Skip to comments.Frist Endorses Idea of Gay Marriage Ban
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.