constitution doesn’t guarantee the “right to privacy” crowd. As anyone can plainly see, just because the Constitution doesn’t spell out the “right to privacy” in black and white, it is not a slam-dunk, by any stretch of the imagination, that we don’t indeed have that right.
So, to find out if this is indeed a just and good law, we have to go to the other Amendments and test the law against them. It is here that the Texas Law fails so miserably, as it is clearly, in deed and intent, a violation of the 14th Amendment, as opined by Justice O’Connor. The idea that a certain specific group of people would be singled out for prosecution, for actions that the majority populous would not, is anathema to this nations entire existence. An existence predicated on the idea that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights among those the right life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The private consensual pursuit of happiness by two people, regardless of their sexual orientation, is constitutionally protected. So rules the Supreme Court.
As it is, the Lawrence opinion should have included parallels to past court decisions pertaining to pornography where 'Community standards' are set by the democratic process of the people to engaged in debate through their elected representatives.
In Lawrence, the majority of the court have decided that rather than 'Individual Self Government' reflecting the consent of the governed, a judicial aristocracy can govern without regard to constitutionally elected representatives at all levels of government; local - State - National.
Unfortuately, the Lawrence decision has implications far beyond sex, sodomy and homosexuality... �
He has no problem with the Texas law outlawing homosexual sex, so why not a Constitutional amendment outlawing homosexual sex? Why not a Constitutional amendment against homosexuality altogether?
The problem is an out-of-control Supreme Court which legislates from the bench rather than interprets the plain text of the Constitution.
The quick answer is probably impeachment, but I don't see that happening. The next best thing is getting strict constuctionists on the Court, but the Dems are intent on blocking that and they probably will succeed.
Fundamentally, the country needs a massive revival of Constitutional understanding and principle, or it is lost to the eroding tyranny of the creeping socialist state. Revival can only come from the grassroots and must result in the complete overhaul of our education and media to have any lasting effect.
The country is split down the middle with more statists coming in or being produced by the education system every day. Something has to give if we are to live peacefully together! At some point, those determined to uphold the Constitution will inevitably say "enough". What will happen then is very much up in the air.
For the record, that is exactly what happened in California. However, that state's legislature has recently given the voters the finger in giving same-sex couples all the bells and whistles that go with marriage--save calling it marriage.
Now, under ordinary circumstances, such behavior would result in a clean sweep in state government. Thing is, the RATS have been orchestrating voter fraud and intentionally dragging their feet on a recall of Governor Gray Davis.
This complete and total disrespect for the citizens of California is nothing short of arrogant and outrageous. And the people are being left with few options.
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.