Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay ... - 6/27/2013 7:09:24 AM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

And it gets dumber and dumber

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/tim-huelskamp-gay-marriage_n_3505465.html

WASHINGTON -- 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.

Support for same-sex marriage among Americans has grown steadily over the past year. A Gallup poll from May 2013 found that 53 percent of Americans say federal law should recognize gay marriages. Just ahead of Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling, CNN/ORC released a new poll that put support at 55 percent.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

Post #: 1

RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban ... - 6/27/2013 7:38:57 AM

DarkSteven

Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

It requires the support of two-thirds of the House and Senate, and ratification by three-fourths of the states, or 38 states.

Would that suffice to override a Presidential veto?

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Post #: 2

RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban ... - 6/27/2013 7:42:58 AM

Hillwilliam

Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

Dear GOP

Put the Bible down and step away from it.
Get your tongue out of the asscrack of your corporate overlords
Stop worrying about the fact that Gov Christie touched a Democrat voluntarily. (and liked it)

And start fixing the fucking country.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Post #: 3

RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban ... - 6/27/2013 7:43:05 AM

sissibaby

Posts: 34
Joined: 6/17/2013
Status: offline

looks like its time to contribute funds to defeat Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas) in the next round of elections. THIS IS the only way to stop these morons from pushing their pseudo religious agenda on the rest of the United States, the same hold true for those against abortion, force them out of politics religious beliefs have no place in American politics.

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Post #: 4

RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban ... - 6/27/2013 7:45:59 AM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

It requires the support of two-thirds of the House and Senate, and ratification by three-fourths of the states, or 38 states.

Would that suffice to override a Presidential veto?

I dont know hon, but I think in his arrogance he thinks it will/should and can.

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Post #: 5

RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban ... - 6/27/2013 7:53:36 AM

sissibaby

Posts: 34
Joined: 6/17/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

It requires the support of two-thirds of the House and Senate, and ratification by three-fourths of the states, or 38 states.

Would that suffice to override a Presidential veto?

I dont know hon, but I think in his arrogance he thinks it will/should and can.

I think you are confused with the difference between a constitutional amendment which is then a change in the actual constitution such as prohibition, and a bill or or law which is not, but could be a constitutional amendment. Bills and laws can be vetoed I beleive that constitutional amendments can not. Further understanding and reading can be found at this nice link: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/articlev.htm

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Post #: 6

RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban ... - 6/27/2013 8:03:17 AM

YN

Posts: 699
Status: offline

From my understanding of the United States, and what it takes to amend the Federal constitution (super majority in both your House and Senate, then ratification by 3/4s of the United States., along with polling suggesting about 60% of the United States supports same sex marriages, I doubt this is anything but political pandering.

He would have better luck attempting the repeal of the Second Amendment, not that that would bear any fruit either.

(in reply to sissibaby)

Post #: 7

RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban ... - 6/27/2013 8:03:36 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

It requires the support of two-thirds of the House and Senate, and ratification by three-fourths of the states, or 38 states.

Would that suffice to override a Presidential veto?

The President cannot veto an amendment. If passed by both houses it would go to the states.

Note that it would need 38 states to pass. 12 states have already enacted marriage equality and several more are in the process. What do you think the chances are of states voting to ban something nation wide they passed laws to allow in their own state?

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Post #: 8

RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban ... - 6/27/2013 9:08:18 AM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

Doubtful it will pass the Senate

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 9

RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban ... - 6/27/2013 9:12:05 AM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

will it even get thru congress ???

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 10

RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban ... - 6/27/2013 9:13:08 AM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

Nope... in the off chance it gets through the House, the Senate wont pass it... and the House would be an extreme off chance...

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Post #: 11

RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban ... - 6/27/2013 9:26:22 AM

BitaTruble

Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

It requires the support of two-thirds of the House and Senate, and ratification by three-fourths of the states, or 38 states.

Would that suffice to override a Presidential veto?

POTUS does not have a Constitutional role so it wouldn't even go to the WH.

oops.. didn't see Ken had already answered..

< Message edited by BitaTruble -- 6/27/2013 9:27:51 AM >

_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Post #: 12

RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban ... - 6/27/2013 10:31:20 AM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

(FR)

Where's the hysteria?
Whenever a law gets passed by that scary black guy in the white house, we have fits of hysterical nonsense and drivel from neocons, teabaggers and conspiracy freaks bitching about the revoking of the whole constitution and the end of the rule of law.
You'd think one or two of them might realise that they'd look like a shower of partisan double standardsing cretins if they can't be bothered applying the same standards to their own side, wouldn't you? One of their boys wants to amend the constitution to get all bigotty on somebody's arse, and they're cool with that, which begs the question of wtf they're whining like a load of schoolgirls about the rest of the time.
Still, I suppose ignoring that makes it easier for some of them to insist that only those rotten liberals (hoch! ptooie!) apply double standards and the sort of special pleading they're so fond of...

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to BitaTruble)

Post #: 13

RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban ... - 6/27/2013 11:42:02 AM

Marc2b

Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline

I would like to propose a different amendment.

We need a constitutional amendment that requires legal recognition of marriage between any two consenting adults.

Actually I think it should be two or more consenting adults since I see no reason to leave the polys out in the cold. I concede, though, that American society might not be quite ready to go that far. One thing at a time.

So, a marriage would, in the legal sense, be considered the creation of a new family relation where such a relation did not exist before from natural means. Okay, I don't really like the use of the word natural here, but it is the best word I can think off at the moment. Basically, what I mean is two people who are not already considered family because of birth, ie, siblings, parent and child, etc.

This amendment would require appropriate government servants (judges, justices of the peace, etc) to perform any legal marriage ceremony required of them. The government is not allowed to engage in unwarranted discrimination against its citizens. Any government employee unable to meet this requirement should resign their position and, if unwilling to do so, shall be fired.

To protect religious freedom, this amendment would also forbid forcing any church or religious organization from having to perform any marriage they are opposed to.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Post #: 14

RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban ... - 6/27/2013 2:40:57 PM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

It requires the support of two-thirds of the House and Senate, and ratification by three-fourths of the states, or 38 states.

Would that suffice to override a Presidential veto?

opps already answered

Butch

< Message edited by kdsub -- 6/27/2013 2:42:16 PM >

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Post #: 15

RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban ... - 6/27/2013 4:58:21 PM

BamaD

Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: YN

From my understanding of the United States, and what it takes to amend the Federal constitution (super majority in both your House and Senate, then ratification by 3/4s of the United States., along with polling suggesting about 60% of the United States supports same sex marriages, I doubt this is anything but political pandering.

He would have better luck attempting the repeal of the Second Amendment, not that that would bear any fruit either.

A. 2/3 is what it takes to override a veto it is not relevant on 2 counts (can't be vetoed and overridden even if it could be)
B. It would be hard to get 2/3 of either house to agree it is Thursday.
C. If the equal rights amendment couldn't pass this couldn't.
D. And most importantly no matter which side of the issue your on it isn't worth tampering with the Constitution over.
E. People who want to change the Constitution every time they want something are as bad as the ones who just pretend it says what they want it too.

(in reply to YN)

Post #: 16

RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban ... - 6/27/2013 5:00:42 PM

BamaD

Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

I would like to propose a different amendment.

We need a constitutional amendment that requires legal recognition of marriage between any two consenting adults.

Actually I think it should be two or more consenting adults since I see no reason to leave the polys out in the cold. I concede, though, that American society might not be quite ready to go that far. One thing at a time.

So, a marriage would, in the legal sense, be considered the creation of a new family relation where such a relation did not exist before from natural means. Okay, I don't really like the use of the word natural here, but it is the best word I can think off at the moment. Basically, what I mean is two people who are not already considered family because of birth, ie, siblings, parent and child, etc.

This amendment would require appropriate government servants (judges, justices of the peace, etc) to perform any legal marriage ceremony required of them. The government is not allowed to engage in unwarranted discrimination against its citizens. Any government employee unable to meet this requirement should resign their position and, if unwilling to do so, shall be fired.

To protect religious freedom, this amendment would also forbid forcing any church or religious organization from having to perform any marriage they are opposed to.

See item E under my previous post, I am hoping your post was made in jest.

(in reply to Marc2b)

Post #: 17

RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban ... - 6/27/2013 5:21:21 PM

dcnovice

Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

Dear GOP

Put the Bible down and step away from it.
Get your tongue out of the asscrack of your corporate overlords
Stop worrying about the fact that Gov Christie touched a Democrat voluntarily. (and liked it)

And start fixing the fucking country.

Brilliant!

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Hillwilliam)

Post #: 18

RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban ... - 6/27/2013 5:35:55 PM

BamaD

Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

Whenever a law gets passed by that scary black guy in the white house, we have fits of hysterical nonsense and drivel from neocons, teabaggers and conspiracy freaks bitching about the revoking of the whole constitution and the end of the rule of law.

If any President passes a law the Constitution is gone.

(in reply to Moonhead)

Post #: 19

RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban ... - 6/27/2013 5:49:03 PM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

I would like to propose a different amendment.

We need a constitutional amendment that requires legal recognition of marriage between any two consenting adults.

Actually I think it should be two or more consenting adults since I see no reason to leave the polys out in the cold. I concede, though, that American society might not be quite ready to go that far. One thing at a time.

So, a marriage would, in the legal sense, be considered the creation of a new family relation where such a relation did not exist before from natural means. Okay, I don't really like the use of the word natural here, but it is the best word I can think off at the moment. Basically, what I mean is two people who are not already considered family because of birth, ie, siblings, parent and child, etc.

This amendment would require appropriate government servants (judges, justices of the peace, etc) to perform any legal marriage ceremony required of them. The government is not allowed to engage in unwarranted discrimination against its citizens. Any government employee unable to meet this requirement should resign their position and, if unwilling to do so, shall be fired.

To protect religious freedom, this amendment would also forbid forcing any church or religious organization from having to perform any marriage they are opposed to.

As someone who is polyamorous, and if I ever wanted to get married again, I would want a plural situation recognized, I think this new twist is actually good for polygamists.

The Defense of Marriage Act is not the "Defense of Gay Marriage Act". The phrase being bandied about, during the fight was "marriage equality". Well, now, I want my equality.

It's going to be fun to watch the people that were in complete agreement with this try to back-peddle their way around plural marriages, when their rallying cry has been: "Marriage equality" because then, they'll be in the position of having to defend "equality for those we feel deserve it".

This is going to be fun!

Peace and comfort,

Michael

< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 6/27/2013 6:04:19 PM >

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to Marc2b)

Post #: 20

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125