http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... marriage_5
Frist Endorses Idea of Gay Marriage Ban
Mon Jun 30,12:33 AM ET
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 , 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."
Bill "Kitty Killer" Frist Backs Gay Marriage Ban
-
mikenycLI
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 2:02 pm
- Location: New York City Metropolitan Area, United States
You can say you "want" something all you want, but proof is in delivering it. This here, is just a political ploy, to get attention and votes, blurring the lines between traditional, Republican, conservative principles and good sound bites for the news channels.
In this instance, they say they are for something, but it's up to the states. For civil rights issues, they used to call it "states rights", but discontinued using this moniker, because of it's racist overtones...but essentially it's the same thing, less negative name. Short term memory loss is a given in the slogan-slinging game.
It's sad that something genuine can't be discussed as a campaign issue, when all politicians really want to do is distract voters with non- bread and butter issues like this, but it's the name of the game...Politics by Sound Good Bites, and be safe by not discussing anything substantial !
Hang in there this is only the beginning !
In this instance, they say they are for something, but it's up to the states. For civil rights issues, they used to call it "states rights", but discontinued using this moniker, because of it's racist overtones...but essentially it's the same thing, less negative name. Short term memory loss is a given in the slogan-slinging game.
It's sad that something genuine can't be discussed as a campaign issue, when all politicians really want to do is distract voters with non- bread and butter issues like this, but it's the name of the game...Politics by Sound Good Bites, and be safe by not discussing anything substantial !
Hang in there this is only the beginning !
Oh boy! This whole gay thing is gonna be a big one!
Personally, I don't care what two people of the age of consent do with each other as long as it's consentual. But, I have a hard time trying to see gay/lesbian marriages. If I have a kid, I really don't want him/her to know about or see it. If that is bigoted, sorry. I'm still having trouble seeing two people of the same sex holding hands. I know many gays and lesbians, and I treat them like anybody else. But this...
Personally, I don't care what two people of the age of consent do with each other as long as it's consentual. But, I have a hard time trying to see gay/lesbian marriages. If I have a kid, I really don't want him/her to know about or see it. If that is bigoted, sorry. I'm still having trouble seeing two people of the same sex holding hands. I know many gays and lesbians, and I treat them like anybody else. But this...
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
Lots of people have those problems, Grant. (Lots of people had/have those same kind of problems with interracial marriage, too.) There's so much disgust built up in people by "morality," religious teachings, and good old wariness of something different that it'll take a few generations to weed it out, if it starts now.
But to me it's just a fairness issue. If straight couples can get the legal protections of marriage (with regard to inheritances, property, and so forth), as well as the tax benefits and spousal insurance coverage, I don't see why gay couples shouldn't, too. For someone like Frist to babble about "sacraments" is just insulting. Last I checked, the government wasn't supposed to decide what was sacred and what wasn't. (And believe me, I know more than a few straight marriages that are far less "sacred" than most of the committed gay relationships I've seen.) It's equal protection under the law that's at issue.
But at least it's now no longer *illegal* to be gay in 12 states. One step at a time, I suppose. But I have to wonder how many productive, taxpaying, valuable citizens will go to Canada just so they can be treated like human beings.
Ryan
But to me it's just a fairness issue. If straight couples can get the legal protections of marriage (with regard to inheritances, property, and so forth), as well as the tax benefits and spousal insurance coverage, I don't see why gay couples shouldn't, too. For someone like Frist to babble about "sacraments" is just insulting. Last I checked, the government wasn't supposed to decide what was sacred and what wasn't. (And believe me, I know more than a few straight marriages that are far less "sacred" than most of the committed gay relationships I've seen.) It's equal protection under the law that's at issue.
But at least it's now no longer *illegal* to be gay in 12 states. One step at a time, I suppose. But I have to wonder how many productive, taxpaying, valuable citizens will go to Canada just so they can be treated like human beings.
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
mikenycLI
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Mon May 26, 2003 2:02 pm
- Location: New York City Metropolitan Area, United States
Bush, weighing in....
Bush: Too Soon for Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
Reuters
Wednesday, July 2, 2003; 1:14 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Wednesday declined to endorse the idea of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriages, saying he did not know if one was necessary yet.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican and a close Bush ally in Congress, said on Sunday he "absolutely" supported a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman. He spoke after the Supreme Court struck down state sodomy laws.
"I don't know if it's necessary yet," Bush told reporters at the White House. "Let's let the lawyers look at the full ramifications of the recent Supreme Court hearing."
He added: "What I do support is a notion that marriage is between a man and a woman."
U.S. law defines marriage for federal purposes as between one woman and one man. Gay marriages are forbidden in the United States but Vermont allows civil unions.
Debate over the issue has intensified since Canada announced earlier this month it would legalize gay marriages. The U.S. high court last week struck down state sodomy laws, a decision that conservative critics say could open the door to same-sex marriages in the United States.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 3Jul2.html
Bush: Too Soon for Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
Reuters
Wednesday, July 2, 2003; 1:14 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Wednesday declined to endorse the idea of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriages, saying he did not know if one was necessary yet.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican and a close Bush ally in Congress, said on Sunday he "absolutely" supported a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman. He spoke after the Supreme Court struck down state sodomy laws.
"I don't know if it's necessary yet," Bush told reporters at the White House. "Let's let the lawyers look at the full ramifications of the recent Supreme Court hearing."
He added: "What I do support is a notion that marriage is between a man and a woman."
U.S. law defines marriage for federal purposes as between one woman and one man. Gay marriages are forbidden in the United States but Vermont allows civil unions.
Debate over the issue has intensified since Canada announced earlier this month it would legalize gay marriages. The U.S. high court last week struck down state sodomy laws, a decision that conservative critics say could open the door to same-sex marriages in the United States.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 3Jul2.html