Connect with us
Shortly after the Supreme Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) publicly stated his support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as "being between a man and a woman." Will other Senators join him?

archive

Page 3: Senators Hesitant to Back Frist on Marriage Amendment

Shortly after the Supreme Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) publicly stated his support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as “being between a man and a woman.” Will other Senators join him?

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” three days after the Supreme Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-Tenn.) said he supported a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage.

Many members of Congress, Stephanopoulos said to Frist, “are now drafting a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman. . . . It says that 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 nor state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. Do you support this amendment?”

“I absolutely do, of course, I do,” said Frist. “I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament and that should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between what has traditionally in our Western values been defined as between a man and a woman. So I would support that amendment.”

At a July 2 event announcing the appointment of Randall Tobias to head his new $15 billion initiative to fight AIDS in Africa, President Bush declined to immediately join Frist in this cause. “I don’t know if it is necessary yet,” said Bush. “Let’s let the lawyers look at the full ramifications of the recent Supreme Court hearing. What I do support is the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman.”

HUMAN EVENTS Assistant Editor David Freddoso last week queried a number of Senators, and Rep. Mark Foley (R.-Fla.), a Senate candidate, about whether they agree with Frist about an amendment to ban gay marriage.

—————-

Sen. Frist went on TV last week to back a constitutional amendment that would basically forbid homosexual marriage. Will you vote for such an amendment if it is comes before the Senate?

Sen. Wayne Allard (R.-Colo.): I haven’t had the chance to look at the wording or anything like that. I’m not sure they’ve got the wording together. You know, I’m not one that’s supportive of-I’m one that wants to encourage marriage, traditional marriage. But I just have to take a look at the language.

—————-

Sen. Frist went on television and said he would be in favor of a constitutional amendment that would essentially forbid homosexual marriage. Would you support such a constitutional amendment in the Senate?

Sen. Max Baucus (D.-Mont.): Well, no, I want to see the language. I want to see whether it comes to a ripe issue, whether it’s live, it depends on the language. I just want to see.. . .

In principle-

Baucus: In principle, I’d be skeptical.

For procedural reasons, mostly, or would you argue it’s a state issue?

Baucus: Partly it’s procedural, partly it’s a state issue, primarily-it is a state issue. It sounds like something I would not-it would have to be a steep uphill climb for me to support it.

If states start recognizing homosexual marriage, would that be good policy, or do you think it would be harmful-not necessarily from your legislative position, but your personal view?

Baucus: As is the case today, that’s up to the states.

—————-

Sen. Frist has publicly backed a constitutional amendment that essentially forbids homosexual marriage. Would you vote for such an amendment if it is offered?

Sen. Conrad Burns (R.-Mont.): I’d have to take a look at it, I don’t know.

In principle, would you-

Burns: Well, in principle, I don’t think anybody ought to participate that way, in principle. But can you pass a law to prevent it? Can we legislate morals? No. We never have been able to.

Some people would argue that the state recognizes marriages, and so it isn’t so much a matter of outlawing something as it is-

Burns: They’re not recognized in Montana.

You would prefer a state-by-state-

Burns: I don’t care what the other states do.

—————-

I’m asking every senator I see today-and you’re a Senate hopeful, so I want to ask you-Senator Frist has publicly backed a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage. Will you vote for such an amendment if you become a U.S. senator?

Rep. Mark Foley (R.-Fla.): I don’t think we need it. I mean, I’m looking at it, and I understand that he made the statement on ABC this morning. I voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in the House, and I think that was appropriate and obviously the right vote. But I don’t think it needs to be added to the Constitution.

If you saw homosexual marriage as being a realistic possibility-if the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalizes homosexual marriage, and then the Defense of Marriage Act is found unconstitutional-would you feel compelled in that case to support the amendment?

Foley: I’d have to really look at it. It’s much, much too early to determine that. The court hasn’t ruled yet. We wait until all these court rulings to become effective before we determine what’s the best course of public policy.

—————-

Sen. Frist said last week that he supports a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage. Would you vote for such an amendment if it is offered?

Sen. James Inhofe (R.-Okla.): Oh, yes.

Some other senators are saying this is just a state issue. What would you say to that?

Inhofe: Well, I don’t like constitutional amendments as a general rule. But I think if this [homosexual marriage] came up, I would be supportive of the amendment.

—————-

Sen. Frist said he supports a constitutional amendment that essentially forbids homosexual marriage. Would you vote for such an amendment if it is offered?

Sen. Jim Jeffords (I.-Vt.): Absolutely not.

—————-

Sen. Frist, on TV last week, said he would support a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage. Would you support such an amendment if it were offered in the Senate?

Sen. Tim Johnson (D.-S.D.): No, there’s no need for such an amendment. It’s just nonsense.

Do you think that because it’s not likely to happen? Or, if it became imminent that it was going to happen, would you think that would then be appropriate, that kind of amendment?

Johnson: It’s not imminent, and this is a state-by-state decision about government laws on marriage and civil unions.

—————-

Sen. Frist has backed a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage. Do you agree with him, and will you vote for that amendment if it is offered?

Sen. Mark Pryor (D.-Ark.): I’ll have to look at it. I’m generally reluctant to support constitutional amendments. And that is traditionally a state issue. Do you know anything about it?

It says something like, nothing in this constitution, or in any state constitution, or any federal or state law shall be construed to extend the benefits of marriage to any union other than that of a man and a woman.

Pryor: Well, I’ll just have to look at it.

—————-

Sen. Frist said he supports a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Will you vote for such amendment if it comes before the Senate?

Sen. Pat Roberts (R.-Kan.): I haven’t done my homework on that to determine whether I would or not, but I voted here several years ago not to permit that, and that is my position. I have always been a bit leery of constitutional amendments. I don’t know if that’s the only solution to this. That would be my only hesitation. . .What was that, two years ago [the Defense of Marriage Act]-when we had the vote in the Senate, and it passed overwhelmingly. That was when Hawaii was going to take state action. So to answer that, we passed legislation to say that a state did not have to recognize that. Since then, there haven’t been many states, but then there’s-what is it, Massachusetts?

Right, Massachusetts.

Roberts: Well, it would be Massachusetts. And how that relates to Pennsylvania puts an entirely different light on that. But whether a constitutional amendment is the proper course of action, I don’t know, I haven’t done my homework to that extent to do that. But when I voted last time, it reflected my opposition to same-sex marriage.

Newsletter Signup.

Sign up to the Human Events newsletter

Written By

Mr. Freddoso is the senior political reporter for the Evans-Novak Political Report.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Advertisement
Advertisement

TRENDING NOW:

Piers Morgan and Ilhan Omar Piers Morgan and Ilhan Omar

What’s The Difference Between Ilhan Omar and Piers Morgan?

U.S. POLITICS

Alexander Solzhenitsyn Alexander Solzhenitsyn

That Time The Media Told Solzhenitsyn To Love It Or Leave It.

U.S. POLITICS

CNN Platforms white nationalist Richard Spencer CNN Platforms white nationalist Richard Spencer

CNN Platforms Richard Spencer.

U.S. POLITICS

Planned Parenthood’s Leana Wen Wasn’t Woke Enough And Nor Are You.

CULTURE

Connect
Newsletter Signup.

Sign up to the Human Events newsletter