Posted on 04/30/2006 4:25:57 PM PDT by DBeers
WASHINGTON — Former Sen. John Danforth says a conservative push to ban gay marriage through a constitutional amendment is silly, calling it the latest example of how the political influence of evangelical Christians is hurting the GOP.
Danforth, a Missouri Republican and an Episcopal priest, made the comments in a speech Saturday night to the Log Cabin Republicans, which support gay rights. He said history has shown that attempts to regulate human behavior with constitutional amendments are misguided.
"Once before, the Constitution was amended to try to deal with matters of human behavior; that was prohibition. That was such a flop that that was repealed 13 years later," Danforth said.
Referring to the marriage amendment, he added that perhaps at some point in history there was a constitutional amendment proposed that was "sillier than this one, but I don't know of one."
The Senate is scheduled to vote in June on a constitutional amendment that its supporters hope will head off any decision in the federal courts that could legalize gay marriage. The measure would need to be approved by two-thirds of those voting in the House and Senate and then be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures.
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.
...and above all a fool who takes his values and opinions from a lost and dying world.
Is bigamy a threat to your marriage?
There is no threat to my marriage.
What a queer thing for Danforth to say. Homosexuals are anything but gay. Perhaps Danforth is a queer man.
<"What happens when the democrats...>
Sorry, but I do not go alogn with red herring arguments. I am one of those oft-maligned "conservative Christians" (seems to be the preferred term of others') who has a very simple and straightforward position of homosexuality; it is a sin, and it is wrong.
I am sorry that you feel that way, but my position on the matter is genuine and straight from the heart. I will not hate the homosexual man or women as a person, as it is not my place to judge the person himself. However, I can and will judge the act, based on what I have been taught and what I have learned. The act is wrong, and the sanction of homosexual marriage must be stopped.
I remembered when Mr. Danforth was Senator from MO. Thanks to him, we got the CDL program back in 1986 - Federal micromanagement truckers licensing and another item, he was a supporter of the hated 55 mph speed limit.
You like paying taxes and giving the Orwellian government all that information?
I do not. If it was the way I saw fit, there would be no income tax.
You were the one complaining about Orwellian government, but you are sure there to collect those goodies, aren't you?
“And oftentimes, to win us to our harm,
The instruments of darkness tell us truths
Win us with honest trifles, to betray's
In deepest consequence.”(Banquo, act 1, scene 3, William Shakespeare's Macbeth)
Excellent response. Thank you.
You are the one who believes you should report yourself not I.
Try and look at this outside of your marriage or your own personal views.
The state provides benefits to heterosexual couples because they are more likely to produce children. Even though you and your husband's marriage produced no children, your example (a normal marriage) benefits the state or society if you prefer, by encouraging children to marry as well. As such, your marriage will likely lead to others having children.
Examples and influencing children is important which is precisely why homosexuals are so desperate to enter schools and influence school children as early as possible.
The state or society derives no benefit from a homosexual "marriage" hence it is illogical to demand the state or society provide benefits to that "marriage".
Homosexuals can not have children and homosexual "marriages" will not encourage children to enter into marriages that are likely to lead to children.
It is also a civil contract, as Chief Justice Waite stated when he delivered the courts opionon in Reynolds v United States.
Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law.
The admendment is neccessary to prevent an activist judge from imposing a new civil contract on the federal government against the will of the people.
The problem is the "Full Faith and Credit" clause, which would require states that did not approve, or specifically banned gay marriage to accept it.
Mark
Uh.... that's nice. I guess. I'm not sure what goodies you refer to, but I'm not sure we live on the same planet in any case. ;)
Statutory license... a function of the legislative branch of government...
“…In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress.”
It is not a function of the court to legislate....
I repeat:
You want the tax deductions as a dependent spouse? Social Security survivor's benefits? Legal protection in divorce, spousal support and community property division? Alimony? Or, is it so that it looks more socially acceptable to sleep and cohabitate with each other?
So much for the intentions of getting married at all...
...function
Is smother'd in surmise, and nothing is
But what is not.
(Macbeth, act 1, scene 3)
Agreed, but this is the point. The SC of MA ignored state law and decreed (legislated) that homosexual “marriage” would be the law of that land. The proposed amendment would not prevent a state from recognizing homosexual “marriage”, or require they don't. Instead, it would define marriage as it concerns the federal government, and would prevent the adulteration of marriage laws in other states because of the decisions in one state.
Marriage is a civil contract, and the state or federal government should not be forced into this contract without its consent and deriving some benefit from it.
Then it is a hollow Amendment.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Instead, it would define marriage as it concerns the federal government,...
The Defense of Marriage Act already did this (and it was signed by the winner of the Stanley Cup in tonsil hockey).
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
...and would prevent the adulteration of marriage laws in other states because of the decisions in one state.
Other states do not have to recognize the M-assachusetts court, they are not Congress...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Marriage is a civil contract,...
No, it is a privileged practice and requires a statutory license. The U.S. Senate and the U.S. House can easily kill the whole thing by simply passing a statute for GWB to sign. No Amendment is necessary, however, it is desirable depending on the text of it.
It is only a hollow amendment if you fail to read or deal with the entire content of the amendment. It (the amendment) would legally define marriage for the federal government and protect marriage laws in every state, as each state desires marriage to be defined.
The Defense of Marriage act is a law. Laws can be ruled unconstitutional by courts and overturned. An amendment cannot be.
Your claim that other states would not have to recognize a MA sham marriage does not ring true either. The full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution would require the recognition and this point is being challenged in courts already. Interesting the MA SC not only ruled that homosexual "marriages" must be allowed in the state of MA, but they also ruled that these marriages would only be valid in the state of MA. Never before has a state court made such a ruling about marriage. I am not quite ready to let the 9th circuit court of appeals or some other loony judge a chance to speak on this issue nor I am naive enough to believe there are no activist judges just aching to "legalize" gay marriage through out the land.
The courts have already ruled marriage is both a civil and religious practice and I even quoted the majority opinion on one of the cases you referenced that shows the court acknowledges marriage is civil contract as well. The parties to this contract are one man, one woman, and the state. All parties derive benefits from the contract and all enter into the contract voluntarily. The purpose of a license is to protect the state from fraudulent marriages.
The House and Senate can pass a statue for the President to sign, having the force of law, and a judge can rule the statue unconstitutional. This is exactly what happened in MA. The law in this state specifically stated that a marriage consisted of one man and one woman. The MA constitution also stated all people in the state are equal. The court felt the marriage law was in violation of the constitution and struck down the marriage law.
An amendment preventing the legal definition of marriage in one state from being altered by the definition of marriage in another state is not only reasonable, it fast becoming necessary. It is important to note, where ever homosexual “marriage” has been allowed, even if shortly thereafter block by the courts, it has never been because of the will of the people. Instead, it was an individual or a small group of individuals acting against established law and the legal legislative process.
Article. IV.Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
I even quoted the majority opinion on one of the cases you referenced...
“In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress.”
The Massachusetts court is violating the U.S. Constitution and the Reynolds decision. If they had a governor with some filberts, and Congress would get up off their duffers, this would not be an issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.