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."

[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.

[Antoninus]

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.

[Antoninus]

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.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

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.

[Antoninus]

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....

[Antoninus]

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?

[HairOfTheDog]

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

[Antoninus]

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.

[fiftymegaton]

YES!!

[Antoninus]

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.

[AmericaUnited]

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.

[Antoninus]

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."

[Brilliant]

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.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

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.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

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.

[El Gato]

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.

[jackbill]

Let's get it on.

[HairOfTheDog]

You won't be missed.

Awww.... I'm hurt.

[mrobison]

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.

[jackbill]

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.