Frist Wants Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

Yahoo! ^ | June 29, 2003

[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."

[mrobison]

Where's the petition I can sign?

[conservativefromGa]

wow a republican with balls never seen that before

[rintense]

This is going to be one ugly summer.

[Semper Paratus]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Past Democrat]

Now that's the kinda republician I switched parties for!

[BenLurkin]

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.

[nwrep]

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

[Flyer]

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

[Vermont Lt]

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.

[AmericaUnited]

Agreed! The gay vote is like 1% and 95% of it goes to the demonrats anyway.

[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.

[AntiGuv]

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.

[EGPWS]

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!

[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.

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.

[Gigantor]

"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.

[DPB101]

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.

[mrobison]

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?

[Antoninus]

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

Federal Marriage Amendment, NOW!