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."
I actually always liked using the word sodomite, but I don't know what term would apply to a lesbian.
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
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.
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
Because the Founding Fathers deemed it a vital concern. But what would they know about the Constitution, eh?
They call themselves "faggot" - that's good enough for me.
I didn't think Frist had nerve enough to pull this..
I think I am starting to like this guy.
Horray for Bill Frist!
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.
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.
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.