Constitutional Amendment introduced to ban same-sex marriage MOD ALERT

MOD EDIT

As of this notice/warning, posters engaged in deliberate rule violations will be subject to thread bans and/or infractions. Chose your response to others wisely, you are solely responsible for your post.

Shangrila
Site Moderator



Huelskamp Files Anti-Gay Amendment
by Justin Snow
Metro Weekly
Wednesday Jul 3, 2013

A handful of House Republicans are seeking to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage just days after the Supreme Court handed down two historic decisions striking down the federal government’s definition of marriage between a man and a woman and returning marriage equality to California.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), along with 28 of the House of Representatives’ more anti-gay Republican members, proposed an amendment to the Constitution Friday dubbed the "Marriage Protection Amendment." The proposed amendment is simple, consisting of just two sentences: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

The 28 Republican members of Congress who have attached their names to the proposed amendment are Reps. Joe Barton (Texas), Jim Bridenstine (Okla.), Mo Brooks (Ala.), Paul Broun (Ga.), Jeff Duncan (S.C.), John Fleming (La.), Trent Franks (Ariz.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Ralph Hall (Texas), Andy Harris (Md.), Randy Hultgren (Ill.), Sam Johnson (Texas), Walter Jones Jr. (N.C.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), James Lankford (Okla.), Mark Meadows (N.C.), Randy Neugebauer (Texas), Steven Palazzo (Miss.), Stevan Pearce (N.M.), Robert Pittenger (N.C.), Joseph Pitts (Pa.), David Schweikert (Ariz.), Bill Shuster (Pa.), Christopher Smith (N.J.), Steve Stockman (Texas), Tim Walberg (Miss.), Lynn Westmoreland (Ga.) and Frank Wolf (Va.).

"This radical usurpation of legislative and popular authority will not end the debate over marriage in this country. Congress clearly must respond to these bad decisions," Huelskamp said in a statement announcing his intentions to introduce the proposed amendment last week.

In two separate opinions, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on June 27 to strike down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act as a violation of the Constitution and to dismiss the Proposition 8 case on standing, stating that supporters of California’s 2008 same-sex marriage ban did not have jurisdiction to bring the case before the high court. Same-sex weddings resumed in California on Friday following an order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifting the stay in the case. Proposition 8 supporters filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court over the weekend requesting the high court halt marriages in the state, but that petition was rejected.


According to Huelskamp, "Five activist justices have short-circuited the democratic process."

Although the court’s four liberal justices were joined by swing Justice Anthony Kennedy in the DOMA ruling, the 5-4 decision to dismiss the Proposition 8 case was joined by two conservative members of the court - Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia.

The House last voted on a similar constitutional amendment in 2006, when the amendment failed to reach the 290 votes needed for passage with a 236-187 vote. When that amendment was introduced on June 6, 2006, it had nearly 100 cosponsors compared to Huelskamp’s 28.

Huelskamp himself seemed to indicate during a Sunday appearance on Meet the Press that the amendment has little chance of passage. "Our founders made it extraordinarily difficult to amend the Constitution and that’s what we’re going to try to do," Huelskamp said, adding that same-sex marriage is detrimental to children, despite evidence to the contrary.

As Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion, DOMA "humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples" and "instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others."

A handful of House Republicans are seeking to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage just days after the Supreme Court handed down two historic decisions striking down the federal government’s definition of marriage between a man and a woman and returning marriage equality to California.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), along with 28 of the House of Representatives’ more anti-gay Republican members, proposed an amendment to the Constitution Friday dubbed the "Marriage Protection Amendment." The proposed amendment is simple, consisting of just two sentences: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

The 28 Republican members of Congress who have attached their names to the proposed amendment are Reps. Joe Barton (Texas), Jim Bridenstine (Okla.), Mo Brooks (Ala.), Paul Broun (Ga.), Jeff Duncan (S.C.), John Fleming (La.), Trent Franks (Ariz.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Ralph Hall (Texas), Andy Harris (Md.), Randy Hultgren (Ill.), Sam Johnson (Texas), Walter Jones Jr. (N.C.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), James Lankford (Okla.), Mark Meadows (N.C.), Randy Neugebauer (Texas), Steven Palazzo (Miss.), Stevan Pearce (N.M.), Robert Pittenger (N.C.), Joseph Pitts (Pa.), David Schweikert (Ariz.), Bill Shuster (Pa.), Christopher Smith (N.J.), Steve Stockman (Texas), Tim Walberg (Miss.), Lynn Westmoreland (Ga.) and Frank Wolf (Va.).

"This radical usurpation of legislative and popular authority will not end the debate over marriage in this country. Congress clearly must respond to these bad decisions," Huelskamp said in a statement announcing his intentions to introduce the proposed amendment last week.

In two separate opinions, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on June 27 to strike down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act as a violation of the Constitution and to dismiss the Proposition 8 case on standing, stating that supporters of California’s 2008 same-sex marriage ban did not have jurisdiction to bring the case before the high court. Same-sex weddings resumed in California on Friday following an order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifting the stay in the case. Proposition 8 supporters filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court over the weekend requesting the high court halt marriages in the state, but that petition was rejected.


According to Huelskamp, "Five activist justices have short-circuited the democratic process."

Although the court’s four liberal justices were joined by swing Justice Anthony Kennedy in the DOMA ruling, the 5-4 decision to dismiss the Proposition 8 case was joined by two conservative members of the court - Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia.

The House last voted on a similar constitutional amendment in 2006, when the amendment failed to reach the 290 votes needed for passage with a 236-187 vote. When that amendment was introduced on June 6, 2006, it had nearly 100 cosponsors compared to Huelskamp’s 28.

Huelskamp himself seemed to indicate during a Sunday appearance on Meet the Press that the amendment has little chance of passage. "Our founders made it extraordinarily difficult to amend the Constitution and that’s what we’re going to try to do," Huelskamp said, adding that same-sex marriage is detrimental to children, despite evidence to the contrary.

As Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion, DOMA "humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples" and "instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others."

-----

Hahahahaha. Ha.

No F***ing chance. There are currently 55 supporters of SSM in the Senate. To pass this amendment they'd need to elect 22 anti-gay Senators. Good luck with that freedom-hating Repubs!

 

So, they are trying to get an amendment passed? Let's give them a cookie for trying. I think by the end of making themselves look stupid, they're going to want one, with milk.

 

LOL, not a chance they get 3/4 majority in the senate and 2/3 majority in the house. These congressman are anti-American.

 

Conservatives can't stand not being on the wrong side of history.

 

If they continue to spend a lot of time voting to overrule Obamacare (I think they're up to 37 symbolic strokes), they probable won't have more time to waste on this symbolic effort. If you have a choice between governing the nation and pandering to the lowest common denominator, and pandering is what gets you re-elected, it's a no-brainer.

To paraphrase H.L.Mencken, nobody ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

 

What a waste of time. It'll never pass and they know it. Political Theater at its finest.

 

And still no jobs bills from the do nothing congress

 

We need the Egyptian army to throw the scum out here like they did with Morsi and his thugs.

 

It's 108 degrees here today.
I think I'll leave a snowball out on the street as an experiment. If it's still there at the end of the day, that means that the amendment actually has a snowball's chance of passing.

Why does Congress waste time on crap like this? Can they not see any more pressing issues that need to be resolved?

 

Nope 2/3 of both the house and senate and 3/4 of the states ratify it..

Marriage is a man and a woman...has been for thousands of years....anything other than that is something else.

 

Here is Article V of the Constitution

It takes either 2/3rds of both houses of Congress to propose an amendment to the States or it takes 2/3rds of the State legislatures to propose an Amendment. Not a prayer in the Senate. Even if the Amendment passed congress with the requisite votes, they need three fourths of the states to ratify. We have 50 states, 13 of which have passed Same Sex Marriage, that is more than 1 fourth of the states having already being on the SSM bandwagon with several others having approved Civil Unions. This proposed amendment is nothing but political grandstanding. It will go nowhere.

 

Neither can liberals is seems...glass houses

 

But 13 states have approved SSM and several more have approved Civil Unions. They already have more than 1/4th of the states having approved SSM, this Amendment is DOA.

 

It's NOT marriage if you have to add 'same sex' to it...it's a civil union.

 

I have no idea what the OP is talking about here? They upheld all 50 states' ability to choose yes OR NO on gay marriage. Prop 8 simply said marriage is "between a man and a woman". It excludes gays, polygamists and minors. So doing, the Supreme Court actually upheld the constitutionality of a state's right to choose on gay marriage. And California already chose, twice. They struck down the case at the federal level because they said the case's presentation was not on good standing. All it would take now is for some hispanics there to bring a case of voter disenfranchisement to reinstate the validity [or reaffirm it since initiatives are the law and it ISN'T unconstitutional to ban gay marriage] of Prop 8's intent to exclude gays, polygamists and minors from marriage.

Next time it will be a muslim or mormon judge who wants to marry another wife sitting over a case on polygamy there. And then viola! Prop 8 and the seven million people who voted for it there will be under attack again..

You can't say at the Supreme Court level that only 49 states get to decide on gay marriage but only Californians cannot!...lol.. Slam dunk case. Juan Doe v The State of California. The standing: voter disenfranchisement and the inability to control whether or not minors, gays or polygamists may marry in California. And unconstitutional singling out of one state, giving undue preference to the other 49. If memory serves, that's in Article 6.

 

Did ancient Rome or Greece or any other human civilization give special tax benefits for married couples over non married people? The Government should get out of peoples personal lives. But then what would the GOP have for a platform? They always want to get into peoples beds or sexual activities. It seems every time I have sex with some chick it is a threesome. Its me, her and some GOP wing nut telling me what I can and can't do. Next the GOPers will want to ban doggy style....

 

YOu have it backwards.

The people who voted for Prop 8 were not "attacked", they were the ones doing the "attacking" on the freedom of everyone else in the state.

The head referee, the SCOTUS, simply ruled their foul play illegal.

 

You mean just like an amendment that gay marriage would have. The difference is they aren't using the court to deny the rights of the people to vote as that gay judge did in California.

 

Legal marriage is the CIVIL recognition of a marital UNION. So you don't have a point. Being specific as to the sex of the parties is relevant to this debate, but outside this debate, not so much. People don't call themselves "gay married" or "same-sex married". They simply call themselves married. Even people in the "civil unions" states probably still call themselves married when talking about it in the social context. I rather doubt they call themselves "civil unioned".

Because they are married, the pointless opinion of the "calling it marriage doesn't make it so" crowd notwithstanding.

 

Uh...what?

 

take that up with Harry Reid.

- - - Updated - - -

12 of those by state court order as i recall.

 

If we're to make a statement then we should be accurate in our statement.

"Social-Conservatives" can't stand not being on the wrong side of history.

If there are two clauses the "Social-Conservatives" oppose in the US Constitution more than any other they're unquestionably:

They believe the Bible is the Supreme Law of the Land and these two provisions in the US Constitution stand in the way of them imposing Christian Theocratic Law in the United States.

 

You are completely right.. The federal government just get more and more bloated with powers way beyond what they should have.. Now they try to define marriage..

Let each person or family define their own words and values.

Let people register their own next-of-kin and who gets to visit me in the hospital and/or make medical decisions for me list at their doctor, and any financial benefits or tax-breaks you want to have, make it based on the idea of sharing a household.. If you shared the bills with such and such person for this particular length of time or more you file your papers like that.. There's no need, as far as I know, to have a marriage itself state-recognized.

 

I will never understand why some people get so obsessed about controlling the personal lives of others that they would seek to enact big government laws on society like this. The GOP claims they are all for smaller government, their actions say otherwise.

 

Banning gay marriage would be a textbook example of a "nanny-state" law.