Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage

[bodecea]

I knew it was only a matter of time, but one day? Some people never learn.

Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage

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.

More power to him.....oh, but he needs to check his DOMA history. It was passed because even way back then, the Righties knew they didn't have enough votes for a Constitutional Amendment which was what they originally wanted.

But...again, more power to him.

 

[rdean]

Maybe someone should inform them.

And by the way, thank you for admitting that you are a liar.

Now that is awfully strange. You asked if Log Cabin Republicans are "just for show" and I said "just for show". Then I linked to previous events when Republicans "returned money" given by Log Cabin Republicans and when Log Cabin Republicans were "banned" from GOP events and the disappointment the Log Cabin felt when Republicans put anti gay rhetoric in their Party Platform and all that makes me a "liar"????

You tried to pretend the Log Cabin gays were included in the GOP. Obviously, considering what Republicans are doing to gays, they are not. And you pretending they are part of the GOP most certainly is "just for show".

Avatar4321 couldn't be more transparent in his Thumper aganda. Even Bush's former campaign manager was closeted out of fear of the Repub base.

Was that the same guy Romney wanted as his expert on foreign policy?

 

[midcan5]

Gay marriage ain't gonna change the divorce rate or harm your marriage, get over it and consider important topics like education and poverty here and in the world. And marriage has hardly existed for thousands of years, particularly in its current form.

"Despite how straightforward and commonplace it may appear today, the heterosexual /homosexual juxtaposition was actually less to the fore in premodern times and, in effect, was not universally observed. Equally, heterosexual love - however natural it may appear today - was seen in those earlier societies not so much as a rejection of homosexuality but rather as an alternative to nonsexual male-to-male relationships and, for that matter, the love of God advocated respectively by chivalric and religious practices and codes of conduct... There is today a clear need to rethink our attitude to heterosexuality...." 'The Invention of Heterosexual Culture' Louis-Georges Tin
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Heterosexual-Culture-Louis-Georges-Tin/dp/0262017709/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8]The Invention of Heterosexual Culture: Louis-Georges Tin: 9780262017701: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


"Abraham had two wives, Sarah and her handmaiden Hagar. King Solomon had 700 wives, plus 300 concubines and slaves. Jacob, the patriarch who gives Israel its name, had two wives and two concubines. In a humanist vein, Exodus 21:10 warns that when men take additional wives, they must still provide for their previous one. (Exodus 21:16 adds that if a man seduces a virgin and has sex with her, he has to marry her, too.)"
Traditional Marriage: One Man, Many Women, Some Girls, Some Slaves | Sexuality/Gender | Religion Dispatches


Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/286487-logic-behind-gay-marriage-2.html#post7029548
http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-on-gay-marriage-religious-2.html#post5734846

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How about this Republican, and others like him, back the fuck off and stop telling consenting adults who they can and cannot marry?

Republicans are small government. Until they need the government to dictate what you do in your bedroom. SMALL GOVERNMENT!

Opposing the redefinition of marriage is small government. It's redefining marriage that is going to empower the government in more relationships than ever before.

Now gay couples now have to get permission of the government to make commitments to one another, to serve thos commitments. The government now has power to determine how to divide up property between them.

Not to mention your accusation is inaccurate. Defending the definition of marriage doesn't tell anyone what to do in their bedroom. They are absolutely free to continue whatever activity they want. Protecting marriage protects the definition of a marriage union. IE what the relationship is labeled as.

Now if they were trying to get an amendment to ban homosexual activity in your bedroom, then you might have a point about trying to control whats going on in your bedroom.

Nonsense.

No one is seeking to ‘redefine’ marriage; in fact, same-sex couples wish to keep marriage exactly as it exists now: a union of two equal partners:

The right to marry has been historically and remains the
right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together
and form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and gender
restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender
inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical
core of the institution of marriage. FF 33. Today, gender is not
relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each
other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside,
same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples
in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of
marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an
essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of
equals.

Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To
characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex
marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different
from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely,
marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their
relationships for what they are: marriages.

Hollingsworth v. Perry

 

[JakeStarkey]

The proposed amendment clearly defines that conservative rightwing statist progressivism (using Big Government politics to enforce social, or moral, or economic or government change) is well and alive.

 

[rightwinger]

Republican policy

When all else fails....double down on stupid

 

[Two Thumbs]

I knew it was only a matter of time, but one day? Some people never learn.

Republican Readies Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage

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.

Wow, that's some good tyranny. mmmMMM

Can I get a side of banning of ass sex and a cup of shut the fuck up?


This is why we need to rid ourselves of the 2 party system. There are no good guys anymore

 

[J.E.D]

Opposing the redefinition of marriage is small government. It's redefining marriage that is going to empower the government in more relationships than ever before.

Good one

 

[Plasmaball]

How about this Republican, and others like him, back the fuck off and stop telling consenting adults who they can and cannot marry?

How about you stop trying to forcibly change the definition of a word and institution that has existed for thousands of years and then feigning outrage that someone says no?

lol the same marriage that has had numerous changes done to it over those 1000 years?

You literally have nothing. This is the flailing of the dodo.

 

[Plasmaball]

why the fuck do the qweers (sic) and lesbos need to marry in the first place ? it sure as hell isn't "love" !

for thousands of years just living together and performing their "qweer" acts, and don't tell me i do not know what the fuck i am talking about, because i have a lesbo SIL who once told me her relationship with another female was just pure lust, there is more but why waste my time ?

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Neither do you if you honestly think preserving the current definition of a marriage effects anyone in the bedroom.

so you admit its just the current and has changed over time. you defeat your own arguments dodo.

 

[Plasmaball]

How about this Republican, and others like him, back the fuck off and stop telling consenting adults who they can and cannot marry?

This. It's an embarrassment that some in the GOP have cared so deeply about oppressing gay rights ... make no mistake, however: there ARE Republicans out there who are more tolerant, me included.

It's embarassing that people find rights where none exist. Create oppression where there is none while at the same time actively supporting real civil rights violations.

No one is being intolerate of homosexuals by being against same sex marriage. They are free to engage in whatever relationship they want.

The fact that people fall for the tolerance rhetoric when those pushing for same sex marriage are some of the most intolerate people on the planet is truly sad.

your lying

 

[Avatar4321]

Republican policy

When all else fails....double down on stupid

I think you are confused. We didn't reelect Obama. You did.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

How about this Republican, and others like him, back the fuck off and stop telling consenting adults who they can and cannot marry?

As soon as you fuck off what guns we can have. Deal?

 

[Avatar4321]

Opposing the redefinition of marriage is small government. It's redefining marriage that is going to empower the government in more relationships than ever before.

Good one

You think im joking?

You think by empowering the government to regulate same sex relationships, you will have smaller government interference in people's lives? Please tell me how you can conclude that.

 

[Avatar4321]

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Neither do you if you honestly think preserving the current definition of a marriage effects anyone in the bedroom.

so you admit its just the current and has changed over time. you defeat your own arguments dodo.

You're so predictable PB. I saw you had responded to the thread and I immediately thought "I wonder what he is trying to attack me on now.". I could seriously set my watch to you.

And no. by current definition i was refering to the actual definition and not the one you are trying to replace it with. Perhaps I should pick my words more carefully, but I didn't admit to anything.

 

[Plasmaball]

How about you stop trying to forcibly change the definition of a word and institution that has existed for thousands of years and then feigning outrage that someone says no?

King David had at least five wives, and at least 20 concubines. His son had 700 wives! And 300 concubines! What a stud!

Shall we go with that thousands of years old definition of marriage? This one man, one woman stuff would be a real kick in the nuts to our biblical ancestors.

Contrary to your sarcasm, that arrangement still falls within the one man one woman definition of marriage.

five wives is one woman in your world?what they dont teach proper math where you live?

 

[Avatar4321]

This. It's an embarrassment that some in the GOP have cared so deeply about oppressing gay rights ... make no mistake, however: there ARE Republicans out there who are more tolerant, me included.

It's embarassing that people find rights where none exist. Create oppression where there is none while at the same time actively supporting real civil rights violations.

No one is being intolerate of homosexuals by being against same sex marriage. They are free to engage in whatever relationship they want.

The fact that people fall for the tolerance rhetoric when those pushing for same sex marriage are some of the most intolerate people on the planet is truly sad.

your lying

I have no reason to lie PB. Please name the law that prevents homosexuals from entering into any private relationship they want to.

 

[Plasmaball]

Neither do you if you honestly think preserving the current definition of a marriage effects anyone in the bedroom.

so you admit its just the current and has changed over time. you defeat your own arguments dodo.

You're so predictable PB. I saw you had responded to the thread and I immediately thought "I wonder what he is trying to attack me on now.". I could seriously set my watch to you.

And no. by current definition i was refering to the actual definition and not the one you are trying to replace it with. Perhaps I should pick my words more carefully, but I didn't admit to anything.

yawn typical dodo is typical. the "current" one is just one of many versions. Again you have zero argument with this. Bigots like you have no place anymore.

 

[bodecea]

It's embarassing that people find rights where none exist. Create oppression where there is none while at the same time actively supporting real civil rights violations.

No one is being intolerate of homosexuals by being against same sex marriage. They are free to engage in whatever relationship they want.

The fact that people fall for the tolerance rhetoric when those pushing for same sex marriage are some of the most intolerate people on the planet is truly sad.

your lying

I have no reason to lie PB. Please name the law that prevents homosexuals from entering into any private relationship they want to.

So...if, for some reason, a state or many states passed laws stating that blue-eyed people could no longer get legally married, you'd be ok with that, because they would be free to engage in whatever relationship they want as long as they don't get that marriage license issued by the state.

Correct?

 

[Plasmaball]

It's embarassing that people find rights where none exist. Create oppression where there is none while at the same time actively supporting real civil rights violations.

No one is being intolerate of homosexuals by being against same sex marriage. They are free to engage in whatever relationship they want.

The fact that people fall for the tolerance rhetoric when those pushing for same sex marriage are some of the most intolerate people on the planet is truly sad.

your lying

I have no reason to lie PB. Please name the law that prevents homosexuals from entering into any private relationship they want to.

well you always have reason to lie. Its what you constantly do to have any point at all.

there is no law, but that is irrelevant, like you.