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."
Well said.
Some of their standards were a lot more humane than ours.
They would be scandilized at our society in general, not just the gay thing.
And much of what they would consider scandalous is degraded and miserable.
Society moves forward, and there's plenty of proof of that available.
Just because it changes doesn't mean it's moving forward. Things change for the worse too, and that is what has happened for some generations. Time to change for the better before it's any later.
Where's slavery?
In the Sudan.
Where's Jim Crow?
Gone in the US.
Where are the hippies?
On the Big Island in Hawaii.
Everything changes.
People make things change, or stop them from changing. It's not an impersonal force than one must submit to.
Yes, a Constitutional amendment is needed here, but no, SCOTUS did not overstep their mandate. Their mandate is to judge the constitutionality of laws based upon the text of the Constitution. I've seen many great arguments on FR in the last couple of days saying why homosexuality is wrong. However, none of these great arguments are ones that SCOTUS can apply. As I said, their rulings must spring from the text of the Constitution. None of the arguments presented against legalizing gay sex are based on the Constitution. In order for SCOTUS to rule in any other way, the Constitutional text must say that gay sex is not protected or that no right to privacy exists.
Some people here have opined that all we need are "a few, good, conservative justices to vote the right way". Be careful what you wish for; you might get it. Alan Dershowitz gave his fellow gun-hating, liberal friends the same warning about the 2nd Amendment...
"Foolish liberals... are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard. They don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."Conservatives ought to show equal concern at conservative justices playing fast and loose with the Constitution. What we allow today, liberals will allow in the future. And as surely as night follows day, there will come again a Court with a liberal majority. We should be careful what rules we establish for their behavior."The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason," 62 TENN. L. REV. 759, 789 (1995).
The RR is not 90% of the base. Where do you guys get these stats from?
I can't deny that the majority of the newly 'freed' gays will be pushing for marriage and benefits.
I'd prefer that they just call their ... arrangements... something else. Not marriage.
By the same token, do you REALLY want the Federal Government to start defining and regulating marriage?
I think the idea we have to get a LICENSE to marry is absurd to begin with. License implies PERMISSION.
And I'm certainly against forcing businesses to recognize their 'arrangements' as requiring benefits.
Perhaps what really should be done is to pass a few affirmative laws. Clearly supporting the right of business to assign benefits to whom they choose.
Spoken like a true collectivist.
Yeah, I don't get it either.
Like the law was the only thing stopping these people from running out and buggering gay men.
We agree that it would be 'ideal' if they'd simply choose to call their arrangements "Domestic union" or something else.
Not likely, I'm afraid. And you ain't seen screaming here yet....
Delusional. It's the main issue that drives the Demonkratik party. Notice they don't fight too much on economic grounds? Most of their fight is scaring people about what the evil Republicans will do to them.
The libertarians may just as well vote Green - mainstream GOPers such as me could not care less. Bringing this issue into sharp focus will help, not hurt, the GOP.
It's not about the LP. It's about pulling mass numbers of swing voters permanently away from the Demons.
There are far more Demodogs (like my sister) who care deeply about social issues and nevertheless vote for the antisocial Dems than there are libertarians such as yourself.
Thanks for making my point directly for me. If the GOP didn't oppose social freedom, then your sister would HAVE NO REASON to vote AGAINST Them.
Is she a socialist? Does she like high taxes?
I bet not.
FYI Sodomy is oral or anal sex.
And the stats are probably off in my favor. I can't imagine every woman who has had anal sex would admit it.
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.