Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Huelskamp: 'It's Not Over' - Constitutional Amendment Would Restore Gay Marriage Ban
http://www.newsmax.com/ ^ | Thursday, 27 Jun 2013 10:25 AM | Lisa Barron

Posted on 06/27/2013 11:20:17 AM PDT by DannyTN

A constitutional amendment restoring the Defense of Marriage Act, to be introduced by Rep. Tim Huelskamp, likely would reignite the debate over same-sex marriage. The Kansas Republican said he plans to introduce the Federal Marriage Amendment to restore DOMA, which was struck down by the Supreme Court this week.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: marriage; samesex; scotus; sourcetitlenoturl

1 posted on 06/27/2013 11:20:17 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

In this political climate, where there is no Republican will to take on ANY difficult issues ... this will not happen.


2 posted on 06/27/2013 11:22:41 AM PDT by dartuser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Won’t matter. The SCOTUS would declare the Constitution “unconstitutional”.

It’s time to tell them to shove it.


3 posted on 06/27/2013 11:24:14 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

Of course not. It’s 17x more difficult to pass a constitutional amendment than to win the presidency or a super-majority in Congress.

Why people think an amendment is the solution to problems created by losing elections is a great mystery.

Amendment ONLY pass when there is broad national and regional consensus in their favor.


4 posted on 06/27/2013 11:25:14 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Never happen.


5 posted on 06/27/2013 11:25:15 AM PDT by boomop1 (term limits will only save this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Good to hear. 37 states have already signed their own DOMA and that’s just enough to ratify an amendment.

And if Congress won’t propose the amendment, then 34 of statehouses can propose it per the US Constitution.


6 posted on 06/27/2013 11:25:54 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
Well apparently there is at least one. Source http://www.artofmanliness.com
7 posted on 06/27/2013 11:29:20 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

A Con-Con would be really scary stuff. Every nutball and activist would glom onto it like Silly Putty. We’d end up with amendments for a “right” to health care, a “right” to free college, a “right” to two weeks paid vacation, etc.


8 posted on 06/27/2013 11:30:21 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN; All

Corrupt Congress should have proposed an amendment to the Constitution which defines marriage as a one man, one woman union instead of making constitutionally questionable federal DOMA law in first place. (But thank God that they didn’t since words like man and woman have no meaning anymore.)

But frankly, given the country is divided in all issues, essentially a war between good and evil, the Constitution is essentially unamendable at this time, the Article V 3/4 state supermajority required to ratify a proposed amendment nowhere to be found at this time imo. So is Rep. Tim Huelskamp just politicking?


9 posted on 06/27/2013 11:31:47 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Oh I agree. No way do we want a constitutional convention because that opens up everything. But there is a process in the current constitution for amendments. And we have enough states on board to do it.


10 posted on 06/27/2013 11:31:56 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

If that’s what we gotta do, that’s what we do


11 posted on 06/27/2013 11:35:20 AM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
It’s 17x more difficult to pass a constitutional amendment than to win the presidency or a super-majority in Congress

Yes But the fact that you might propose one is an issue which could help you WIN the elections in the first place.

12 posted on 06/27/2013 11:36:47 AM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

There might be such amendments but they would never be ratified by 37 states.

Right now 37 states have already signed into state law a version of DOMA.

Republicans and conservatives control the vast majority of statehouses. In fact the 2010 Tea Party tsunami was more devastating to liberals at the statehouse level than at the federal level.

A CC would quickly pare the nonsensical amendments out of the process.

The liberals can’t win in fly-over country unless they can convince conservatives to stop thinking about a CC because a CC would bring all sorts of BS amendments.....Oh Wait!


13 posted on 06/27/2013 11:36:49 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Isn’t the amendment route what the people in California tried only to have a homosexual judge decide it was unconstitutional to change the constitution? Once the people no longer rule, that cannot rule themselves back into power.


14 posted on 06/27/2013 11:39:40 AM PDT by Old North State
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
"But thank God that they didn’t since words like man and woman have no meaning anymore."

So what wording do we need to make "Man" and "Woman" meaningful again?


15 posted on 06/27/2013 11:42:39 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Someone(s) does need to tell someone(s) to shove it. These homos win this and the Church will have to go underground or marry these homos and allow them to preach from the pulpit. I would rather see the Church close their door and go underground.
16 posted on 06/27/2013 11:42:45 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old North State
They were amending the California Consitution. And the California Supreme court upheld the amendment. Then a homosexual federal judge decided that was against the federal constitution.

This would be amending the Federal Constitution. SCOTUS could conceivably strike down such an amendment claiming it conflicts one of the other provisions. But we can either write the amendment to specifically address any conflict. Or we can impeach the justices.

17 posted on 06/27/2013 11:46:04 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Old North State
They were amending the California Consitution. And the California Supreme court upheld the amendment. Then a homosexual federal judge decided that was against the federal constitution.

This would be amending the Federal Constitution. SCOTUS could conceivably strike down such an amendment claiming it conflicts one of the other provisions. But we can either write the amendment to specifically address any conflict. Or we can impeach the justices.

18 posted on 06/27/2013 11:46:05 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Amendment ONLY pass when there is broad national and regional consensus in their favor.

Not so. The 18th Amendment was passed with strong opposition, about half of the country. It was about where this country is now.

I think that with this Supreme Court treachery, there are going to be a lot of minds changed about pushing for the amendment that weren't convinced before. A LOT of minds.

19 posted on 06/27/2013 11:47:23 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
I understand that the California effort was to amend the State constitution, but it seems to be that the precedent has been set that the will of judges supersedes that of the people and there is no way around them. If the court is not bound by a plebiscite, what is to keep them from declaring the result of an impeachment effort unconstitutional? Didn't Judge Kennedy justify a ruling on what he considered to be the ill will of opponents of homosexual marriage? Couldn't he and reflexive leftists on the court do the same thing? Once an elitist court decides it is no longer bound by the expressed will of the people the people have no secure their liberty.
20 posted on 06/27/2013 12:19:12 PM PDT by Old North State
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

I think you are doing the math backwards. 13 states have legalized gay marriage. However, another 6 have legalized civil unions - this includes blue states like Hawaii an Illinois that would be very unlikely to pass a constitutional amendment. New Mexico has no position yet, leaving only 30 states that have banned gay marriage via statute on constitution.


21 posted on 06/27/2013 12:20:21 PM PDT by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

Yep, will never happen. I don’t think we could have even gotten an amendment passed 10-15 years ago, when we had a larger majority on our side, simply because not enough states would ratify it.


22 posted on 06/27/2013 12:21:39 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Old North State

SCOTUS Can. But keep in mind the history. California judges ruled a California defense of marriage act unconstitutional. That’s why California people voted in Prop 8. And once they did that, the California supreme court went along with it.

they couldn’t continue to claim it was unconstitutional when the people had just voted to change the constitution to make it constitutional.

And if you have the votes to change the constitution, you probably have the votes to impeach judges and justices if they get in your way.


23 posted on 06/27/2013 12:27:53 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Exactly. Do not heed the naysayers. This needs to become a national movement. Soon.


24 posted on 06/27/2013 12:28:37 PM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

The task of keeping a convention’s agenda under control is in the hands of the Chairman.


25 posted on 06/27/2013 12:32:01 PM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Been saying a Constitutional amendment is the only way to fix this problem since Justice Kennedy declared butt-sex a God-given right in 2005.

Let's get on with it. I'm 100% on board.
26 posted on 06/27/2013 12:37:03 PM PDT by Antoninus (Sorry, gone rogue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop
leaving only 30 states that have banned gay marriage via statute on constitution.

You are using the lingo of the enemy. This not a "ban on gay marriage" - it is a positive definition of marriage as the union of one man, one woman. Such an amendment would pass and be ratified. We just need leaders with the courage and financial ability to do it.
27 posted on 06/27/2013 12:39:18 PM PDT by Antoninus (Sorry, gone rogue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
The 18th Amendment was passed with strong opposition, about half of the country.

Baloney. We didn't have opinion polls back then, but it was enormously popular.

Senate vote 65 t0 20. House vote 182 to 128. 46 of 48 states ratified it. Only two voted against it.

Now it wasn't too many years, obviously, before a whole lot of people changed their minds. But in 1918/19 the amendment was wildly popular or at least considered inevitable.

28 posted on 06/27/2013 12:42:11 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop
13 states have legalized gay marriage.

And it only takes 13 of the 99 state legislature houses to block ratification.

29 posted on 06/27/2013 12:44:00 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

The most recent Constitutional Amendment adopted that was submitted to the states took over 200 years. There is no time limit here like the gloomy crowd who think in short time frames.


30 posted on 06/27/2013 1:04:32 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
"The most recent Constitutional Amendment adopted that was submitted to the states took over 200 years."

Yeah but the one before that (26th amendment) took less than 3.5 months. And the one before that took less than 1.5 years.

31 posted on 06/27/2013 1:09:16 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Not trying gets you nothing.


32 posted on 06/27/2013 1:12:37 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop

There are 12 states that have legalized homosexual marriage:

Connecticut
*Delaware
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New York
*Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington

There are 6 states that have civil unions but they* overlap with the homosexual marriage states:

Colorado
*Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
New Jersey
*Rhode Island

There are 36 states that ban homosexual marriage. That leaves 2 states that have no ban or permit; New Jersey and New Mexico. NJ allows Civil Unions, NM does not.

I think the numbers are there for a Constitutional Amendment. The process itself would sober Americans up.


33 posted on 06/27/2013 1:28:59 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus; MrShoop

Mr. Shoop is not even accurate with his numbers. It’s not 30 states, it’s 36.

Same-sex marriage is banned by constitutional amendment or state law in: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Updated yesterday by the Communist News Network
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/28/us/same-sex-marriage-fast-facts


34 posted on 06/27/2013 1:37:25 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

He’s wrong with the numbers. It’s 12 not 13.


35 posted on 06/27/2013 1:38:29 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

It just depends if you now count California.


36 posted on 06/27/2013 1:59:06 PM PDT by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Yes, you are right on that. But here is where the grey area is. States like Hawaii and Illinois have banned gay marriage, but more recently allowed civil unions. So where do you expect them to line up now on a constitutional amendment?


37 posted on 06/27/2013 2:00:54 PM PDT by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Give it a year and it will be 20 or 25. It’s an issue on a roll, and most Americans find it very difficult to resist the pressure of public opinion, even when it is largely manufactured.

See Alexis de Tocqueville.


38 posted on 06/27/2013 2:07:58 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MrShoop

Brew a backlash.

‘Gay Marriage’ aka ‘Marriage Equality’ but actually Homosexual normalization was voted in a number of states that were asleep as many voters sat out the 2012 elections.

The faction that sat it out is the old dissatisfied Perot bloc of blue collared conservative independents that were repulsed by Romney and could not be compelled to vote against Obama because the alternative was also quite repulsive to them.

This Perot bloc analysis has been confirmed by a number of post-election reputable statistical surveys who performed regional analysis that pinpointed the demographics that played key parts in the outcome of 2012.

The way forward is to defeat Rove-like GOPe antagonists and to control the GOP with an articulate leader that will bring back the Perot bloc. Once the rank and file has been strengthened, then the battle can be waged to get the crucial 37 states on board with affirming marriage as between one man and one woman.

Voters are not opposed to allowing civil unions. Many court cases have affirmed that civil unions bestow on the parties all the rights and benefits of married couples. There is no reason to intrude upon the institution of marriage other than to set the stage for normalizing homosexuality in the society.

The bottom line is voters can be persuaded to allow civil unions but vote to defend the time honored definition of marriage.


39 posted on 06/27/2013 2:20:10 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

With good leadership Americans can be persuaded to reject the homosexual advance. See Post #39.


40 posted on 06/27/2013 2:22:02 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

The problem with a Constitutional Amendment, though, is that it will be as binding on the government as the 4th, 5th, and 6th were on the NSA/FISA-court.


41 posted on 06/27/2013 2:47:15 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
The problem with a Constitutional Amendment, though, is that it will be as binding on the government as the 4th, 5th, and 6th were on the NSA/FISA-court.

Then, it will be more fuel for the revolution.

42 posted on 06/27/2013 2:49:55 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

>> The problem with a Constitutional Amendment, though, is that it will be as binding on the government as the 4th, 5th, and 6th were on the NSA/FISA-court.
>
> Then, it will be more fuel for the revolution.

I think we have enough fuel; what we need is a spark:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3030973/posts


43 posted on 06/27/2013 2:54:49 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

“So what wording do we need to make “Man” and “Woman” meaningful again?”


Biological male (i.e., having a Y chromosome) and biological female (i.e., not having a Y chromosome). A person can snip off body parts, but can’t change his genes.


44 posted on 06/27/2013 4:44:37 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson