Frist endorses Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages

In response to the Supreme Court's ruling that the Texas law prohibiting homosexual relations violates privacy rights, Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) says that he supports a proposed Constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage.

"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."

Who exactly is doing the encroaching here?

Frist does not realize it, but such a Constitutional ban on gay marriages would take America further away from the principles of its founding. The securing of the natural rights of life, liberty, and property allow individuals to form voluntary associations without interference from others. Rather than letting individuals decide their own relations based on their own values, such a ban would use coercion to prevent voluntary, mutually agreed upon relationships. The issue is not privacy, but rather consent.

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."

Values and morality are a function of civil society, spread by persuasion and example, not by fiat. They are passed on from one person to the next through pacific influence, not by edict. The state's only role should be to allow individuals to make voluntary relations with each other, based on their own subjective ends. As such, marriage should not require a license, and should be completely external to the state. Rather than campaigning for state endorsement of gay marriages, homosexuals would be better off focusing their efforts on persuading employers to extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples.

Share this

I wonder if Frist would

I wonder if Frist would support a constitutional amendment that would ban pre-marital sex?

In a society where private companies are beginning to provide health benefits to same-sex partners, this amendment is a step in the wrong direction. Worst case scenario, let the individual states determine the criteria for marriage.