Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Tim Huelskamp Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage

You knew it was coming, right?

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.

Asked why he thinks lawmakers would embrace his amendment to ban gay marriage when such a move doesn't reflect what most Americans support, Huelskamp said majority opinions aren't always the best measure.

"A majority of Americans don't like President Obama as president, but he's still the president," Huelskamp said. "What did not happen is what the court and then the folks pushing for [DOMA repeal] hoped would happen: that it would end the debate. The debate is not over."

Huelskamp said he took heart that the court didn't go as far as it could have. On DOMA, he said, the court ruled that it's up to the states, not the federal government, to pass same-sex marriage laws. On Prop 8, he continued, the court may have allowed gay marriages to proceed in California, but it didn't use that ruling to alter other state laws banning same-sex marriage.

"It's very tortured legal logic," Huelskamp said of the rulings. "Today, 37 states still have traditional marriage amendments and laws. Those are not overruled, which is the good side of this."

He added: "It's not over."

by Anonymousreply 3506/28/2013

No, it will never be over, asshole Tim. Whatever laws are in place, gay men and women will still find love and sex, just as straight people do. We always have.

by Anonymousreply 106/26/2013

[quote]He added: "It's not over."

Yes it is, you simpleton.

A majority of the Senate supports SSM. That's a pretty tough hurdle on the way to a 2/3rds majority.

by Anonymousreply 206/26/2013

Yawn.

by Anonymousreply 306/26/2013

r2 Wow. I didn't know that the most the senate was in favor. Good.

by Anonymousreply 506/26/2013

A constitutional amendment, if approved by Congress, must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures to become law. 38 states.

Not gonna happen, Tim. It ain't over, but you've already lost.

by Anonymousreply 606/26/2013

I'm puttin the votin machines in churches and Chick-Fil-A's.

by Anonymousreply 706/26/2013

For the love of gd give it up you freaks.

by Anonymousreply 806/26/2013

[quote][R2] Wow. I didn't know that the most the senate was in favor. Good.

Fifty-one out of fifty-four Democrats and two Republicans.

The Democratic holdouts are Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu who are up for re-election in red states, and Joe Manchin, who's basically a DINO.

The two Republicans on the side of the angels are Mark Kirk, who I assume would like to be married himself one day, and Lisa Murkowski, the tough-as-nails pragmatist from Alaska, who may be the Republican I most admire.

by Anonymousreply 906/26/2013

Unless he's completely delusional (which is quite possible given he's a Republican from KS), he knows this isn't going anywhere, but it's a golden opportunity for him to score some points with his right-wing constituents without his having to actually succeed getting the amendment passed.

by Anonymousreply 1006/26/2013

[quote]Unless he's completely delusional (which is quite possible given he's a Republican from KS

Nancy Kassebaum was a Republican from KS. She was okay.

by Anonymousreply 1106/26/2013

It takes more than the Senate to pass an amendment, 3/4 of the states have to pass it as well. Right now, a little over 1/4 of the states allow gay marriage. Factor in the states that will probably allow it in the near future (New Jersey and Illinois) and the states that have civil unions, its not very likely that will happen. It takes YEARS to get an amendment passed. And each year, the number of people who come out in support of it grows. This is political grand-standing, nothing more. It wont happen.

by Anonymousreply 1206/26/2013

Kansas politics have swung wildly to the fringe in recent years, particularly with the election of Sam Brownback as Governor. It was proud of being purple at one time, but it's now bright red. There was a fascinating piece recently about this on public radio from the perspective of one of the moderates on the outs.

by Anonymousreply 1306/26/2013

I think part of the problem, R13, is Kansas's demographics. I'm grateful it only has six electoral votes. I haven't monitored population changes; but, hopefully, that state -- along with Nebraska and West Virginia -- will suffer a loss of a congressional seat/electoral vote for the tally with the next decade.

by Anonymousreply 1406/26/2013

[quote]"Today, 37 states still have traditional marriage amendments and laws. Those are not overruled, . . ."

Well, not yet, you moron. I'm not sure that anyone thought that the Court would strike down the state marriage bans that were not before it. Legally, that would have been a very odd step to have taken.

However, it will be almost impossible for any of the bans to survive in the face of this decision. If DOMA violated equal protection than so do the state marriage bans. Scalia correctly predicted that there is "one more shoe to drop." Maybe next year.

And, Huelskamp's amendment has absolutely no chance of passing.

They should give up this fight. They lost.

by Anonymousreply 1506/26/2013

Prior to Roe v. Wade, Kansas, along with Colorado and New York, had the most liberal laws concerning abortion in the nation. I do agree their politics have swung radically to the right. Thank goodness Lawrence, an island of blue, is home.

by Anonymousreply 1606/26/2013

Please Republicans, spend lots of money on something that will never pass.

by Anonymousreply 1706/26/2013

R13,

Kansas hasn't been purple since 1936. (Referencing its vote in presidential races. From 1900 to 1936, Kan. was on a roll with having carried for all winning candidacies.)

by Anonymousreply 1806/26/2013

Some people just can't accept when they've lost. Sad.

by Anonymousreply 1906/26/2013

Honey, the fat lady already sang.

by Anonymousreply 2006/26/2013

Count me in support of those who think he should go ahead and try. These morons have no idea that THEY themselves HELP our cause tremendously with all of their crazy talk.

by Anonymousreply 2106/26/2013

It's one thing to simply be anti-gay marriage, but at what point do constituents -even in red states- wake up and realize how much taxpayer money is being wasted on this nonsense and that there are more important issues in their states?

by Anonymousreply 2206/26/2013

Well, I guess the Democrats will have to get ready to work on a constitutional amendment to ban the 2nd Amendment.

by Anonymousreply 2306/26/2013

It's the 21st century, and the only thing that will come out of this is that a republ politician is going to waste taxpayer money in order to publicize what an ignorant retard he is. There are laws that make people who file spurious lawsuits to pay the costs there should be similar laws applying to political grandstanders like this.

But, hey, he's a republ. What can he do with tax-payers' money other than waste it?

by Anonymousreply 2406/26/2013

Yet, these 'traditionalist's', if you will, say nothing about rolling back voter's rights in yesterday's ruling.

by Anonymousreply 2506/26/2013

[R9] you forgot Rob Portman. There's 3 Republicans

by Anonymousreply 2606/26/2013

Yes, you think I would have remembered that, since he was the one who broke open the floodgates on the issue.

My bad.

by Anonymousreply 2706/26/2013

[quote]The Democratic holdouts are Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu who are up for re-election in red states, and Joe Manchin, who's basically a DINO.

All three are DINOs. I particularly loathe Landrieu.

by Anonymousreply 2806/26/2013

[quote]He added: "It's not over."

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

by Anonymousreply 2906/26/2013

[quote]All three are DINOs. I particularly loathe Landrieu.

Landrieu's probably the closest to actually supporting equality, though.

Plus, she's better than any alternative the Louisiana GOP will run against her.

I'll take even a bad Democrat over Senator "Baby-Made-A-Poopie" Vitter any day.

by Anonymousreply 3006/26/2013

He's plucky, I'll give him that.

by Anonymousreply 3106/26/2013

It's time for an amendment prohibiting assholism.

by Anonymousreply 3206/26/2013

Here is the reaction within Kansas to his proposed amendment to ban gay marriage:

----------------------------------

A Kansas Republican congressman's proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage has home state Democrats eager to attack, while state Republicans are keeping their distance.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp announced Wednesday he would propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage in response to U.S. Supreme Court rulings striking down a federal ban on benefits for gay married couples and upholding California's gay marriage law. The idea, which would align federal law with 37 states that have banned gay marriage, including Kansas, has failed to garner support in Congress.

Even in Kansas, where Huelskamp has made a name for himself defending conservative causes, The Huffington Post found he's not gaining supporters for his proposed constitutional amendment. Democrats in particular were quick to attack.

“It is a complete and utter waste of time. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars. It clearly demonstrates that he has nothing better to do," Kansas Democratic Party spokesman Dakota Loomis said. "He is holding on to this divisive and hateful legislation when he should be focusd on bringing jobs back to the First District. This will not help the farmers.”

Republicans in Huelskamp's rural district took pains to distance themselves.

State Rep. J.R. Claeys (R-Salina) stressed that a gay marriage ban is not a "legislative priority of mine" and said he doesn't see a chance for Huelskamp's amendment ever passing. Asked if he believes Huelskamp should have made the proposal, Claeys answered: “I am not sure how to diplomatically sidestep this question."

Saline County Commission Chairman Randy Duncan, who also chairs the GOP in Huelskamp's district, said he hadn't heard about the amendment and suggested that Claeys would be better prepared to answer questions.

“I was in county commission meetings all day yesterday and I wasn’t following the state and national news," Duncan said.

State Rep. Reid Petty (R-Liberal) said he would continue to vote to uphold Kansas' same-sex marriage ban. But he said he didn't want to comment on Huelskamp's proposal, since it was a federal matter and he is a state legislator.

Huelskamp's spokesperson did not return a request for comment. Huelskamp told HuffPost on Wednesday that while polls show the majority of Americans support federal recognition of same-sex marriage, he would continue to press his case.

"A majority of Americans don't like President Obama as president, but he's still the president," Huelskamp said. "What did not happen is what the court and then the folks pushing for [DOMA repeal] hoped would happen: that it would end the debate. The debate is not over."

Huelskamp's may nevertheless be supported by conservative voters. The Kansas Republican Party has been increasingly dominated by conservatives, who largely swept the 2012 primaries for the state legislature.

One Kansas Democrat said he believes Huelskamp's amendment will hurt the state's reputation.

"I make no assumptions about how Kansans feel about LGBT rights," Topeka Councilman Chad Manspeaker (D) said. "In 2005, a constitutional amendment passed with 70 percent of the vote. Huelskamp is symbolic of that mentality, but that was eight years ago. Times are changing. Huelskamp is becoming a national joke. Kansas needs less national jokes and more leadership."

by Anonymousreply 3306/27/2013

Be gone, before somebody drops a house on you!

by Anonymousreply 3406/28/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.