![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
Mar. 9th, 2004 02:43 amThe world has become a surreal place when Bob Barr, the former Georgia congressman, can offer himself up as a voice of restraint and tolerance.
But there he was, slicing up a smothered steak off the Marietta Square and arguing against an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban gay marriages, against an amendment to Georgia's constitution for the same purpose. And against a climate of fear that Barr says has driven the nation since Sept. 11, 2001.
"Does it bother me that we have some states that recognize homosexual marriages? No. That's our federal system of government. If you don't like the policies of one state, you can move. That's freedom," said Barr, the author of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act...
Something else is at work, Barr said. This is where he argues that our response to terrorism and gay marriage have something in common.
"In many respects, we've become a nation driven by fear. And fear is not a good basis from which to make government policy," Barr said
Fear of another terrorist attack, Barr said, has led to what he thinks is an unnecessary sacrifice of rights. Likewise, the televised sight of gay couples walking arm in arm out of city hall in San Francisco is driving what Barr sees as another overreaction --- state and federal calls for a constitutional marriage to ban same-sex marriage...
The larger question is whether amending the Constitution is the proper tool.
"I don't think it is. I just don't think the federal government should use the Constitution to start defining social relationships. And I say that as a very strong opponent of same-sex marriage. But to me, just because you have a problem --- that's not a reason to amend the Constitution."
But there he was, slicing up a smothered steak off the Marietta Square and arguing against an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban gay marriages, against an amendment to Georgia's constitution for the same purpose. And against a climate of fear that Barr says has driven the nation since Sept. 11, 2001.
"Does it bother me that we have some states that recognize homosexual marriages? No. That's our federal system of government. If you don't like the policies of one state, you can move. That's freedom," said Barr, the author of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act...
Something else is at work, Barr said. This is where he argues that our response to terrorism and gay marriage have something in common.
"In many respects, we've become a nation driven by fear. And fear is not a good basis from which to make government policy," Barr said
Fear of another terrorist attack, Barr said, has led to what he thinks is an unnecessary sacrifice of rights. Likewise, the televised sight of gay couples walking arm in arm out of city hall in San Francisco is driving what Barr sees as another overreaction --- state and federal calls for a constitutional marriage to ban same-sex marriage...
The larger question is whether amending the Constitution is the proper tool.
"I don't think it is. I just don't think the federal government should use the Constitution to start defining social relationships. And I say that as a very strong opponent of same-sex marriage. But to me, just because you have a problem --- that's not a reason to amend the Constitution."
