The 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 the Georgia 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.

This is the still same Barr who gave liberals fits during his four terms in Washington, the same Barr who led the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. But where U.S. Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) has embraced the establishment conservatism of Bush Republicans, Barr has headed off in his own direction. Some would call it libertarian. Barr would probably define himself as a purist.

Even during the 2002 campaign against U.S. Rep. John Linder, which resulted in his defeat, Barr raised questions about the Patriot Act, the legal underpinning for the war on terror -- at home and abroad. Now, as a local radio pundit, professional after-dinner speaker and lawyer (in odd-couple tandem with the ACLU), Barr is even more outspoken.

"About 60 percent of my time, I spend on the Patriot Act and privacy issues," said Barr, also a former U.S. attorney in Atlanta.

Airline-passenger profiling, the loss of judicial oversight in many terrorism cases, the "systematic erosion of the 4th Amendment" have dominated his concerns to the point that he says he doesn't know whom he'll vote for in the 2004 presidential race.

Miller already has crossed party lines to endorse Bush. Says Barr: "I'm not an automatic vote for anybody."

Barr isn't the only conservative who sees his Republican Party wandering from the straight and narrow -- the deficits, Bush's immigration policy and the like. And he knows why it's happening.

"They've become blinded by the same thing that blinds Democrats when they get their person in the White House," he said. "The most important thing to a party is to keep its person in the White House, no matter what. That's why a lot of otherwise very good Republicans are not as concerned -- or not as involved in fighting for the Constitution."

But something else is at work, too, Barr said. And 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."

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 amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

"It's premature," Barr said.

First of all, there's been no challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That was enacted eight years ago, a reaction to the first attempt in Hawaii to have gay marriages declared legal. The act does two things: 1) declares that in the eyes of the federal government, marriage is defined as something that can only occur between a man and woman; and 2) gives each state a choice as to whether it will recognize same-sex marriages.

Legal experts differ as to whether the act would stand up to a U.S. Supreme Court challenge, but Barr has an author's pride. "I think it was very properly crafted," he said. "There are some people who say it's not strong enough, that you might get some weird judge somewhere. Well, sure. That may be. But usually, in our system of government, you let things take their course, and then you step in."

But the larger question is whether amending the Constitution is the proper tool for what ails us.

"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."

Just as an aside, the word out of Washington is that a gay marriage amendment is going nowhere in Congress this year. Unlike in Georgia, GOP leaders aren't anywhere near the two-thirds majority they need.

Barr says the solution lies at the grass-roots level. Mayors handing out illegal licenses can be prosecuted or in some way held accountable. In Georgia, "activist" judges can be defeated in elections. "Eventually, it will right itself," Barr said.

He has the same attitude toward changing the Georgia Constitution. Whether state or federal, constitutions are documents intended to restrict governments, not citizens.

"That would be a major break with how the constitution has been used in the past," Barr said. "Georgia law is very clear about what a marriage means. Yes, there is a possibility that some Georgia judge could do what the Massachusetts court did. But again, in our system of government -- people think that a constitutional amendment is an absolute shield that is going to protect them from the forces of evil. That's not the case."

Teenagers looking for temp work over spring break, please call Washington

This was in Roll Call last week: "Democrats are chuckling about the fact that freshman U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) still has not finished creating his official Web site, despite being on the job for 14 months. According to the article, Chambliss spokeswoman Angie Lundberg explained that there have been "some technical glitches along the way" that have slowed progress.

"We expect to have it up and running very soon," Lundberg promised.

Chambliss has made himself a target since knocking U.S. Sen. John Kerry's record on defense. Cracked one Democrat: "Even the entire Medicare system was up and running in just 11 months."

At least they cared enough to leak his name: John Lewis might be on Kerry's list for No. 2

We have now entered a new season in the Kerry campaign. Unless the presumptive nominee defies tradition, from now until late summer Kerry will allow speculation to run rampant over his choice for vice president. There are, of course, two lists. The short one is real. The long one is intended for flattery only.

According to the Washington Post last week, the long list includes "U.S. Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), Sens. John Edwards (N.C.) and Bob Graham (Fla.), and retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark." Swing-state governors on the list include Iowa's Tom Vilsack, Pennsylvania's Edward G. Rendell and New Mexico's Bill Richardson.

U.S. Rep. John Lewis is on there, too, as well as several women -- such as former New Hampshire governor Jeanne Shaheen, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and former Health and Human Services secretary Donna E. Shalala.