Frist Endorses Idea of Gay Marriage Ban

AP ^ | 6/29/03 | WILLIAM C. MANN

[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."

[longtermmemmory]

Protecting the institution of marriage is promoting the general welfare.

[Spunky]

"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. :-)

[Spunky]

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.

[Skywalk]

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.

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

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.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

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?

[longtermmemmory]

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?

[Finalapproach29er]

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.

[longtermmemmory]

(s) so if I put a bed in any room, the penumbra right of privacy protects me from any disagreeable law. (/s)

[longtermmemmory]

Its not correct. Tennessee is notorious for issuing CDL licenses for Truck drivers who have been suspended in courts of other states.

CT and GA have gone on record as rejecting recognistion of domestic partnerships. The effort by homosexual militants was to have a divorce proceeding create a back door recognition of the domestic partnership. The courts did not fall for it.

Your analysis makes no sense, there are pleanty of examples which cross state lines which do not yield recognisiton. FL does not recognize common law marriage. Many states have common law marriage.

Ages of consent vary from state to state but we do not have a lowest common denominator.

However, to remove all ambiguity, and to get back to the point of this thread, I support a constitutional ammendment which codifies the institution of marriage as ONE man and ONE woman.

[Finalapproach29er]

According to Sandy O, Yes!

[Calpernia]

Thank goodness!

[Calpernia]

NJ was very close to having this heard in court too.

[MeekOneGOP]

bttt for later read.

[MeekOneGOP]

Stop Perversion - bttt again !!

MICHAEL STUPARYK/TORONTO STAR

Michael Stark, left, and Michael Lashner pop champagne
and kiss after their wedding ceremony yesterday.
Leshner called the ruling, "Day One for millions of gays
and lesbians around the world."

Gay couple married after ruling
(Toronto, Canada)

[Bigg Red]

Thanks for the clarification. Scary!

[Sonny M]

If you ever munched any carpet, it would apply to you, too.

I just remembered an episode of south park, where cartman is eating his the living room carpet and chewing on a cardboard box because he wants to be a lesbian.

[gcruse]

I don't remember that one, but I don't doubt it for a minute.
LOL