John Cox on Civil Rights Republican Party Chair, Cook County (IL)

Respect people’s freedom but don’t sanction gay behavior

A: You know, this is a free country, and we have to respect people’s freedom to do what they want to do. But you know what? We don’t have to sanction it. We don’t have to sanction behavior. We don’t have to support it financially. And we don’t need to put more rights that will create more litigation in this country. The last thing we need in this country is more litigation from rights.

Stand up for proper behavior or we end up with bestiality

A: I don’t know that we help ourselves when we try to moralize to a large part of the country that is not a believer like us. I think we need to use common sense. We certainly need to stand up for the proper behavior, we absolutely need to do that, but we need to use common sense, and talk about the fact that we can’t open the floodgates to polygamy & bestiality & all kinds of other things. Kids, hold your ears.

Marriage about protecting children; not homosexual largesse

A: Marriage is about protecting children. That’s what it is all about. The effort by the homosexual lobby is all about trying to get the government to recognize a relationship that exists between them, and have it validated and have it benefited by government largesse. We need to talk about faith, but we also need to talk about common sense. We need to talk about the ideals of protecting children. And that’s so important for the future of our country, because, let’s face it, without children, we don’t have a country go forward. Talk to China. Their one-child policy is really going to lead to the destruction of that country. We need to have a marriage amendment. I will travel everywhere to argue that marriage is common sense, it protects children, and we ought to continue to justify it and honor it, and keep it the institution it should be for the protection of children.

Swift passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment

Favors amendment to the Constitution to define marriage

A: Unfortunately, courts today are increasingly taking over the function of local state legislatures. I do not want the federal government to be involved in marriage but unfortunately, I would not be able to change the judiciary overnight as President. Therefore, I would favor an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage. I would also appoint strict constructionists as judges--people that believe in judicial restraint, not overreaching power.

Q: But you said you believe the Constitution should be followed to the letter.

A: I do believe the Constitution should be followed to the letter, including amendments. The Federal Marriage amendment is just that, an amendment. It has to be approved by 75% of the state legislatures, like other amendments. I wish this weren’t necessary but because of activists judges it is. The Constitution doesn’t now provide for marriage but with this amendment it would.

Affirmative action based on race is racist

A: Affirmative action based on race is racist--plain and simple. I adamantly oppose racism of all kinds. Is there a place to help those who haven’t had economic opportunity? Yes, but we need to be very careful that corruption and cronyism are not part of the equation and unfortunately, that is often the case when government picks winners and losers in the economy.

A flag burning Constitutional amendment is necessary

A: Due to judicial overreach, a flag burning amendment is necessary at this time.

Q: Is this type of legislation constitutional? Do you link flag desecration with treason?

A: I am supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning because it is so objectionable to so many people and the courts are allowing it. I don’t necessarily equate it with treason but I do find it objectionable and it tends to incite hard feelings and violence.