Skip to comments.House Conservatives Push for Marriage Amendment After Supreme Court Ruling
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 bleakamendments need a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, and then ratification by three-fourths of the statesHuelskamp 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.
What’s the point?
It’s just going to be tossed.
So when do we start firing on Fort Sumter?
Exactly. They’re going to toss California prop 8, so why bother with a constitutional amendment?
Thanks Red Steel.
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!
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.
You are correct. Newt has said this many times. Dirty little secret.. the congress designates what cases courts can hear.
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.
It would be the first constitutional amendment declared unconstitutional, because we no longer live under the rule of law.
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.
Waste of time. We’re done as a nation.
That has not been used, but is how Congress can reign in the Federal Courts.
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.
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.
I don’t think even the Supreme Court can rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional.
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.
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.
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.