Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Frist Endorses Idea of Gay Marriage Ban
AP ^ | 6/29/03 | WILLIAM C. MANN

Posted on 06/29/2003 4:01:09 PM PDT by Valin

WASHINGTON - The Senate majority leader said Sunday he supported a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage in the United States.
Sen. Bill Frist, 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."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; culturewar; downourthroats; gay; gaypride; gayprideparades; hedonism; homosexualagenda; libertines; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriages; schumer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

1 posted on 06/29/2003 4:01:09 PM PDT by Valin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Valin
If we can get it through the Senate, it would pass. Most states have already banned Gay marraiges.
2 posted on 06/29/2003 4:05:28 PM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valin
sound like frist may have recieved lots of phone calls this week after the prescription drug and supreme court boondoggles this past week. for he sounds like a conservative
3 posted on 06/29/2003 4:08:10 PM PDT by TheRedSoxWinThePennant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
I like the idea, but I'd rather that they protect traditional marriage and define it as only being possible for a man and woman to enter into it, not use language that is a "ban".

Just basic politicing stuff, but its important to keep the spin off and make this a positive, example, not anti-abortion, but pro-life, stuff like would work here.

4 posted on 06/29/2003 4:08:32 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Valin; weegee; Polycarp; scripter
Finally! There is HOPE!
5 posted on 06/29/2003 4:19:52 PM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
I refuse to call homosexuals 'gay' or 'lesbian'.
I will not call pedophiles 'child lovers' or whatever euphemism they might come up with to soften their perversity.
6 posted on 06/29/2003 4:20:43 PM PDT by Tahoe3002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Valin
And this matters, and is an issue of vital concern for the Federal Government because?????????

It doesn't increase national security.

It doesn't create a job.

It doesn't improve or increase infrastructure.

It isn't even going to benefit the actual homestead of social conservatives.

How about a little consistency here - if a state wants to legalize it, your precious 10th amendment should allow it, right? Because, after all, I've never heard a 10th amendment proponent ever argue for it on any basis other than to intrude on the lives of other people.

7 posted on 06/29/2003 4:24:52 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheRedSoxWinThePennant
sound like frist may have recieved lots of phone calls

Gee ya think! :-)
8 posted on 06/29/2003 4:26:21 PM PDT by Valin (Humor is just another defense against the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
...Just basic politicing stuff, but its important to keep the spin off and make this a positive...
**

Excellent point!
9 posted on 06/29/2003 4:27:37 PM PDT by Bigg Red (Bush/Cheney in '04 and Tommy Daschole out the door)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Valin
And while I'm at it - can anyone tell me why no one has ever used the 10th to increase freedoms to anyone?

Why is it always used as the basis for silly crap - from banning miscegenation, prohibiting blacks from participating in local commerce and stripping their voting rights, to prohibing vibrator sales as well as prohibiting sodomy, even among married heterosexuals.

10 posted on 06/29/2003 4:28:22 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
not use language that is a "ban".

Besides, it makes little sense to speak of "banning" something that doesn't as yet even exist in America.

11 posted on 06/29/2003 4:29:17 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus; TheCrusader; onedoug; Calpernia; Bonaparte; yoe; TLBSHOW; MeeknMing
pingy for HOPE!
12 posted on 06/29/2003 4:29:17 PM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valin
What about limiting the court's jurisdiction? Although it has never been tried (I think), I believe Cangress can do so, and it is already in our constitution.

Revoke ths SCOTUS jurisdiction on sexual matters.
13 posted on 06/29/2003 4:29:28 PM PDT by MonroeDNA (Communists infiltrate unions. "Workers of the world, Unite!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valin
Anyone ever read "The Constitution For The United States Of America"?

I doubt it, especially Mr Frist.

Try reading, it take about 11 minutes, "The Declatation Of The Thirteen Colonies." An odd, obscure, date is coming up 07-04-1776.
14 posted on 06/29/2003 4:30:06 PM PDT by ido_now
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valin
Repubs showing BACKBONE! Yay!!!
15 posted on 06/29/2003 4:30:21 PM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Because the 10th Amendment took a REAL big hit last week.
Not that it's been in the best of shape for the last couple of decades.
16 posted on 06/29/2003 4:31:04 PM PDT by Valin (Humor is just another defense against the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Valin
Once known as the love that dare not speak it's name .........

Now known as the love that won't shut the F up.
17 posted on 06/29/2003 4:31:55 PM PDT by dennisw (G-d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tahoe3002
I refuse to call homosexuals 'gay' or 'lesbian'.
&&

I am with you on that. I stopped using "gay" about 3 years ago when I first came across the term "transgendered", the manufacture of which made me realize that their goal was to emotionally neutralize sexual aberrations by not using the correct terms.
18 posted on 06/29/2003 4:32:57 PM PDT by Bigg Red (Bush/Cheney in '04 and Tommy Daschole out the door)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Once known as the love that dare not speak it's name .........

Now known as the love that won't shut the F up.


**

LOL! And, sadly, so true.
19 posted on 06/29/2003 4:34:58 PM PDT by Bigg Red (Bush/Cheney in '04 and Tommy Daschole out the door)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
Besides, it makes little sense to speak of "banning" something that doesn't as yet even exist in America.

Sort of, there are civil unions in vermont, and some other places. Since canada is getting it, it's pretty easy to say it can happen here. The problem is that if this is a law, it could go to scotus and be over turned, we might need a constitutional amendment to lock it down.

20 posted on 06/29/2003 4:35:04 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tahoe3002
I refuse to call homosexuals 'gay' or 'lesbian'. I will not call pedophiles 'child lovers' or whatever euphemism they might come up with to soften their perversity.

I actually always liked using the word sodomite, but I don't know what term would apply to a lesbian.

21 posted on 06/29/2003 4:36:46 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: I_Love_My_Husband
Repubs showing BACKBONE! Yay!!!

Talk is cheap , just like the GOP threats to use the "nuclear option" to get judges nominated over the obstructionist Dems. I will be ecstatic if they do something, but I am not going to have high hopes for them

22 posted on 06/29/2003 4:41:29 PM PDT by eeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
And while I'm at it - can anyone tell me why no one has ever used the 10th to increase freedoms to anyone?

Such things as legalizing medical (or other) use of Marijuana, concealed carry legalization, etc. fall under the 10th. Some people would consider those sort of things to be increasing freedoms.

23 posted on 06/29/2003 4:41:47 PM PDT by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: I_Love_My_Husband
That's a nice painting, reminds me of one that my grandmother used to have hanging in her house.
24 posted on 06/29/2003 4:45:34 PM PDT by Camber-G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
I actually always liked using the word sodomite,
 but I don't know what term would apply to a lesbian.


If you ever munched any carpet, it would apply to you, too.
25 posted on 06/29/2003 4:47:13 PM PDT by gcruse (There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women[.] --Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Valin
Good. Too bad we need a Constitutional Amend. to keep the meaning of words intact.
26 posted on 06/29/2003 4:48:54 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
LOL!! Ain't it the truth!
27 posted on 06/29/2003 4:50:01 PM PDT by Valin (Humor is just another defense against the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
"I like the idea, but I'd rather that they protect traditional marriage and define it as only being possible for a man and woman to enter into it, not use language that is a "ban".",

It is only the article using the word "ban" see the actual resolution.

.......SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'
Joint Resolution

28 posted on 06/29/2003 4:52:04 PM PDT by Spunky (This little tag just keeps following me where ever I go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Camber-G
The artist is here Judy Chance Hope
29 posted on 06/29/2003 4:53:17 PM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Valin
The armies of the pink blitzkrieg want marriage(originally the sacred union of man and woman) to mean everything. Eventually it will mean nothing.
30 posted on 06/29/2003 4:55:11 PM PDT by Archie Bunker on steroids
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Love_My_Husband
Thanks for the beautiful picture!!!

I have been hoping since this disgusting SCOTUS decision that it would stiffen the spines of those who call themselves conservatives, as well as open the eyes of fence sitters. May this be the begining of a deluge!
31 posted on 06/29/2003 4:56:42 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Camber-G
The artist has her own site here Judy Chance Hope
32 posted on 06/29/2003 4:56:47 PM PDT by I_Love_My_Husband
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
And this matters, and is an issue of vital concern for the Federal Government because?????????

Because the Founding Fathers deemed it a vital concern. But what would they know about the Constitution, eh?

33 posted on 06/29/2003 4:57:21 PM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red
I refuse to call homosexuals 'gay' or 'lesbian'. &&

They call themselves "faggot" - that's good enough for me.

34 posted on 06/29/2003 5:00:28 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Valin
Marriage needs to be clearly stated as an institution. The intelectual elitists are trying to reduce marriage to a mere contract. This diminishment must be stopped.

Marriage is an institution not a mere contract.
35 posted on 06/29/2003 5:01:22 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Valin
WOW!

I didn't think Frist had nerve enough to pull this..

I think I am starting to like this guy.

Horray for Bill Frist!

36 posted on 06/29/2003 5:04:44 PM PDT by Jhoffa_ (I am tired of voting AGAINST people.. Give me someone I can vote FOR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine; Valin; jla
"............and is an issue of vital concern for the Federal Government because?????????.........................................if a state wants to legalize it, your precious 10th amendment should allow it, right?

Because I heard Senator Frist say today, the State of Michigan is likely to pass a State Constitutional Law recognizing Gay or Lesbian couples as married. Other states may pass a State Constitutional Law saying there is no marriage between Gays or Lesbians. Now because of some law that was passed (When I don't know, or what it is called I don't remember) It basically says that each state has to accept the law of other states. So now all the Gays and Lesbians would go to Michigan, get married and then go back to their state and it would have to be accepted by that state.

So no matter if a State doesn't want to recognize the Gays and Lesbians as a married couple they would have to unless the Federal Government does something about it.

37 posted on 06/29/2003 5:20:13 PM PDT by Spunky (This little tag just keeps following me where ever I go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
How about a little consistency here - if a state wants to legalize it, your precious 10th amendment should allow it, right?

A lot of the FReepers who are vocal about the Lawrence vs. Texas case, and gay issues in general on 10th Amendment grounds will be the first to condemn anti-Drug War folks for their views.

Consistency seems to be a lost art. I don't agree with this decision on Constitutional grounds, but I must admit that it has been fun seeing the hypocrites expose themselves.

38 posted on 06/29/2003 5:23:32 PM PDT by jmc813 (If you're interested in joining a FR list to discuss Big Brother 4 on CBS, please FReepmail me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
We have the First Amendment, and with this we will have the Frist Amendment.
39 posted on 06/29/2003 5:31:04 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Protecting the institution of marriage is promoting the general welfare.
41 posted on 06/29/2003 5:40:22 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Matthew Rush
"Wow, be careful before you make a posting, lest you embarrass yourself."

Why should I be embarrassed for not getting it completly correct? I know there will always be Freepers around who will correct mistakes. At least I remembered the main point of what Senator Frist said this morning. :-)

42 posted on 06/29/2003 5:41:41 PM PDT by Spunky (This little tag just keeps following me where ever I go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode; Bigg Red
Ethan and Bigg Red, you might want to check out my posting to Sonny M at post #28. The actual Resolution doesn't say "Ban" anywhere.

Ethan you said; "Besides, it makes little sense to speak of "banning" something that doesn't as yet even exist in America.'

It may not exist now, but we need to do something about it now. I posted this at posting #37 and I will post it here to you also with the corrections that Matthew Rush gave me at posting # 40.

I heard Senator Frist say today, the State of Massachusetts is likely to pass a State Constitutional Law recognizing Gay or Lesbian couples as married. Other states may pass a State Constitutional Law saying there is no marriage between Gays or Lesbians. Now because of the Constitution, It basically says that each state has to accept the law of other states. So now all the Gays and Lesbians would go to Michigan, get married and then go back to their state and it would have to be accepted by that state.

So in the long run the Gays and Lesbians would have to be recognized in every state they live in as a married couple with all the benefits of a married couple even though the people of that state didn't want it that way.

43 posted on 06/29/2003 5:56:00 PM PDT by Spunky (This little tag just keeps following me where ever I go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TheRedSoxWinThePennant
Problem is the prescription drug, non-enforcement of our borders and diluting the conservative message is vastly more important than a ban on gay marriage.

Good way to embrace social conservatives but a fine way to make the rest of us roll our eyes.
44 posted on 06/29/2003 5:58:22 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
I agree I think frist is just trying to sooth some conservatives. while I support a gay marriage ban. Socializing prescription drugs and not enforcing our borders is a good way to keep the conservative base home next november.
45 posted on 06/29/2003 6:06:14 PM PDT by TheRedSoxWinThePennant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
What does the recognition of gay marriages have to do with the recognition of heterosexual marriages? Does it somehow affect those obligations, rights and duties?
46 posted on 06/29/2003 6:24:15 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Matthew Rush; All
That is not a universal constant. Many states have laws which are not accepted in other states. Dirver license issuance laws varry from states to state. A suspension for one reason in one state does not preclude a license issuance in another. Domestic partner declarations are not recognized in other states. Polygamous marriages are not recognized though valid in other countries.

BTW I have seen polls which generally show the public majority is AGAINST homosexual marriages. There was an taking head babe who tried to some other poll for acceptance of homosexual marriages. Does anyone have reliable information on the specific targetted issue of same sex marriage?
47 posted on 06/29/2003 7:13:25 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Valin
If the police can't "go into our bedrooms", I suggest that all drug pushers set up the meth lab 'in the bedroom'. It's a private place where crimes are now allowed because of the recently created(30 years) "right to, zone of privacy". Anything goes! Sandy says so!

She nothing but a fool with a law degree. Thank God for diversity (sarcasm). I hope President Bush doesn't make diversity his criteria for his Supreme Court picks.
48 posted on 06/29/2003 7:16:49 PM PDT by Finalapproach29er ("Don't shoot Mongo, you'll only make him mad.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Finalapproach29er
(s) so if I put a bed in any room, the penumbra right of privacy protects me from any disagreeable law. (/s)
49 posted on 06/29/2003 7:20:13 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson