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 That was such a flop that that was repealed 13 years later," Danforth said.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.
I have to agree here, this is a state issue and should not be molested by the federal government.
I also agree that it's dangerous to tamper with the constitution over an issue like this. 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. Those who see this as a constitutional issue need to get a life.
I can tell you what it does do and that is that rather than vote entirely GOP as I used to do, I now pick and choose and think long and hard before voting for anyone who considers this a federal issue.
I take it that those who eat pork will be included in God's wrath as will those who wear cloth made of multiple thread.
Maybe a constitutional amendment is in order to combat those sins also.
I don't know what rock he just crawled out from under but the whole reason this amendment is necessary is for the judges, not the people. In fact the amendment does precisely what Danforth says he favors: It returns the issue to state legislatures. If we are going to allow some states to redefine marriage and other states to not redefine it (an impossiblilty I think), then we are going to have to call these things by different names. That's why marriage is the word for the definition held throughout history, and "civil union" is the term for the new progressive definition. If states want that, then let their legislators who must be reelected by the people vote for it. Ultimately, the way our Constitution reads, there is no real way to allow one state to have it without forcing another state to recognize it. The DOMA supposedly protects other states. But it does nothing to protect us from the judges, who will overturn DOMA first chance they get.
BTW, did you know that Catherine Crier, former Fox News Channel host, has attacked the "religious right" as well? In her latest book -- which I picked up in a bookstore months ago, flipped through and put back down -- she imagines herself the inevitable target of a vicious smear campaign because of her rabid criticism of conservative Christians. Turns out she didn't have a thing to worry her pretty little head over; both left and right yawned, and ignored her completely.
Wonder if he thinks laws against having sex with animals are silly.
That is why a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages is being discussed in the first place.
Is that really the reason or is it that some feel threatened by something they don't understand. No gay couple has ever been, isn't now and will never be a threat to my marriage. Those who feel threatened need to get a life.
"I take it that those who eat pork will be included in God's wrath as will those who wear cloth made of multiple thread.
Maybe a constitutional amendment is in order to combat those sins also."
What was the consequence for eating pork when the Heavenly Father said He did not make it fit to be consumed?
Mocking the Heavenly Father is Written to be a far greater sin than wearing mixed threads.
We have more rules on what constitutes a new mattress than we have have on what constitutes one's gayness; I think we need to suspend the process until we have a definition.
Is bigamy a threat to your marriage?
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
Homosexuality is an aberrant stain upon society that must be addressed NOW. I am sympathetic towards states' rights, but sometimes such rights have to be set aside for the needs of the greater good. Just like certain liberties need to be curtailed by the Patriot Act so we can properly fight the new global war on terrorism.
Those who claim others feel threatened need to go to DU....
Francis Fukuyama is not a politician. He's an ethicist and an excellent conservative thinker and writer/philosopher. I hadn't heard anything anti-Bush about him, but it would not surprise me that the two disagreed about some things. (I looked it up and he criticized the current/recent foreign policy.) Strong thinkers will always disagree with politicians (and with each other) about something.
Troll much?
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.