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 That was such a flop that that was repealed 13 years later," Danforth said.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.
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.
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.
Good call,
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)
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...
Danforth is simply a voice of the Establishment, a tame, Beltway-approved pseudo-Republican. Pay him no mind.
Danforth didn't seem to mind when evangelical Christians put him in office.
Sure does.
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...
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.
"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.
"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?
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..
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...
Whitless has raised millions of dollars with the stated purpose of electing moderate Republicans to replace Christian Conservatives.
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.