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

Skip to comments.

Frist Wants Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
Yahoo! ^ | June 29, 2003

Posted on 06/29/2003 5:51:41 PM PDT by mrobison

By WILLIAM C. MANN, Associated Press Writer

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

 

Sen. Bill Frist (news, bio, voting record), 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: Breaking News; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; downourthroats; eubanks; homosexualagenda; lawrencevtexas; marriagelaws; roberteubanks; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriage; tennessee; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-428 next last
Where's the petition I can sign?
1 posted on 06/29/2003 5:51:41 PM PDT by mrobison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mrobison
wow a republican with balls never seen that before
2 posted on 06/29/2003 5:56:12 PM PDT by conservativefromGa (www.awbansunset.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
This is going to be one ugly summer.
3 posted on 06/29/2003 6:02:30 PM PDT by rintense (Thank you to all our brave soldiers, past and present, for your faithful service to our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
How can this possibly be a losing issue for republicans?
Force the dim presidential candidates to take a stand that 75% of Americans support.

If this amendment is in play next summer I will tape the entire dim convention.

4 posted on 06/29/2003 6:03:34 PM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
I don't even want my legislature discussing sodomy, let alone an ammendment about it. I am sick to death of the gay issue and it's opposite and equally annoying anti argument.
5 posted on 06/29/2003 6:04:14 PM PDT by HairOfTheDog (Not all those who wander are lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativefromGa; mrobison
More ammendments are not the answer.

All America needs to do is get conservative, constitutionally loyal people into office.

We have an immediate concern and duty to give President Bush the majority and leadership he needs to get the Supers back on track by getting constitutionally correct judges affirmed by the Senate.

1, 2, or 3 of them will be gone soon for whatever reason(s).

We live in historic times.

A revolution is at hand.

6 posted on 06/29/2003 6:04:36 PM PDT by knarf (A place where anyone can learn anything ... especially that which promotes clear thinking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: conservativefromGa
Now that's the kinda republician I switched parties for!
7 posted on 06/29/2003 6:05:17 PM PDT by Past Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
How about some action on dismantling half of the Federal Government. That's what we really need.

And no, I do not favor gay marriage. It is just that conservative politicians constantly spin their wheels on fringe issues while our nation slides furhter and further into Fabian Socialism.

8 posted on 06/29/2003 6:08:51 PM PDT by BenLurkin (Socialism is slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rintense

Send email to Rep. Musgrave thanking her and supporting her. Remember, she will get a lot of hate mail from homos.

Phone: (202) 225-4676

9 posted on 06/29/2003 6:09:38 PM PDT by nwrep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage

Prudence indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes

10 posted on 06/29/2003 6:10:19 PM PDT by Flyer (Ask me about my Golden Retriever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The other day I was talking to my Dad, who as a JP in Vermont is prepared to resign rather than perform a civil union. I asked him a few questions:

Did he think that people being gay were personal decisions or were they "just born that way." He agreed they were born that way.

Did he think they were capable of feeling love in the way that he felt love for his children and his wife. He said they did.

I asked him if he felt they were worthy of transferring wealth and powers to make decisions for each other in times of crisis and sickness. He did.

The problem is not with the concepts of what the governmental perception of "marriage" is; because to the government it is merely a binding contract between two people of legal age.

The problem is with the religious significance of what a "marriage" is. And that is why you will not win this battle. They will "call" it something else. It will be a governmental recognition of a partnership--akin to a corporation or LLC. Those being "bound" will call it "marriage."

Its coming and there ain't nothing any of us can do about it. I for one, dont fear it because no one is trying to turn me gay. I'm not a good enough dresser.
11 posted on 06/29/2003 6:12:09 PM PDT by Vermont Lt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
Agreed! The gay vote is like 1% and 95% of it goes to the demonrats anyway.
12 posted on 06/29/2003 6:13:40 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
I've got a better solution: just get rid of all government control over marriage. Marriage no longer has any meaning in our society other than for the people who view it as a religious institution, so I say de-legalize marriage and let the church handle it.
13 posted on 06/29/2003 6:15:00 PM PDT by Sofa King (-I am Sofa King- tired of liberal BS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
Between 4% and 5% according to exit polls and between a quarter and a third of it goes to Republicans - one million votes for GWB in the 2000 election.
14 posted on 06/29/2003 6:15:07 PM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: conservativefromGa
wow a republican with balls never seen that before

I am old enough to see it but it is refreshing to see it come to light again. Bill Frist is an Icon in the Senate for taking on this issue up front by taking the bull by the horns!

15 posted on 06/29/2003 6:17:07 PM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
What point is there in that? The Supreme Court will simply invalidate it. They are not bound by the Constitution. It's their opinion that is important, as far as they are concerned.

A better move would be to appoint justices who would simply announce that from now on, gay marriage is unconstitutional. That's how we amend the Constitution in the 21st Century.
16 posted on 06/29/2003 6:19:38 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
"Where's the petition I can sign?"

Cerainly *not* on the west side of Manhattan today where during my drive home from work, they were having the largest freak show I've ever seen - some type of post-Gay Pride Parade get together.

What a bunch of loons.
17 posted on 06/29/2003 6:21:03 PM PDT by Gigantor (Don't steal! The Government hates competition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flyer
Prudence indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes

Tell that to the Federal Courts. Not many noticed at the time but we had a revolution in America. It happened when FDR filled the Federal Courts with Bolsheviks.

18 posted on 06/29/2003 6:23:27 PM PDT by DPB101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: knarf
I think this is more important than it appears. If marriage between same sex couples is sanctioned and becomes the law of the land, it will eventually be illegal for ANY church to refuse to perform such ceremonies. Who wants their church to lose the ability to perform ALL marriages because they take a stand against this?
19 posted on 06/29/2003 6:24:39 PM PDT by mrobison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
I have no doubt that such an amendment will pass. Now we just have to make it happen!!

Federal Marriage Amendment, NOW!
20 posted on 06/29/2003 6:24:44 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
This is a total waste of time and energy - folks, the constitution is a very serious document and should not be cluttered with every popular idea that comes along (even good ideas qua ideas). The simple approach is to appoint justices who do not see a conumdrum within a penumbra with every case but rather a clear reading of the founding fathers' document.
21 posted on 06/29/2003 6:25:52 PM PDT by MarkT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
I don't even want my legislature discussing sodomy, let alone an ammendment about it. I am sick to death of the gay issue and it's opposite and equally annoying anti argument.

So am I. Hopefully the passage of such an amendment will be such a serious set-back to the homo-promo types, that they'll crawl back into the closet where they belong.
22 posted on 06/29/2003 6:26:02 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Flyer
Prudence indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes

I agree with this. The SCOTUS *changed* the constitution to find a nonexistant "right to sodomy" at the behest of a transient, faddish cadre of radicals. A Federal Marraige Amendment will be a restoration to sanity, not a change.
23 posted on 06/29/2003 6:28:34 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Federal Marriage Amendment, NOW!

Why? Is it going to increase national security or be a vital cog in our national defense structure?

Is it going to help create a single job or business opportunities?

Is it going to improve or increase our national infrastructure?

Is it going to make life better in heterosexual married households?

I can think of nothing that such an amendment will do other than to assuage the feelings of the hystericals who obsess over the sex lives of other people.

24 posted on 06/29/2003 6:29:49 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
Its coming and there ain't nothing any of us can do about it.

Oh yeah? Watch and learn. We have not yet begun to fight....
25 posted on 06/29/2003 6:30:01 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sofa King
I've got a better solution: just get rid of all government control over marriage. Marriage no longer has any meaning in our society other than for the people who view it as a religious institution, so I say de-legalize marriage and let the church handle it.

I'll tell you what: you get the feds out of education, medicine, income tax collection, and every other place they're not supposed to be first, then we'll talk about marriage and drugs. OK?
26 posted on 06/29/2003 6:31:39 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Hopefully the idea goes NOWHERE. I don't care and I don't want to spend the summer arguing about homosexuals.
27 posted on 06/29/2003 6:31:40 PM PDT by HairOfTheDog (Not all those who wander are lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
What point is there in that? The Supreme Court will simply invalidate it. They are not bound by the Constitution. It's their opinion that is important, as far as they are concerned.

The Supreme Court CAN NOT invalidate a Constitutional Amendment. An amendment becomes part of the constitution by definition. The court is bound to uphold it against all challenges and CAN NOT invalidate it in any way.
28 posted on 06/29/2003 6:33:11 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
YES!!
29 posted on 06/29/2003 6:34:35 PM PDT by fiftymegaton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
Hopefully the idea goes NOWHERE. I don't care and I don't want to spend the summer arguing about homosexuals.

It's going to go somewhere--and probably pretty quickly, too. 37 states already have similar amendments on the books--that's one fewer than needed to ratify a Constitutional Amendment.

You don't have to be part of the argument if you don't want to. You won't be missed.
30 posted on 06/29/2003 6:34:49 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
You obviously are clueless to the fact that the family is the BEDROCK of a society. All of the things you mentioned come AFTER, not BEFORE.
31 posted on 06/29/2003 6:35:15 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
I'm shocked, shocked that you would be against this. When you're not spewing your bile all over the Catholic Church, you're supporting attacks on the traditional family. Nice resume.

None of that stuff you listed matters in the least if we live in a depraved nation. Depraved nations, by their very character or lack of it, can not defend themselves or their interests when attacked. True freedom can not exist in a depraved nation. I maintain that the clock is ticking on our survival as a free nation unless we take vigorous action.

I know you and your MO. I'd be much more surprised if you opposed the "right to sodomy."
32 posted on 06/29/2003 6:41:07 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
All you have to do is look at their decisions. They ignore the Constitution routinely. They don't care what it says. You can pass all the amendments you want, but they will just do as they please.
33 posted on 06/29/2003 6:42:05 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And those were a bunch of San Francisco drag queens flying those planes into buildings, working on terrorist plans against this country, laundering money, running North Korea, Iran, Indonesia and the Sudan, preaching about the heavenly joy of murdering Americans in mosques, and desperately working to destabilize the country here and abroad.

Life has gotten way too serious to put up with hysterical social conservative crap anymore.

There are better ways to spend legislative time.

You want Howard Dean abandoning the terror war to the UN and the French? Keep up with this silly crap, and you'll get your wish.

34 posted on 06/29/2003 6:42:23 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
You are going to: It is upon this issue that the country will see its most serious division since the Civil War.

There's even a natural geographic break-line developing. This is going to get really nasty, and for more than just a summer. The court felt they were letting off steam but the law of unintended consequences has trumped them. They've built it to a fever point, amongst a population that feels they've been shafted too many times already (and I'm not talking about the gays).

It is upon such basic human "conditions" that great breaks develop, and great nations crumble. This could be such a fracture point.

35 posted on 06/29/2003 6:42:47 PM PDT by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
Who wants their church to lose the ability to perform ALL marriages because they take a stand against this?

I doubt that would happen. If nothing else you could do what people in Mexico do, where the State does not empower the clergy to perform legal marriage ceremonies. Peole just have two ceremonies, one in the church, one before a civil magistrate, or clerk whatever, the equivalent of getting married by a Justice of the Peace. For legal purposes only the civil marriage counts. The other one, if you choose to have one, is between you, the clergy of your choice, and God.

Because my daughter and her husband are of different faiths, they chose a minister of a third to perform their ceremony. I think he is younger than they are, in fact I'm sure he is.

36 posted on 06/29/2003 6:43:08 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
Let's get it on.
37 posted on 06/29/2003 6:45:05 PM PDT by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
You won't be missed.

Awww.... I'm hurt.

38 posted on 06/29/2003 6:46:03 PM PDT by HairOfTheDog (Not all those who wander are lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
This certainly WILL happen. And, the alternative marriage ceremonies you suggest will not satisfy the millions of Christians in this country who think marriage is of God.
39 posted on 06/29/2003 6:47:41 PM PDT by mrobison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: knarf
More ammendments are not the answer.

All America needs to do is get conservative, constitutionally loyal people into office.

We have an immediate concern and duty to give President Bush the majority and leadership he needs to get the Supers back on track by getting constitutionally correct judges affirmed by the Senate.

1, 2, or 3 of them will be gone soon for whatever reason(s).

We live in historic times.

A revolution is at hand.

And, meanwhile, the only way to stop the activist Supremes is to pass an amendment to the Constitution, in language that even they can't ignore.

40 posted on 06/29/2003 6:48:22 PM PDT by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast
This could be such a fracture point.

Why we would even consider placing that much importance on what gays do is beyond me!

41 posted on 06/29/2003 6:49:06 PM PDT by HairOfTheDog (Not all those who wander are lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
Fine with me.
42 posted on 06/29/2003 6:49:28 PM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarkT
folks, the constitution is a very serious document and should not be cluttered with every popular idea that comes along (even good ideas qua ideas).

I agree. Which is why the Supreme Court should not have arbitrarily inserted a "right to sodomy" (or a "right to abortion" or a "right to pornography") into it in the first place. They did it by extra-legal, despotic judicial fiat. We want to use the Constitution the way the Founding Fathers envisioned. You treat the Marriage Amendment as if it weren't serious business. Given our current cultural climate, neck deep in sludge driven by illegally imposed judicial lawmaking, I say that it is very serious business. Is there any doubt it'll help curb the rot and head off future corruption?

The simple approach is to appoint justices who do not see a conumdrum within a penumbra with every case but rather a clear reading of the founding fathers' document.

Yeah, we thought we'd been doing that for 30 years since Roe v. Wade and look how far we've gotten: 6-3 vote in favor of a "right to sodomy." Washington is a foetid cess pool of corruption that eventually turns weak but conservative individuals like Sundried O'Connor into moral relativist dopes.

It's past time for the people to impose their check on this nonsense.
43 posted on 06/29/2003 6:50:14 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
None of that stuff you listed matters in the least if we live in a depraved nation.

*snoresville*

Acquisitive greed of power and wealth from other nations is not a respector of the ethics of the target nation.

44 posted on 06/29/2003 6:50:17 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: conservativefromGa
Not a bad move, in all honesty, probably 75% of the country at least would approve of such an amendment.
45 posted on 06/29/2003 6:51:00 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MarkT
This is a total waste of time and energy - folks, the constitution is a very serious document and should not be cluttered with every popular idea that comes along (even good ideas qua ideas). The simple approach is to appoint justices who do not see a conumdrum within a penumbra with every case but rather a clear reading of the founding fathers' document.

I aggree, as to the marriage amendment. However the whole affair, plus the Affirmitive Action debacle, put into stark relief a glaring weakness in the Constitution, that is allowing judicial activism. Now that could be the subject of a more general amendment, one that changes the structure of the government, although not necessarily very much. Let the Supreme Court continue to rule on the Constitutionality of the laws, but make them do it within a few months to years of the time a law is passed. If it passes muster then, it's constitutional until modifed by the other two branches, at which point they get a crack at the modifications. Perhaps set up a new parralel judical body to do that, and take the Constitutionality review power out of the hands of the current Supreme Court, since it was never specifically granted to them in the first place, let their rulings only apply to the case before them. The other Court would be the one that could strike down laws, you might even want to make it a requirement that they review them before they take effect. You'd have to have some provision for striking down unconsitutional state laws as well, but retaining the notion of only having a limited time after passage in which to do so.

46 posted on 06/29/2003 6:51:11 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mrobison
The Left is all too effective at trivializing the Constitution, let's not give them any help.
47 posted on 06/29/2003 6:53:17 PM PDT by redbaiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackbill
And, meanwhile, the only way to stop the activist Supremes is to pass an amendment to the Constitution, in language that even they can't ignore.

Oh, I don't know. Look at the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law .... Sounds about as clear as you can get, but...
48 posted on 06/29/2003 6:53:19 PM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sofa King
I've got a better solution: just get rid of all government control over marriage. Marriage no longer has any meaning in our society other than for the people who view it as a religious institution, so I say de-legalize marriage and let the church handle it.

What about the children?

Sofa King may indeed be pointing the direction of the future, with the government not caring one bit that the kids were born out of wedlock, and continuing to vigorously enforce child support paid by men who mostly no longer live with their child's mother. Except for strong faith communities, the future for the nation's children seems to be one in which broken families are the norm. Sofa King, explain to me how this is NOT your plan.

49 posted on 06/29/2003 6:54:41 PM PDT by Steve Eisenberg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Life has gotten way too serious to put up with hysterical social conservative crap anymore.

Hey, then just ignore us. Spend all your times on the "War on Terror" threads. I don't recall anybody asking specifically for your opinion. As the libertarians say, if you don't like it, just turn the channel (or switch threads in this case).
50 posted on 06/29/2003 6:54:44 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-428 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