Content

Conservatives Oppose the anti-family Federal Marriage Amendment

Conservatives Oppose the anti-family Federal Marriage Amendment

- "The fact of the matter is that matter [the legal recognition of relationships] is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area,"
-Vice President Dick Cheney

- "Most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples," 
-Senator John McCain (R-AZ)

- "The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans,"
-Senator John McCain (R-AZ)

-"The past two years have shown that federalism, not more federal laws, is a viable and preferable approach,"
-Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH)

-"Government ought to be kept off our backs, out of our pocketbooks and out of our bedrooms,"
-Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), quoting former Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ)

- "It is said that this [amendment] is necessary to protect marriage.  Whose marriage is this going to protect? How conceivably could it protect any marriage in the United States?  Some historian should really look at all of the proposals that have been put forth throughout the history of our country for possible Constitutional amendments.  Maybe at some point in time there was one that was sillier than this one, but I don't know of one,"
-former Senator John Danforth (R-MO)

-"I am concerned, however, that the second sentence of this proposed constitutional amendment is unnecessarily vague and could well trample on the rights of the several States of our great Republic.  As the second sentence of this proposed amendment is written now, the intent of the amendment simply isn't clear. This type of unnecessary confusion will undoubtedly lead to considerable litigation if this proposed amendment is accepted in its current form,"
-Senator John Warner (R-VA)

-"The amendment under consideration would potentially affect two types of relationships that are fundamental to our society. The first is the union between a man and a woman. The second is the compact between the states and the federal government. In our zeal to protect the former, we must not do unnecessary violence to the latter, as it is the bedrock of our country's unique and highly successful federal system,"
-Senator Susan Collins (R-ME)

-"Part of federalism means that states have the right to make bad decisions--even on the issue of who can get married in the state.  Resisting the temptation to use the federal government to meddle in state matters is the test of this conservative principle.  Indeed, it is the test separating conservative federalists from hard-line social conservatives, willing to sacrifice the Constitution in their understandable anxiety over the sorry state of modern morality,"
-former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA)

- "I, along with many other conservative opinion leaders and lawmakers, strongly oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment for three main reasons.  First, by moving what has traditionally been a state prerogative--local marriage laws--to the federal government, it is in direct violation of the principles of federalism.  Second, in treating the Constitution as an appropriate place to impose publicly contested social policies, it would cheapen the sacrosanct nature of that document, opening the door to future meddling by liberals and conservatives.  Third, it is unnecessary so long as DOMA is in force,"
-DOMA author and former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA)

-"The amendment actually ends up defeating the principle it sets out to uphold. The solution to judicial overreaching is to change the judiciary, not to undo every act of judicial arrogance with a policy-specific constitutional amendment. Where does it end? Yesterday it was school busing and abortion. Today it is flag burning and gay marriage,"
-Charles Krauthammer, conservative columnist

- "Amending the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman would be unwise for two reasons. Constitutionalizing social policy is generally a misuse of fundamental law. And it would be especially imprudent to end state responsibility for marriage law at a moment when we require evidence of the sort that can be generated by allowing the states to be laboratories of social policy,"
-George Will, conservative columnist.