Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

New FMA proposal has four flat tires and a busted radiator

Timothy Kincaid

June 28th, 2013

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) saw the DOMA decision as an opportunity, his ride out of obscurity. So he was the first to trot out with an announcement the he, Rep Huelskamp, would be introducing a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Surely this is a proposal that will fire up the base, get him in the spotlight, and soon he’d be cruising the political fast lane in a pink Cadillac with white-wall tires.

But so far it’s been a bit of a bumpy ride. Turns out that not even red state Republicans are ready to climb on board. Not even his fellow Kansans. Not even his own district.

One local state representative didn’t have an opinion because its “a federal matter and he is a state legislator” (oddly, most Republicans in Washington had the opposite opinion). His local GOP Chairman “was in county commission meetings all day yesterday” so he wasn’t following the news.

But the best response had to be this one: (HuffPo)

State Rep. J.R. Claeys (R-Salina) stressed that a gay marriage ban is not a “legislative priority of mine” and said he doesn’t see a chance for Huelskamp’s amendment ever passing. Asked if he believes Huelskamp should have made the proposal, Claeys answered: “I am not sure how to diplomatically sidestep this question.”

So to Huelskamp, I offer this advice: yeah, about that political clunker you have on cinder-blocks in your front yard… you may want to lose that, you’re bringing down property values in the neighborhood.



Jim Hlavac
June 28th, 2013 | LINK

I don’t even think he’s going to get five minutes of fame out of this stunt.

June 29th, 2013 | LINK

An amendment to the US Constitution is a state matter eventually. State legislators must ratify constitutional amendments. Asking a state legislator “How would you vote on this?” is completely appropriate.

Dismissing it as “not a state matter” when both ratification and the definition of marriage are state matters, is an inartful dodge.

Must say I like Rep Claeys phrasing: “I am not sure how to diplomatically sidestep this question.” Might use that myself someday.

June 29th, 2013 | LINK

Timothy, I am shocked that a fine upstanding member of the BTB would hold an honorable member of the House of Representatives of the United States of America up to ridicule. Shocked I tell you, right down to my toenails.

Loved that pink caddy with white sidewall comment.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.