Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, author of the Defense of
Marriage Act, explains
why conservatives should be glad the Federal Marriage Amendment
failed:
the FMA -- had it been ratified -- would have neutered state authority. Moreover, it would have done so in order to promote a certain brand of social conservatism. I might agree with many of the tenets of this type of social conservatism, but I also believe that these should be promoted through lengthy and democratic deliberation -- not imposed without such deliberation, and especially not imposed by Washington.
And Lyn Nofziger, Ronald Reagan's former press secretary,
takes a similar
view:
Prohibition aside, efforts to limit freedom by way of constitutional amendments generally have failed, for the reasons that they intrude on state's rights, they are not necessary or their purposes are to limit freedom. ...
On other matters Ronald Reagan used to say that the great thing about America was that a person could vote with his feet. That is, if he didn't like the situation in his town or state he was free to move. This, it seems to me, applies to this issue, too. If you don't like the way your town, state or church deals with homosexual issues and you feel really, really strongly about it you can move.A constitutional amendment would take that right away from me -- and you. And, while I don't know about you, I am not prepared willingly to accept that possibility.
Some conservatives actually do stick to their principles, even
when this leads them not to take the partisan anti-gay
position.
--Stephen H. Miller