Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Lucylastic -> Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (6/27/2013 7:09:24 AM)

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.







DarkSteven -> RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (6/27/2013 7:38:57 AM)


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?



Hillwilliam -> RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (6/27/2013 7:42:58 AM)

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.



sissibaby -> RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (6/27/2013 7:43:05 AM)

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.



Lucylastic -> RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (6/27/2013 7:45:59 AM)


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.



sissibaby -> RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (6/27/2013 7:53:36 AM)


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



YN -> RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (6/27/2013 8:03:17 AM)

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.



DomKen -> RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (6/27/2013 8:03:36 AM)


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?



tazzygirl -> RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (6/27/2013 9:08:18 AM)

Doubtful it will pass the Senate



Lucylastic -> RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (6/27/2013 9:12:05 AM)

will it even get thru congress ???



tazzygirl -> RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (6/27/2013 9:13:08 AM)

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



BitaTruble -> RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (6/27/2013 9:26:22 AM)

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..



Moonhead -> RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (6/27/2013 10:31:20 AM)

(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...



Marc2b -> RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (6/27/2013 11:42:02 AM)

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.



kdsub -> RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (6/27/2013 2:40:57 PM)

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



BamaD -> RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (6/27/2013 4:58:21 PM)


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.



BamaD -> RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (6/27/2013 5:00:42 PM)


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.



dcnovice -> RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (6/27/2013 5:21:21 PM)

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!



BamaD -> RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (6/27/2013 5:35:55 PM)

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.



DaddySatyr -> RE: Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage (6/27/2013 5:49:03 PM)

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



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875