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."

[Chancellor Palpatine]

...as history teaches barbarians defeat decadents in the long run as decadents weaken the civilisation which nourishes them...

And from which examples do you come up with THAT fascinating theory?

[Luis Gonzalez]

That law brought the case to trhe Court, and provided it with a reason to act.

Quit sticking your head in the sand and think clearly.

[A. Pole]

And from which examples do you come up with THAT fascinating theory?

For example ancient Rome - as the elites of Rome got decadent the Germanic tribes took over.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

For example ancient Rome - as the elites of Rome got decadent the Germanic tribes took over.

Rome's apex occurred during the time it was pagan. In the second decade of the 4th century, Rome became officially Christian, and legally oppressed pagans for the final 150 or so years of its history.

[Imagine]

If you guck a fay man (i.e. if you huck a FeShe,) you’re right – you’re a fomosexual. If you luck a fesbian, you’re once removed from the fomosexual act, so it doesn’t count against you. If on the other hand, you get fucky and luck simultaneously two febians you bound in the same fed, such fesbians being really bood looking gabes (not the really raunchy sisty ugley types,) then you’re just plain lecadent ducky. Check your state statutes on this.

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks for the pingaroonie !!!

Ban Perversion !!

MICHAEL STUPARYK/TORONTO STAR

Michael Stark, left, and Michael Lashner pop champagne
and kiss after their wedding ceremony yesterday.
Leshner called the ruling, "Day One for millions of gays
and lesbians around the world."

Gay couple married after ruling
(Toronto, Canada)

[PhiKapMom]

Disgusting! There are a lot of pings for you -- this turned into a hot issue last night! Came on thinking it was a slow news night and then this hit along with other articles!

[NittanyLion]

The other irony is that even among their own number, there are many who commit sodomistic acts in the marital bed.

I'm not certain everyone understands exactly what sodomy is. I suspect many think it's only an act gay people can commit.

[weegee]

They brought the case to court with several arguments (4 ways of arguing the case).

"Discrimination" was but one. Do you believe that the men would not have gone to court if the law had said "all couples"?

[SevenDaysInMay]

Anything short of requiring the rogue SCOTUS, now and forever, to "rule" within the actual meaning of the Constitutional limits of federal power, is aiding and abetting the destruction of our Constitution, the only source of lawful power of the feds.

SCOTUS has ruled unConstitutionally for 70 years, since the socialist FDR threatened that generation's SCOTUS with "packing" the court. The FDR didn't mean packigng, aka sodomizing, the court, now ruled legal in all 50 states. The "living" Constitution is by itself unConstitutional because our Constitution says what it means.

SCOTUS is breaching the very social contract from which they are granted power.

Their constitution is a collection of poorly worded, partial list of vague doctrines and suggestions for ruling We the Masses. Since the Depression, we have consented to subjugation by court orders and exective orders. Those sworn to protect and defend our Constitution are its most effective enemies.

Our Constitution IS the Law of the Land, not SCOTUS rulings. Our Constitution limits federal power of all three, no four branches, if you count the bastard child Regulation.

[solomangrundy]

An amendment to the Constitution is one of the more stupid ideas ever put forth. Not that such an amendment stands a rat's ass chance of ever passing congress, much less being ratified.

Tell me, if gay couples marriages are legally recognized, are you heterosexuals going to stop getting married because of it? Are you going to end your current marriages because of it? Does who else gets married really have that much effect on your life? Does the fact your neighbor down the street is or isn't married affect your household?

Also, tell me if your church is legally required to marry everyone who asks? If a heterosexual satanist couple comes to your church and asks to be married, is your church and pastor obligated to perform the ceremony? If not, why would you think you would be so obligated for a gay couple? There has been NOTHING said about obligating any church or religion to perform or recognize anything they don't like or believe, just as they currently do.

If you want to get bent out of shape over exaggerations and non-existent boogeymen, that's your choice. I prefer to live in the real world and find it inappropriate for our elected officials to continue spending valuable time on trivialities when there are so many important issues which actually DOES EFFECT EVERYONE'S LIVES to work on.

[dmz]

uhh, your amendment as written has enough holes to drive trucks through.

Transgendered people could marry under your law. At least after the operation.

Try again.

[Lucky2]

I just wrote Senator Frist an e-mail supporting him. We need to support all of those in government with common sense and fortitude. Gay marriage is just plain wrong and it goes against nature in every sense.

[Theodore R.]

He also knows that a constitutional amendment is unlikely to pass on ANY issue at all. The American people are too liberal to accept amendments from conservatives.

[Da Mav]

lol on the memo

but the RR remains a key constituency in the party and without them in the coalition we are demonstrably weaker. There needs to be a continuing compromise on both sides until the next election because it will be so key in terms of future court composition.

And a pox on any who would rip it apart and give the power to appoint 3-4 justices to the liberals.

[aristeides]

The point of a constitutional amendment would be that it would be a rebuke instructing the Supreme Court to interpret Lawrence narrowly. We know from Limon that the Supreme Court presently has no such intention. We know from the size of the majorities that passed the Defense of Marriage Act that gay marriage is one issue on which a constitutional amendment would have a reasonable chance of passing.

So it's not just about gay marriage. (Gay marriage isn't even an issue that I feel particularly strongly about. But I do feel strongly about the Supreme Court instructing states to treat homosexual child molesters leniently.)

[solomangrundy]

I have read the SCOTUS ruling in its entirety and I cannot find anything in there about treating homosexual child molesters leniently. Do you always exaggerate or fabricate your arguments?

Now, if you're referring to the Kansas ruling concerning the teenagers, are you suggesting that heterosexual child molesters be treated more lenient than homosexual ones? The Kansas ruling simply made the sentence EQUAL to that of a heterosexual convicted of the same crime. Surely, you're not advocating heterosexual child molestation be treated leniently?

[mrobison]

Excellent link:

http://www.defendmarriage.org

Will someone ping everybody who might be interested? I don't know how! Thanks.

[Uncle Miltie]

"Frist Wants Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage"

The Supremes will shortly thereafter declare Gay Marriage the law of the land. Amendments don't constrain the RULERS...

[mrobison]

Another excellent link:

http://www.allianceformarriage.org/reports/fma/fma.htm