Posted on 05/08/2009 1:22:18 PM PDT by lewisglad
S. Rep. Paul Broun will re-introduce a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in the wake of recent votes and court decisions legalizing the practice in at least five states.
The amendment is a sign that battles over whether to allow same-sex marriage will continue to rage, even as state courts and legislatures overturn bans.
The D.C. City Council voted Tuesday to recognize same-sex marriages from states that allow them. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled in April that gay marriage is constitutional in that heartland state. Massachusetts and Connecticut also allow same-sex marriage; Vermont and Maine will allow it beginning in September, and a bill allowing it in New Hampshire is awaiting Gov. John Lynch's signature.
The recent trend toward legalizing gay marriage at the state level "highlighted the need for the amendment," said Pepper Pennington, a spokeswoman for Broun, R-Athens.
Previous versions of the Marriage Protection Amendment have not even come close to gaining enough support to pass, and it has an even slimmer chance now that Democrats have taken over Washington than when Republicans controlled the federal government. It would require a two-thirds vote in Congress and approval from 38 states to be ratified.
"It's a symbolic issue," University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock said.
Although gay marriage is gaining broader acceptance, especially outside the South, it's still a hot-button political issue that could play a role in the 2010 elections, Bullock said.
Georgia voters passed an amendment to the state constitution outlawing gay marriage in 2004. Up until a year ago, Broun had said that he opposed gay marriage, but also opposed amending the U.S. Constitution on the grounds that state constitutions are easier to change.
Former state Rep. Barry Fleming, Broun's opponent in the Republican primary last year, pledged to support amending the U.S. Constitution and attacked Broun relentlessly on the issue. Broun changed his position last May, after the California Supreme Court briefly allowed gay marriage, a ruling that California voters overturned later that year.
Broun would like to see amendments at both the state and federal levels, Pennington said
Now hear is a GOP guy with a spine. About time!
Sadly, the time to do this would have been part of the Contract with America. It’s too late now.
Easy for him to do now that it is totally and completely impossible to pass. Why didn’t he do it earlier so that it might have had a chance (however small).
You mean like term limits?
Fat chance this would ever pass. How about zero chance? Pure symbolism by a GOP politician from my state wasting taxpayer time and money.
If these states want to commit suicide and pass homosexual marriage, I say go for it. The Northeast is going to look like an abandoned warehouse when all the good people leave there, and homosexuals can’t reproduce they have to convert youngsters. That’s the beauty of federalism. Once these states realize they’re about to become extinct, they’ll change their minds.
Don’t worry. The RINO’s and moderates will be sure to kill it, like they do to everything else conservative.
It's never a waste to stand courageously against an overwhelming tide of evil. If nothing else, it will at least put politicians officially on record as for or against a societal abomination - perhaps for the final time before our culture's tragic collapse into anarchy.
No, they'll just blame the rest of the country, mostly sane states, for fostering the attitude that homosexual relations are somehow inferior and harmful to society. They'll never re-neg on their agenda - even if it takes them to the grave. Liberals don't ever "get it."
Most folks misunderstand this issue. A federal marriage amendment would do nothing more than fortify the already existing DOMA. It would remove the issue forever from the reach of activist federal judges who would enact fake marriage nationwide. It would ensure that the federal government never recognizes same-sex "marriage," nor would any state that did not wish to. States would still have the "right" to pass whatever marriage arrangements into law that they wished, only, it would be effective in only those states and those which choose to recognize it, just like now.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com
Even though some states have already decided the issue for themselves...
The Constitution is a joke anyway, right? No need to follow it. It's all about how we feel, not the rule of law.
Especially the Bill of Rights and that stupid 10th Amendment. What were those guys thinking when they wrote it, anyway?
This mental giant obviously has a better handle on things than the founders did.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What useless garbage Paul Broun must think the Constitution is to want to trash it so badly.
I’m 100% in favor of this approach and have been since Lawrence v. Texas. It’s time to drive a stake through the heart of this vampire once and for all.
about time some in the GOP got a spine and the GOP should speak about this much more seeing as the majority do not want this.
Of course this should have been done as soon as MA forced it on the people in that state or when we had control
what is going on in ME, MA and the other states , are they getting a vote on this and is the people doing something about this or just sitting there moaning but not doing anything about it.
notice all the states which let the people vote have banned it where as the states which have this sham marriage have not let the people vote
This is an election winner and the GOP should use it but of course there are not many who have a spine because they fear they might be called a name
ah diddums so what , a name is a name ask them where their tolerance is
make the public know that the Dem party is the party of homosexuality and their sham marriage, the party of open borders , the party of weaker military and big spenders.
The party who does not follow the constitution and the party of soft on crime and child molesters
make those points and we win and just watch many Dems run away from the homos come election time
I would lose no sleep if the north east left the union and joined with Quebec
I drove up there not too long ago and it felt it was a different country anyway
we’ll take the conservatives and we’ll give them the homos, whack job left wing loons and illegals
Why didn't our Founding Fathers put term limits for Congress in the Constitution?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.