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."
Took a wild guess.
Life has gotten way too serious to put up with hysterical social conservative crap anymore.
What an utterly simple-minded, clueless dimwit! Our response and reactions to these events as a nation is determined by who we are as a people. That is shaped and determined to a large extent by the kind of family we were raised in.
Just as an example, compare Bill Clinton's responses or lack of them to George W. Bush's. One was raised in a totally screwed up family, the other was raised in a decent, normal family.
The court ruled all states' sodomy laws unconstitutional, not just those that "discriminated" against homosexual. Quit beating that drum.
The court overturned their previous decision and said that privacy precludes the law from arresting someone for this act (2 members of the same sex or a member of each sex).
This also puts other privacy issues (drugs, prostitution, consensual incest,...) at risk of constitutional challenge too.
Those are economic issues.
You, friend, are he who is delusional. I will say it one more time: the most telling barometer here will be the silence of the politicians in opposition to this Amendment.
Nope. Don't misunderstand me. I don't want the gays calling their arrangements marriage. I don't think it's right. It's like calling red blue.
BUT I am very very clear on what happens when you give the Federal Government power to do anything.
Do you want the Federal Government to REGULATE marriage? Because that's what will come of this.
DNA tests?
Blood work, Citizen?
Own any banned firearms, Citizen?
Ooops.. I see you were caught in a protest rally against Hillary, no license for you, Citizen.
Be careful what you wish for.
You are to right, they gave one to PIGS here in FL.
You must not have gotten the memo, LOL. According to the latest claims, the religious right makes up 487% of the GOP, and puts up all the money and organizational experience, too. The existence of socially moderate GOP members is the figment of some liberal media members' imagination.
I agree that society hinges on the integrity of the family, but I wonder whether a Constitutional amendment will impact said integrity either way? Setting aside the fact that I don't think the state need sanction marriage at all (should be a function of the church), one cannot legislate morality and personal responsibility.
If your goal is to increase the level of personal responsibility within our society, I submit a more effective way to do so is to remove those mechanisms that allow IRresponsibility. Namely, the socialist programs that redistribute money and generally remove the consequences of one's actions. That's why I've repeatedly made the point on this thread that I see prescription drug coverage as far more important an issue than this proposed amendment.
The other irony is that even among their own number, there are many who commit sodomistic acts in the marital bed.
It should exclude defined incest. (brother and sister etc ...)
Militant sexual decadents give anti-American arguments to the Islamists.
Ah. So Islamist standards are something to emulate?
Are you saying that our only choice is between complete sexual licence and Islamism or between decadence and barbarism? (BTW, as history teaches barbarians defeat decadents in the long run as decadents weaken the civilisation which nourishes them)
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.