Danforth: Ban on gay marriage a silly idea

Houston Chronicle ^ | April 30, 2006 | Associated Press

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

But Danforth said he is opposed. "The basic concept of the Republican Party is to interpret the Constitution narrowly, not expansively, so that legislatures, and especially state legislatures, can work out over a period of time the social issues in our country," he said.

How does a Constitutional Amendment interpret the Constitution expansively and not narrowly? And how does it not ‘especially allow’ state legislatures to work things out with debate, deliberation and a vote?

This guy is worse than Terd Kennedy... with Republicans like this, who needs Democraps?

Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right. The Supreme Court has already interpreted that marriage can be regulated by statute:

“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices...”

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).

See also: Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).

The Senate has almost gotten to the point where it matters little which party controls it.

[longtermmemmory]

I think the main problem is this BS country club mentality.

It is not the senators, but the inside paper pushers and bureacrats who are employed as staffers by the senate revolving door.

The country club mentality must end. It is the country club which caused trent lott to be such a weakling.

[lonestar67]

Good call,

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Maybe a constitutional amendment is in order to combat those sins also.

The United States Supreme Court has already decided the matter of marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right:

“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices...”

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).

See also:

Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).

Uneducated, glib commentary is a poor substitute for original thought...

Marriage is a privileged practice that requires a statutory license.

Are you just one of those pathetic anti-Christian trolls?

(p.s. I am an atheist)

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Your right, lets give the feds the right to legislate away all "Stains" and abominations to society. Government knows best right?

No, Mother Nature always wins. It's not nice to mess with Mother Nature...

Marriage is not a civil right, it is a religious rite...

[California Patriot]

Danforth is simply a voice of the Establishment, a tame, Beltway-approved pseudo-Republican. Pay him no mind.

[Holden Magroin]

Danforth didn't seem to mind when evangelical Christians put him in office.

[MCH]

Episcopal priest, says it all.

Sure does.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Whether the federal government has the "right" to determine who it enters into contracts with is what is being discussed.

I am not sure who you think should have the power to set federal law. If not the federal government, then who?

The core issue is that marriage requires a license. It is a privileged practice that requires statutory license...

Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right. The Supreme Court has already interpreted that marriage can be regulated by statute:

“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices...”

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).

See also:

Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).

The federal government does have the right to regulate the privileged practice of marriage... and it would only require a statute... but an Amendment would make it unassailable...

[gidget7]

"Same sex "marriage" adds nothing to what practicing homosexuals can already do. No one prohibits anyone from living together in a relationship with whomever they want. This well-orchestrated campaign to redefine the word "marriage" to be something it has never been in any country or any culture until now has nothing to do with adding rights to homosexuals, but instead is all about giving government support and promotion to homosexual activity. People in a free country have a right to have different views on the morality of homosexual activity. The government has no business promoting it through civil same sex "marriage" or pro-homosexual indoctrination in public schools. And believe me, the anti-traditional religious believers in the Left in this country would be more than happy to toss out First Amendment freedoms of those who morally object to homosexual activity or same sex "marriage" and impose criminal "hate" speech laws that are already on the books in Canada and many countries of Europe."


Amen Unam! Bears repeating, THAT is why an amendment is needed! As someone else said, to bar Judges from forcing it on people, and thus all the propaganda and loss of free speech.

[little jeremiah]

Look, DB! Isn't it cute - one of those people who trot out the Leviticus clothing and food rules trying to equate them to sexual morality!

Joanie, you need to recite the rest of the stuff you read on one of those websites! You left out quite a few rules.

[ElPatriota]

Oh my... I always felt a little phony... ;)

[spikeytx86]

As long as the states truly are left with discretion then I am a lot more comfortable with it. Call me old fashioned but when it comes to the constitution amending it should be a completely last resort. If the states remain discretion over marriage, I could live with it. However we should move cautiously and prudently in amending the constitution and preferably only if the SCOTUS is thinking about declaring new fiats from the bench I.E. same sex marriage like the SC of Mass. did.

[linda_22003]

"This "protect marriage" movement isn't protecting anything. I can tell you that my marriage isn't threatened at all by what two people of the same sex do or don't do."

Thank you! I can understand why people would be against gay marriage, but I simply don't understand how it would undermine my marriage at all.

[spikeytx86]

I'm not defending same sex marriage. I am defending states rights and limited government. I don't like it when the government grants itself new powers or rewrites the constitution at the drop of a hat. I also would oppose the feds I.E. SCOTUS declaring a new fiat that there is a new "right" to gay marriage, in which if this were the case I would whole heartedly back a ban then, as it would be the only available measure to restrain the federal government.

If Mass. , Vermont, Hawaii etc. want gay marriage what ever, thats between them, god, and there voters. However the majority of America that is not a liberal wasteland will ban it like a lot of states already have.

If you are looking at it from a Religious point of view, I believe god knows about states rights and if he is peed off about it, he would lash out at the states that allow it and not the ones that respected traditional and religious values.

[linda_22003]

"Since homosexuals cannot produce children, it is wrong for the state to engage in this contract. The state derives no benefit from homosexual marriage."

My husband and I got married twenty years ago with no intention of producing children, and we never did. Should we have reported that to The State, so The State could have decided whether we were allowed to marry or not? What Orwellian world does this come from?

[Tribune7]

He said history has shown that attempts to regulate human behavior with constitutional amendments are misguided.

Well, yeah, he's right, but that's not what the debate is about.

It's not attempt to ban sodomy via an amendment, it's the fear some judge is going to make a ruling based on fashion according to the New York Times rather than our laws and the Constitution..

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

If Mass. , Vermont, Hawaii etc. want gay marriage what ever, thats between them, god, and there voters.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that marriage is a privileged religious practice, not a civil right or a states' right... (see my previous post)

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory (that means legislative) regulation of marriage practices.

All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment “equal protection” argument about “privileges and immunities” for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right.

Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function and desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish. Why not properly apply the adjudicated Reynolds 'separation of church and state' here?

In addition, Roe v. Wade says that society may not interfere in private reproductive choices. The homosexuals made their choice, now they want society to intervene? Illogical.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

If you are looking at it from a Religious point of view,...

I am not... I'm an atheist...

I am looking at it from a secular point of view - - logic, law, and human biology. There is no right to get married period...

[spikeytx86]

Thats true, marriage is a privilege from a legal point of view, like a drivers license.

[OldFriend]

Whitless has raised millions of dollars with the stated purpose of electing moderate Republicans to replace Christian Conservatives.