Bill Frist endorses constitutional amendment banning gay marriages

The Supreme Court’s ruling striking down a law criminalizing gay sex seems like a no-brainer to most of us. Texas, among 12 other states, had made it a crime for gay couples to have sex. The high court struck down the law, concluding that it violated citizens’ right to privacy.

For most of us, why anyone would support such a law seems bizarre, yet some of the same people who fear big government nevertheless are anxious for the state to regulate and criminalize private intimate behavior among consenting adults. It’s one of those things I’ll never really understand.

Regardless, the reaction from the right has been overwhelming. My personal favorite was seeing religious right lunatic Lou Sheldon, head of a group called the Traditional Values Coalition, who compared the court’s ruling to terrorist attacks.

“This [ruling] is a major wake-up call,” Sheldon said. “This is a 9/11, major wake-up call that the enemy is at our doorsteps.”

You’d hate to think that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) would play along with such idiocy, but there he was on ABC’s “This Week” yesterday, endorsing a constitutional amendment to ban gay 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 said. “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 a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Frist said, “I absolutely do, of course I do.”

It’s hard to know where to start with these remarkable comments. First, Frist describes a “zone of privacy” as something “we all want protected in our own homes.” So far, so good. Yet, Frist goes to make some twisted slippery-slope argument that allowing Americans a right to privacy in their own homes will somehow “condone” illegal behavior such as “prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity.” (Shades of Santorum all over again.)

Does Frist really believe that consensual sex among two adults is in anyway analogous to drug trafficking? That privacy rights that allow all people, regardless of sexual orientation, to have intimate relations is comparable to “illegal commercial drug activity”? Either Frist doesn’t actually believe this and he’s just saying this to score points with the religious right, or he really is this much of a right-wing reactionary. Either way, Frist is left looking fairly ridiculous.

Second, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? The Supreme Court ruling didn’t even address gay marriage, it dealt only with a state law criminalizing gay sex. The Supreme Court didn’t say gay people should be legally able to get married, it merely said their right to privacy protected their ability to be intimate without facing criminal prosecution. As such, for the Senate Majority Leader to endorse a change to the Constitution is a radical overreaction.

Lastly, Frist actually tried to defend Texas’ right to regulate sexual behavior.

“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.”

I wonder when Frist will get asked whether he’d support the same principle when it comes to gay marriages. After all, if he thinks state legislatures should address “matters such as sodomy,” why shouldn’t these same legislatures address questions about gay marriage? If local areas have their own values, wouldn’t Frist logically support the right of some states to condone same-sex marriages?

Nevertheless, if Frist is truly bent on changing the Constitution over this, there’s already a proposed amendment pending in Congress. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) is sponsoring a constitutional amendment, H. J. RES. 56, that would write into constitutional stone a requirement that marriage “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.” After getting introduced on May 21, Musgrave’s amendment, which she calls the “Federal Marriage Amendment,” has already picked up 25 co-sponsors.