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

Skip to comments.

House Conservatives Push for Marriage Amendment After Supreme Court Ruling
National Journal ^ | Updated: June 26, 2013 | 2:01 p.m. | Matt Vasilogambros

Posted on 06/26/2013 3:58:01 PM PDT by Red Steel

Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kansas, and other conservative members of Congress say they will attempt to introduce in the coming days a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Following the Supreme Court's ruling deeming the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, several Republicans expressed their disappointment with the decision and vowed to take action. Apparently, this means an amendment to the Constitution.

"This Court has taken it upon itself the radical attempt to redefine marriage," Huelskamp said, standing outside the Supreme Court. "I think what gets lost in this judicial attempt to short-circuit the democratic process is the needs of our children…. Every child deserves a mommy and a daddy and with this decision they undercut the needs of our children."

And although the likelihood of that amendment passing is bleak—amendments need a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, and then ratification by three-fourths of the states—Huelskamp urges congressional leadership to allow the amendment to go to the floor.

Reaction from Republicans, however, took a little while to come by, as many of them avoided the topic on Twitter and other social networks in the immediate aftermath of the ruling. However, their reactions were strong once many of those conservatives gathered for a press conference on the Hill. Here are a few quotes:

"It is a sad day. Some may try to brand us hateful. This is not a hateful group. This is a group that has love and compassion for our country…. What we have today is a holy quintet who goes against the laws of nature." – Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas

"Marriage is a fundamental building block of our civilization. It precedes this nation itself. It's the fiber that keeps our civilization so strong and certainly it's the ideal model from which we raise children." – Rep. John Fleming, R-La.

"I believe that today's decision will have negative consequences for children who should be raised by a mom and a dad."– Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa.

"A court decision cannot decide moral questions for the people." – Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J.

"For the best interest of society itself … we have defined a marriage between a man and woman in the interest of those children…. Society itself is at risk." – Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich.

"Marriage has been debased by this decision…. Decisions like this makes the people's voice muted."—Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif.

"The Supreme Court seems to be in collusion with the president and his Justice Department…. Unfortunately it's been at the expense of children." – Rep. Randy Weber, R-Texas

The Supreme Court undercut the equal protection of every person who voted for their representative…. Now we have an effective oligarchy of five who decide the most fundamental issues of today." – Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: definition; marriage; natural; nottraditional; unitedstatesconst

1 posted on 06/26/2013 3:58:01 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

What’s the point?

It’s just going to be tossed.


2 posted on 06/26/2013 4:00:40 PM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

So when do we start firing on Fort Sumter?


3 posted on 06/26/2013 4:01:21 PM PDT by MeganC (A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll never need one again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37

Exactly. They’re going to toss California prop 8, so why bother with a constitutional amendment?


4 posted on 06/26/2013 4:04:10 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks Red Steel.


5 posted on 06/26/2013 4:05:31 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MeganC
"So when do we start firing on Fort Sumter?"

Exactly. What's the value in fighting any of it anymore? Might as well just save our energy for the fight to come.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

6 posted on 06/26/2013 4:06:45 PM PDT by wku man (Amnesty? No Way, Jose (No Se Puede!) by 10 Pound Test http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsTUQ8yOI2c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chris37

Just a new law defining marriage and and that the
supreme court cannot rule in matters regarding marriage.

There is a section of the constitution that provides for
the congress to designate what matters cannot be ruled
on by the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.


7 posted on 06/26/2013 4:06:46 PM PDT by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)

You are correct. Newt has said this many times. Dirty little secret.. the congress designates what cases courts can hear.


8 posted on 06/26/2013 4:09:46 PM PDT by freemike ("Life is hard. It's harder if your stupid." Joyhn Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)

I’m not certain how that could be seeing as how the rule on the Bill of Rights all the time.

One more left wing tyrant on that court and we could lose every last one of the rights that God gave us.

It looks to me like they pretty much view themselves as God.


9 posted on 06/26/2013 4:10:57 PM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

It would be the first constitutional amendment declared unconstitutional, because we no longer live under the rule of law.


10 posted on 06/26/2013 4:17:42 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Who could have guessed that one day pro wrestling would be less fake than network news?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Politicians have been making the same noises about abortion since 1973, and we all know how well that has worked out. At some point, it is necessary to recognize that the country is just lost.


11 posted on 06/26/2013 4:20:15 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Waste of time. We’re done as a nation.


12 posted on 06/26/2013 4:20:25 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37
None of those have a Prohibition of jurisdiction for the federal courts.

That has not been used, but is how Congress can reign in the Federal Courts.

13 posted on 06/26/2013 4:30:15 PM PDT by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

An amendment requires two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate and two thirds of the States.

Good luck with that. It’ll never happen.


14 posted on 06/26/2013 4:30:49 PM PDT by AnAmericanAbroad (It's all bread and circuses for the future prey of the Morlocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

Seems that they are celebrating the “benefits” more than marriage.

You have to laugh ...what benefits? This country is broke!

As always, their victories are short lived and hollow ...just like most of their “marriages” will be.


15 posted on 06/26/2013 4:31:21 PM PDT by LibsRJerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

I don’t think even the Supreme Court can rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional.


16 posted on 06/26/2013 4:31:27 PM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698); freemike

I think you are missing an important point.

“Congress” is a body that was created as the repository of OUR power to legislate for OURSELVES. For reasons I have never come up with a good explanation for, Congress since 1913 has been giving away OUR powers granted to THEM to unelected, unrepresentative bodies, in either the courts or the Executive Branch.

The pace at which OUR power to legislate (through representatives) is being annulled (by the courts) or given away (by Congress) is accelerating. The Corker-Hoeven Amendment to the amnesty bill is a current example. After pages and pages of good border security measures, Congress grants to the President the power to annul the law if he desires to do so.

They are getting very, very close to an Enabling Act. If the Democrats could, they would pass one right now.

Just like Rome in 40AD, the forms remain but the reality has changed. We await our Sulla, or our Caligula.


17 posted on 06/26/2013 4:33:54 PM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad
An amendment requires two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate and two thirds of the States.

Three fourths of the states.

But 34 have already passed amendments barring homo marriage or have laws prohibiting it. So it's not that much of a stretch.

18 posted on 06/26/2013 4:35:05 PM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

I always said that what people did in their bedrooms was none of my business.

These CS’ers, and Muff divers have made it my business.

I will fight their agenda with whatever I have at my disposal.


19 posted on 06/26/2013 4:46:52 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Unless we get the Senate and keep the House this is a waste of time. The gays just have no idea what they have created for themselves. Wait until they learn that the same laws for marriage between men and women will apply to them. Changing partners after marriage will have to be divorced to marry another. And all the legal laws will apply to a separation if contested. Damn fools didn't realize how good they had it in the shadows.
20 posted on 06/26/2013 4:52:00 PM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freemike
You are correct. Newt has said this many times. Dirty little secret.. the congress designates what cases courts can hear.

Like Romney, Newt was made a laughing stock when the real joke was on the ass hats that threw them under the bus. Ignorance is bless.

21 posted on 06/26/2013 4:56:21 PM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

You’re presuming it’ll get the needed votes in Congress. That’s pretty unlikely right now.


22 posted on 06/26/2013 4:59:47 PM PDT by Coronal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

there must be several hundred well-chosen simultaneous “firings on ft sumter” to have any chance at all at success.


23 posted on 06/26/2013 5:14:48 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wku man

american christian minutemen forces


24 posted on 06/26/2013 5:15:52 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

if republicans had half the conviction and courage to followthrough no matter what’ that the libtards have, we could overturn roe.

they don’t want to fight. many’don’t really strongly believe in conservative ideals, they are milktoasts when it comes to principles and having a solid moral foundation they actually believe in, know how to defend, and will actually defend with ferocity and fervor.


25 posted on 06/26/2013 5:19:03 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

This is a lost cause.


26 posted on 06/26/2013 5:20:31 PM PDT by DungeonMaster ( 1Cor 7:21Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Well because they can’t.. the constitution provides for amendments and if they don’t allow it I can guarantee you that some judges are coming out of that room in handcuffs and if not that then there will be no choice for blood to be spilled.
27 posted on 06/26/2013 5:20:34 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)

Well, I confess that is not something that I have knowledge of, but I am interested to see if the GOP would use such a protection. I expect not, but hopefully I’m wrong.


28 posted on 06/26/2013 5:42:15 PM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Better Gay Marriage than amnesty or Puerto Rican statehood.


29 posted on 06/26/2013 5:53:49 PM PDT by Clemenza ("History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil governm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibsRJerks

Divorce lawyers celebrate.


30 posted on 06/26/2013 6:41:16 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
"Better Gay Marriage than amnesty or Puerto Rican statehood."

We're going to get them all, count on it. The GOP is spineless, both the so-called leaders and the rank and file membership. They are, as Rush would call them, the New Castrati. Who's going to stand in the way of the Leftist agenda now? They have all the momentum, so get ready for cap and tax, seizure of retirement funds, UN gun control, the whole shebang. No one's gonna stand up to 'em.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

31 posted on 06/26/2013 8:24:49 PM PDT by wku man (Amnesty? No Way, Jose (No Se Puede!) by 10 Pound Test http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsTUQ8yOI2c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | 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