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 That was such a flop that that was repealed 13 years later," Danforth said.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.
Ok, I see where you're coming from, but I believe that we're already at the breaking point, as another reply pointed out in the "Full Faith and Credit" clause. I am not enough of a Constitutional scholar to make a call on whether or not that would prevail over the Defense of Marriage Act, but it is worrisome that it is even a possibility.
And you also agree with the indoctrination of children in public schools as the teachers in Massachusetts are doing now that "gay" marriage is legal in that state?
This was never an issue until the radical gays made it their agenda.
Call it the state or society if you desire. The point remains the same, the only reason the state or society recognizes marriages of any kind and provides benefits to it is because it (society) gets something in return.
But they won't get off their duffers and will not enforce the law of the land and will not impeach judges who over-reach their lawful duties.
Should this be an issue? No.
Do I trust Congress and judges to enforce the law and uphold the constitution? No.
Is an amendment to the US Constitution necessary to control an out of control judicial branch and a spineless congress? I believe yes.
Read up on how an amendment is passed and becomes part of the US Constitution. It can hardly be described as "the Federal Government acting like a Divine King legislating what it feels is best."
An amendment to the US Constitution is impossible without the over-whelming support of the states, no Federal fiat, no Divine King. Nice hyperbole, but completely inaccurate.
I think such an Amendment should also include civil unions, domestic partners, etc., etc.,... or anything remotely resembling monogamous heterosexual marriages the left can fish out of the sewer.
It is rumored Rev. Al Sharpton will wed 1000 homosexuals at the next DNC national convention and 500 portable public toilets are reserved for honeymoon suites...
No, not at all... read the whole thing below... notice the bold type...
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.
It is strictly in the statutory domain of Congress...
Read my posts on Reynolds v. United States.
That was my point... That there has to be a federal decision here, either through a law, or a constitutional amendment, otherwise states would be bound to honor the marriages.
Mark
Aside from the fact the federal government cannot pass amendments without the state, this proposed amendment is not about morality, it is about stopping the unelected courts from enforcing their percieved morality on the people of the state.
If the citizens of state X want to have homosexual marriages, this amendment would not stop them. But if judge y decides that homosexual marriage should be the law of the land regardless of the desires of the people, this amendment would stop him. Likewise, if the people in state x make homosexual marriage the law of thier state, this amendment would prevent an overzelous religious radical judge from overturning the will of the people in state x because of his percieved morality.
The amendment would protect the will of the people and the right of the state.
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.