Moral conservatives are not monolithic

Via Andrew Sullivan, here’s Bob Barr (no friend of gay marriage) on the FMA:

I am not new to my conservative principles. No one has ever tried to accuse me of being a liberal Republican or a moderate Republican; I have only been a conservative Republican. And, as a conservative Republican, I have never compromised my basic principles – limited government, the free market, steadfast adherence to civil liberties including the right to keep and bear arms and the rights of the states – in the search for higher office. I appear before you today in that spirit of consistency with conservative ideals… 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.

And, to the right of Bob Barr, there’s Judge Roy Moore:

“I don?t think you can make a constitutional amendment for every moral problem created by courts that don?t follow the law of their states,? said Moore, who is currently waging a legal appeal to get his chief justice job back. “If you do, you pretend to do what God has already done and make it subject to the courts. I think it?s a problem to establish morality by constitutional amendments made by men when the morality of our country is plainly illustrated ? in Supreme Court precedent and in state-law precedent and in the common law ? as coming from an acknowledgement of God.?

Once again, I predict that the FMA will never become part of the Constitution. (Thank God!)