Bill to be introduced in Kansas would constitutionally ban equal marriage
US: Bill to be introduced in Kansas would constitutionally ban equal marriage
by Joseph Patrick McCormick; 28 June 2013, 12:50am
An amendment to the constitution of the US state of Kansas, to be introduced this week, would define marriage specifically as between one man and one woman.
Yesterday, the federally-sanctioned Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was struck down in the Supreme Court for being unconstitutional.
DOMA effectively did the same thing as the Kansas amendment aims to, however DOMA was a law, subject to constitutionality, and a major section of it was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
A constitutional amendment cannot be found in itself to be unconstitutional.
Representative Tim Huelskamp, who will be introducing the amendment, will require it to be supported by two-thirds of the House and Senate, in order for it to succeed.
Because of recent opinion polls, it looks unlikely that the amendment would have a chance of passing.
Huelskamp, the Representative for Kansas’s first congressional district voiced his opposition to equal marriage in February, claiming that 70% of Americans also oppose it, and saying that Obama wants to “destroy the family.”
|by Anonymous||reply 38||06/29/2013|
Does the president have to sign that?
|by Anonymous||reply 1||06/28/2013|
According to the comments at Pink News, this article is a little confused: Huelskamp is a Kansas representative in Congress, he is seeking to introduce a ban on same-sex marriage to the US Constitution. I don't think he will get very far.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||06/28/2013|
[quote]In the first step, the proposed Amendment must be supported by two-thirds in Congress, both House and Senate. The second step requires a three-fourths majority of the states ratifying the amendment. Congress determines whether the state legislatures or special state conventions ratify the amendment.
The president has nothing to do with it. This proposed amendment will never be ratified.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||06/28/2013|
Aren't they just talking about the FMA then? I think the problem here is this from a UK site, and they don't follow US politics closely enough not to make this totally confusing. And the FMA never had a chance of passing, but to make the story seem more interesting they say this thing does.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||06/28/2013|
Oh wait, I misread it, it does say it's unlikely to pass. A non-story, really.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||06/28/2013|
I don't think this will ever even make it to AM radio.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||06/28/2013|
This is going to be a long war. Think about how some southern states are just barely taking off racist laws from their books.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||06/28/2013|
The struggle for equality goes on. It's not over, and it will likely be a battle state-by-state.
However, regarding a consitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, that ship has sailed and even the slightest possibility is dead, dead, dead.
Same sex marriage is going forward at least at the federal level among those those states that approve it. Civil rights should not be up for a up for a vote, but that is where the pussy Supreme Court has left us.
However, a federal constitutional amendment is going nowhere. We are moving forward no matter how long it takes. But these assholes in Kansas and anywhere else who think a constitutional amendment is possible are ignorant fucking douchebags who are wasting their time, money effort and breath. They are in the minority which will dwindle even further as time goes on.
Face it; it's over. Those in favor of equality have won. We haven't won completely, and the fight goes on. But we're on the road to winning.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||06/28/2013|
R9 - what would be an example of "some southern states are just barely taking off racist laws from their books."
|by Anonymous||reply 11||06/28/2013|
I'm not R9, but since R11 is obviously a foreigner, I'll play.
I don't know if it exactly fits "just barely taking racist laws off the books" but Mississippi didn't ratify the 13th Amendment until this past February, 148 years after it was passed in the US.
The backwards attitude of some states goes beyond racism. The "business rights" libertarian douchebags are always trying to undo civil rights legislation. Anti sodomy laws are still on the books in many states, as are laws specifically targeting and punishing women.
There is still a lot of work that we have to do on these issues in America. If you're from Europe, R11, you haven't had to deal with these things as much as we have here in the States.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||06/28/2013|
Just because a fundie is from a specific state doesn't mean the whole of the state's population feels the same. A bit juvenile to say things like, 'Fuck Kansas.'
|by Anonymous||reply 13||06/28/2013|
R12 - actually I'm from the US - born and bred.
But I'm wondering if you are?
Because you haven't provided and example of "some southern states are just barely taking off racist laws from their books."
You won't get an argument from me that racism is a major problem in the US. Just look at incarceration rates of African-Americans. (hint the state with the one of if not the worst record isn't a southern state)
I happen to think when trying to deal with or solve the problem of racism - an honest and truthful description of the problem is best.
Not a statement that points a finger at a part of the problem that doesn't exist.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||06/28/2013|
R2 is correct -- the sponsor is FROM Kansas, but re-introducing the twice-failed Federal Marriage Amendment, that couldn't get 50% support in Congress in much more favorable conditions years ago, let alone the 67% needed to send the matter to the states.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||06/28/2013|
The article says that the proposed amendment is to the constitution of the state of Kansas, not the constitution of the United States. If, indeed, the state has a constitution, it's amendments can certainly be unconstitutional under the federal constitution.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||06/28/2013|
The British writer obviously knows nothing about American geography or politics, R17. This a Kansas Congressman introducing a D. C. bill.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||06/28/2013|
I'm introducing a bill to ban Kansas.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||06/28/2013|
Actually, R16, the last time Congress voted on the FMA it did get a majority. The vote was 236 to 187 -- short of the 290 votes needed for passage, but still a 54% majority. And of course, almost all Republicans voted for it.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||06/29/2013|
Hey R15 ...? SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
Please go back to your Facebook page.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||06/29/2013|
You might want to try that again, R22. Bad link.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||06/29/2013|
R24 - let me try once again. How is this an example of "just barely taking racist laws off the books"?
You need to provide examples of Southern states which have just barely taken racists laws off the books.
That would mean a list of states, a list of laws in those states - which are racist and are barely taken off the books.
For example what racist laws were barely taken off the books in Mississippi when Mississippi filed the document certifying that Mississippi had ratified the 13th Amendment in 1995.
Go for it. Knock yourself out.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||06/29/2013|
Three years after the 1964 civil rights bill ostensibly made legal segregation illegal, Southern cities tried to sneak laws onto the books upholding segregation. Sarasota, Florida, for instance, passed a city ordinance that authorized the police to arrest interracial bathers from the city's beaches. Though the Supreme Court outlawed miscegenation laws in dozens of states, some states kept the laws on the books for decades after. It took a voter referendum in Alabama in 2000 to repeal the state's anti-interracial marriage law. And even then, 40 percent of the voters backed the law.
Six years later, Alabama, and nearly ten other states keep Jim Crow laws on their books. Not all the states are in the South, and despite public embarrassment, and repeated demands to cleanse the books of them, state legislators, and even voters have resisted taking any action. While the laws are unenforceable, they aren't laughable, antique relics of a long buried racial past. They insult and degrade, and have had and still have a corrosive affect on law and public policy. In Georgia teachers that taught at once segregated private schools are eligible to collect state pensions, and as far as we know many of them are.
In Louisiana, Mississippi and Virginia school officials can close integrated schools. Teachers in Louisiana that are jailed for opposing integrated schools can collect their full salaries. In South Carolina students that attend segregated public schools can get state and presumably federally supported tuition. Missouri designates a segregated reform school as a school for "Negroes." And West Virginia law limits the number of blacks that can be hired as school supervisors. There are almost certainly more such laws tucked away in the back of state statute books.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||06/29/2013|
seven year old unsourced opinion piece.
Look I've been saying from the beginning racism is a systemic problem in the US.
It is pervasive - in all the states. The most egregious acts of racism still impacting peoples lives are not limited to the South.
I think the Texas voter ID law is rooted in racism. Just like I think Ohio's attempt at voter suppression was rooted in racism. Just like I think California's Prop 209 which is still being enforced is rooted in racism. Just like I think Minnesota and Illinois's fondness for arresting way more African-Americans on a per capita basis for marijuana possession is rooted in racism. (See are these are all things actually happening today?)
People outside the South have a real interest in pointing fingers at the South so they don't have to address just as serious problems in their own states.
Let's try to address real problem which impact real people today.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||06/29/2013|
Sorry, R20, I meant the times it's been brought up in the Senate. Agreed it could easily pass the House these days with a bare majority.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||06/29/2013|
R25, The attempts by some states to change the voting laws is a current example of how racism still exists. The laws are specifically designed to disenfranchise non-whites. Studies show that voter fraud is virtually non-existent in the U.S., yet these states are adding restrictions that have no tangible effect beyond preventing poor non-white voters from being able to vote.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||06/29/2013|
Are you surprised about that little shithole Kansas?
|by Anonymous||reply 30||06/29/2013|
This whole article is terribly written and just plain inaccurate. The facts are:
- Huelskamp is a U.S. Congressman, not a Kansas state representative.
- Kansas ALREADY outlaws same-sex marriage in its state constitution (as do dozens of other states). The relevant passages from the Kansas constitution:
[quote]Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void. ... It is the strong public policy of this state only to recognize as valid marriages from other states that are between a man and a woman.
- There have been other attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. All have failed. The 2004 attempt (backed by then-Pres. George W. Bush as he sought reelection) did not even garner enough support to take it to a formal vote. And Congress has gotten more liberal on the issue since then.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||06/29/2013|
Kansas is also the state with repeated challenges to the sole teaching of evolution without including intelligent design as well. Quite the progressive state.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||06/29/2013|
There are laws and there are those that have the financial ability to hire lawyers to enforce those laws.
Now I want to know what happens when those with money and power try to undermine laws through harassment, "losing paperwork," making "certain people" go through extra unnecessary hoops, etc.
R26, How did they ever determine who was really an "interracial couple?" I've seen many who don't exactly look like they're actual racial composition, to my naive eyes. Some that appear White aren't 100% White. What happens if the person was adopted? How would they know what race they really were?
|by Anonymous||reply 33||06/29/2013|
Isn't there a court case going through now trying to get Section 2 of DOMA struck down? That's the section stating other states don't have to recognize gay marriages. Once that's struck down, marriage equality will become the law of the land.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||06/29/2013|
Don't MAKE me send another dozen F-5 tornadoes to that backward shit hole....
|by Anonymous||reply 35||06/29/2013|
The issue of gay marriage is over.
Anyone who doesn't realize that is an idiot.
The Supreme Court has already put down the precedent to find any state ban on gay marriage unconstitutional as a violation of Equal Protection.
And it will be EASIER to strike down a state ban than DOMA because it will go against the 14th Amendment, which only applies to states.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||06/29/2013|
HRC needs to funnel some funding into the campaign of Democrats who want to unseat Tim Huelskamp.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||06/29/2013|