Posted on 06/26/2015 11:20:30 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, seizing the moment after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, called Friday for a Constitutional amendment that would allow the states to decide whether gay marriage should be legal.
Walker’s call came shortly after the high court ruled 5-4 that same-sex couples could marry across the country, overturning a number of state same-sex marriage bans.
The ruling was “a grave mistake,” the Republican governor said, touting his support for amending his state’s constitution “to protect the institution of marriage from exactly this type of judicial activism.”
“As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage,” Walker said in the statement.
Walker’s statement put him directly at odds with one potential 2016 rival, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who said he didn’t support pursuing a constitutional amendment.
“[G]iven the quickly changing tide of public opinion on this issue, I do not believe that any attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution could possibly gain the support of three-fourths of the states or a supermajority in the U.S. Congress,” Graham said in his statement. “Rather than pursuing a divisive effort that would be doomed to fail, I am committing myself to ensuring the protection of religious liberties of all Americans.”
Such an amendment would face steep odds on Capitol Hill.
Correction: The original version of this story said, wrongly, that Walker was calling for a Constitutional amendment “defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.”
I think that there’s a good chance of it getting ratified by the state legislatures of 3/4 of the states (i.e., 38 states); where it would have very slim odds of success is in getting 2/3 of the House and Senate to approve the amendment and send it to the states in the first place.
We could have gotten 2/3 of the House and Senate back in 1998 or so to adopt a Marriage Amendment banning judicially created same-sex marriage, but John McCain and some others said that it “wasn’t necessary” because we had DOMA. F’in morons.
A lot of naysayers on this thread....to be expected these days.
They wish. The moment that convention opens some latter day Hamilton will make the real agenda readily apparent.
Uh oh....cue the Walkerbots.
Sounds to me like someone is flipping on the issue.
Wow. There is some serious and scary food for thought there (as if my emotions weren’t already churching enough).
Where is the section regarding marriage, in the Constitution, anyway?
Why yes, Scott Walker did in fact support a traditional marriage amendment to the Wisconsin state constitution which was ratified by 60% of the voters. A federal amendment of the US Constitution would begin with passage by the US Senate and House of Representatives.
No, the states can start the process too
That’s what we need to do! Declare this SCOTUS pronouncement invalid and null and void.Make them enforce it.
I’d like to see them try.
The amount of misinformation and outright lies on this thread is disturbing. Governor Walker fought a lawsuit that would extend marriage to homosexuals but lost in the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. He took it all the way to the US Supreme Court but they refused to hear his appeal last October. At this time there is nothing more Governor Walker can do legally to oppose it. We now need a new amendment to the US Constitution and this is exactly what Governor Walker proposed today.
Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the federal Constitution may be altered. Amendment proposals may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either: OR By a Two-thirds (Supermajority) vote of a national convention called by Congress at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states. Two-thirds (Supermajority) vote of members present—assuming that a quorum exists—in both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress;
There is nothing more Scott Walker can do as governor.
Go full on to repeal 17A or go home.
Give it time, this is the first day. It’s not as if Senator Cruz hasn’t time and again, said he’s going to introduce a bill to congress that seems to have long-odds of making it through.
ABSOLUTELY!
Walker calls for Constitutional Amendment to allow States to define marriage.
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
Even if it were ratified,, the Roberts court would declare the constitution to be “Unconstitutional”.
” the tenth amendment leaves it up to states, “
Supposed to anyway. Isn’t Lindsey a girl’s name?
Already covered by the 10th. The problem is the 10th is not enforced. The solution is not to attempt the name the powers given the States, the solution is to uphold the limit on Federal power over the States that is already there.
WI voters already voted for an amendment to ban gay marriage in the state. The libs took it to court and overturned it. Walker said it was settled after that.
He would never defy the federal government. EVER!
If you are looking for a rebel it isn’t Scott Walker. I’m afraid it won’t be a politician that settles this.
If one governor stood against the government there MIGHT be another emboldened to do so as well. But that is a big “if”. There aren’t many men of courage who are leaders left.
I’m an old lady in a wheelchair. I’ve done just about all I can do at this point. I can still shoot but I’m hardly going to get on my horse and lead the country into battle. I wish I had had the opportunity that Palin squandered:(
Sadly it will be up to my children and grandchildren to chose tyranny or freedom and do something about it.
While I agree with such an amendment, It really ignores the broader more serous issue with the latest edict that threaten every last one of our liberties, as the other 4 Judges pointed out.
A constitutional Amendment that protects marriage as a State issue does not as such go far enough. We need a Constitutional Amendment that prohibits the Federal Employees in black robes from redefining law settled and practiced for decades if not hundreds of years.
We don’t get something to have that effect and the Constitution including any such amendment will be pointless.
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.