Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage

[Avatar4321]

Republicans will allow a few blacks to be in their party. It's "for show". But no Muslims and certainly, no gays.

Seriously dean? This bullcrap?

Have you never heard of log cabin Republicans? or are they just for show to?

 

[martybegan]

I knew it was only a matter of time, but one day? Some people never learn.

Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage

The Supreme Court ruling Wednesday that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional isn't stopping Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas) from trying to block same-sex marriages through another route: by amending the U.S. Constitution.

Huelskamp said he plans to introduce the Federal Marriage Amendment later this week, a measure that would define marriage as between one man and one woman. DOMA did the same thing, but was a federal law, not a constitutional amendment. As such, the Federal Marriage Act is more far-reaching but also a tougher climb. It requires the support of two-thirds of the House and Senate, and ratification by three-fourths of the states, or 38 states.

"This would trump the Supreme Court," Huelskamp told The Huffington Post.

Huelskamp said his bill has no cosponsors yet, but said its language will be almost identical to past Federal Marriage Amendments introduced in Congress. The last time Congress voted on the proposed constitutional amendment was in July 2006, when it failed 236-187. It needed 290 votes to pass. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) were among those who voted for the amendment at the time.

You do realize that the SCOTUS cannot declare a Constitutional Amendment "unconstitutional," doncha?

He'll never get this off the ground, but if it passed, even the SCOTUS couldn't block it.

The California Supreme Court managed to find an amendment to the California Constitution unconstitutional.

Granted, the court would have a much more difficult time with this one.

It was a federal district court that found Prop 8 unconsitutional. The Cali Supreme court merely said any wedding perfomed prior to Prop 8 passing could remain, due to ex post facto/grandfathering.

The Cali supreme court did strike down Prop 22, which was a statutory version of Prop 8, and was worded exactly the same. Prop 8 cam after as an amendment.

 

[DiamondDave]

I would much rather support an amendment that limits how the federal government is involved with marriage... considering they overstep their bounds anyway, maybe they need a specific amendment to show them they are to be limited

 

[Avatar4321]

How about this Republican, and others like him, back the **** off and stop telling consenting adults who they can and cannot marry?

This. It's an embarrassment that some in the GOP have cared so deeply about oppressing gay rights ... make no mistake, however: there ARE Republicans out there who are more tolerant, me included.

It's embarassing that people find rights where none exist. Create oppression where there is none while at the same time actively supporting real civil rights violations.

No one is being intolerate of homosexuals by being against same sex marriage. They are free to engage in whatever relationship they want.

The fact that people fall for the tolerance rhetoric when those pushing for same sex marriage are some of the most intolerate people on the planet is truly sad.

 

[g5000]

How about this Republican, and others like him, back the **** off and stop telling consenting adults who they can and cannot marry?

How about you stop trying to forcibly change the definition of a word and institution that has existed for thousands of years and then feigning outrage that someone says no?

Let's bring back concubines!

 

[hjmick]

I knew it was only a matter of time, but one day? Some people never learn.

Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage

The Supreme Court ruling Wednesday that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional isn't stopping Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas) from trying to block same-sex marriages through another route: by amending the U.S. Constitution.

Huelskamp said he plans to introduce the Federal Marriage Amendment later this week, a measure that would define marriage as between one man and one woman. DOMA did the same thing, but was a federal law, not a constitutional amendment. As such, the Federal Marriage Act is more far-reaching but also a tougher climb. It requires the support of two-thirds of the House and Senate, and ratification by three-fourths of the states, or 38 states.

"This would trump the Supreme Court," Huelskamp told The Huffington Post.

Huelskamp said his bill has no cosponsors yet, but said its language will be almost identical to past Federal Marriage Amendments introduced in Congress. The last time Congress voted on the proposed constitutional amendment was in July 2006, when it failed 236-187. It needed 290 votes to pass. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) were among those who voted for the amendment at the time.

This is ridiculous, a waste of time, and bound to fail.

 

[Avatar4321]

You do realize that the SCOTUS cannot declare a Constitutional Amendment "unconstitutional," doncha?

He'll never get this off the ground, but if it passed, even the SCOTUS couldn't block it.

The California Supreme Court managed to find an amendment to the California Constitution unconstitutional.

Granted, the court would have a much more difficult time with this one.

It was a federal district court that found Prop 8 unconsitutional. The Cali Supreme court merely said any wedding perfomed prior to Prop 8 passing could remain, due to ex post facto/grandfathering.

The Cali supreme court did strike down Prop 22, which was a statutory version of Prop 8, and was worded exactly the same. Prop 8 cam after as an amendment.

You're correct. My bad. It's been a while since i went through the procedural history.

 

[Dot Com]

ANOTHER "show vote"? Next thing you know, they'll vote to repeal O'care. This Tea Party-controlled House is wasting more money on bills & so-called "scandals" that will go nowhere than any in recent memory.

 

[Avatar4321]

I would much rather support an amendment that limits how the federal government is involved with marriage... considering they overstep their bounds anyway, maybe they need a specific amendment to show them they are to be limited

We already have one. It's the 10th amendment. It's been consistantly ignored since it was passed.

 

[Avatar4321]

How about this Republican, and others like him, back the **** off and stop telling consenting adults who they can and cannot marry?

How about you stop trying to forcibly change the definition of a word and institution that has existed for thousands of years and then feigning outrage that someone says no?

Let's bring back concubines!

Red Herring anyone?

 

[g5000]

Abraham had three wives and a number of concubines. So let's go with that biblical "definition of marriage".

 

[g5000]

In my lifetime, marriage was defined as the union of two people of the same race.

I, for one, am sick and tired of all this redefining. "We've always done it that way" is a perfectly acceptable reason to discriminate.

 

[martybegan]

Abraham had three wives and a number of concubines. So let's go with that biblical "definition of marriage".

That would actually have more precedent than same sex marriage.

 

[Hyrcanus]

not one single state will pass this Amendment.

well, maybe the bigots in Mississippi and Alabama will.

 

[Dot Com]

gawd forbid they work on anything related to jobs in the Tea Party-controlled House.

 

[martybegan]

not one single state will pass this Amendment.

well, maybe the bigots in Mississippi and Alabama will.

Well alot of those bigots would probably be socially conservative chrisitan blacks.

Good luck getting that bit of doublethink through your huffle-puffle head.

 

[g5000]

Republicans will allow a few blacks to be in their party. It's "for show". But no Muslims and certainly, no gays.

Seriously dean? This bullcrap?

Have you never heard of log cabin Republicans? or are they just for show to?

Yes, they are just for show. They were banned from CPAC.

 

[g5000]

How about this Republican, and others like him, back the **** off and stop telling consenting adults who they can and cannot marry?

How about you stop trying to forcibly change the definition of a word and institution that has existed for thousands of years and then feigning outrage that someone says no?

King David had at least five wives, and at least 20 concubines. His son had 700 wives! And 300 concubines! What a stud!

Shall we go with that thousands of years old definition of marriage? This one man, one woman stuff would be a real kick in the nuts to our biblical ancestors.

 

[rdean]

Republicans will allow a few blacks to be in their party. It's "for show". But no Muslims and certainly, no gays.

Seriously dean? This bullcrap?

Have you never heard of log cabin Republicans? or are they just for show to?

Just for show.

CNN.com - GOP gay group booted from N.C. convention

Gay Conservatives Disappointed in Republican Party Platform

My favorite:

Log Cabin PAC Money returned

 

[Avatar4321]

not one single state will pass this Amendment.

well, maybe the bigots in Mississippi and Alabama will.

So despite the countless states that have passed state Constitutional amendments defining marriage between a man and a woman, you are absolutely sure no states will pass a Federal Amendment?

I mean it really doesn't matter because the people who want to redefine marriage will never allow the people to actually vote on the measure despite how much they say the people support it.

I would argue that there is a high chance that California would support the Federal Amendment if the people were allowed to vote on it.