Comments on: John Danforth On Gay Marriage http://donklephant.com/2006/05/04/john-danforth-says-smart-thing/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:41:00 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Paul Brinkley http://donklephant.com/2006/05/04/john-danforth-says-smart-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-20686 Paul Brinkley Fri, 05 May 2006 16:40:04 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/05/04/john-danforth-says-smart-thing/#comment-20686 It's not a very good amendment, yes. It's public policy, not defining how government should proceed. It has to do with delineating civil rights or federal/state power, but if it's going to do that, it should be more general; Amendments are not meant to be tactical. If we wanted to regulate gay marriage with an amendment, it would have to cover a more sweeping area, such as (for example) giving Congress the power to regulate family units in the interest of creating a stronger younger generation (and then doing the scutwork to prove that regulation of gay marriage would have some effect on this), or dictating that the right of the people to engage in long-term civil unions shall not be abridged (which in our culture requires much less justification). Even if the former were done, any regulation of gay marriage would be dependent on both that amendment and a body of research arguing the need for such regulation. It’s not a very good amendment, yes. It’s public policy, not defining how government should proceed. It has to do with delineating civil rights or federal/state power, but if it’s going to do that, it should be more general; Amendments are not meant to be tactical.

If we wanted to regulate gay marriage with an amendment, it would have to cover a more sweeping area, such as (for example) giving Congress the power to regulate family units in the interest of creating a stronger younger generation (and then doing the scutwork to prove that regulation of gay marriage would have some effect on this), or dictating that the right of the people to engage in long-term civil unions shall not be abridged (which in our culture requires much less justification).

Even if the former were done, any regulation of gay marriage would be dependent on both that amendment and a body of research arguing the need for such regulation.

]]> By: DosPeros http://donklephant.com/2006/05/04/john-danforth-says-smart-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-20576 DosPeros Thu, 04 May 2006 19:47:52 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/05/04/john-danforth-says-smart-thing/#comment-20576 I'm not for it, either, but this is exactly what happens in a democracy when judges view the constitutional penumbra like the universe...always expanding and (continuing with a tortured metaphor) turning Article III of the constitution into a gravitational blackhole. I hardly bother to vote anymore, I just sue. I voted against the constitutional ban in Missouri, but I was appreciative of the vote. I’m not for it, either, but this is exactly what happens in a democracy when judges view the constitutional penumbra like the universe…always expanding and (continuing with a tortured metaphor) turning Article III of the constitution into a gravitational blackhole. I hardly bother to vote anymore, I just sue.

I voted against the constitutional ban in Missouri, but I was appreciative of the vote.

]]> By: Monica http://donklephant.com/2006/05/04/john-danforth-says-smart-thing/comment-page-1/#comment-20570 Monica Thu, 04 May 2006 18:32:25 +0000 http://donklephant.com/2006/05/04/john-danforth-says-smart-thing/#comment-20570 I agree whole heartedly. The gay marriage amendment goes against everything I understood constitutional amendments to represent. My hope is that future generations will correct this wrong. I agree whole heartedly. The gay marriage amendment goes against everything I understood constitutional amendments to represent.

My hope is that future generations will correct this wrong.

]]>