ROTFLMAO!!!!
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 That was such a flop that that was repealed 13 years later," Danforth said.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 do think that such a proposed amendment constitutes yet another frivilous abuse of the amendment process.
Memo to Danforth: Then why if one could marry the same sex why not marry yourself. There is an appropriate expression for this sexual activity.
Thank God he's a "former" Senator.
"Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedek". Psalm 110, verse 4
That is true; however, it doesn't mean the individual priest remains orthodox in his belief, faith and practice. Danforth is becoming an apostate if not already there.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Right
In other words: Whatever happens, this issue simply cannot be entrusted to actual voters.
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.
Episcopal priest, says it all.
Danforth is a fool and has no knowledge of the law.
I think this isue will be won and lost with the staffers who are in the sphere of our politicians. We need to keep the fire on them on this one.
Without a doubt it is an abomination. However, the American population seems to have no ability to resist any form of degradation. The collapse started circa 1954-1960 and is accelerating. Since we cannot fight then try to stay out of the way.
I loathe that man.
The amendment as proposed would only address marriage on a Federal level. States, if they desire, could recognize a homosexual "marriage" but would prevent one state's recognition from forcing another to recognize it.
Without the amendment, a resident of Mass. could engage in a homosexual "marriage" and then move to Texas or Georgia, and through the courts, demand the state of Texas or Georgia recognize this "marriage" and provide it the legal protections or rights real marriage would bestow on its participants.
The amendment prevents this nightmare scenario.
But why should the federal government only want to recognize a heterosexual marriage. Because civil marriage (not religious but purely civil marriage) is a legal contract between three parties: the man, the woman, and the state. The state is party to the marriage (by providing legal and tax benefits to the couple) because it gets something out of the marriage, namely a new generation to perpetuate the state. Would children be born without civil marriage? Sure, but look at any inner city to see the mess that occurs when children are not raised in a traditional households.
The fact of the matter is normal families are more likely to produce healthy, responsible children that will lead this society in the future. Hence the state has a stake in marriage, and is party to the contract. Since homosexuals cannot produce children, it is wrong for the state to engage in this contract. The state derives no benefit from homosexual marriage.
Tell that to Massachusetts. Clearly judges will impose their will unless we spell it out for them in the Constitution. Those state judges twisted their state's constiution to mean whatever THEY wanted it to mean. The phrases they manipulated were the same ones you will find in the U.S. Constitution. And they cited the Supreme Court Lawrence decision. So no way will this matter be decided by state legislatures unless we somehow push the judges out of the legislating business. That's all this amendment does.
Personally I prefer impeaching judges for this grave violation of their constitutional limits.
Ultimately, there is no way you can have something like this legal in one state without it affecting everyone. What is their marital status for federal tax purposes? What about federal benefits? What about when they move? The definition of family is just too fundamental to think you can have states with different definitions. How about Utah with legal polygamy? It's only fair that they be unbound from their requirement of banning the practice way back when they joined the union.
If you want to break the little influence that the Main Street people have on congress, defeat Mike Castle.
Great typo:)
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.