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

The Proposed Federal Marriage Amendment Has Gone Bipartisan

Jim Burroway

July 20th, 2013

Soon after the the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, Rep .Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment (now re-named the Marriage Protection Amendment) into Congress. At that time, Huelskamp was joined by twenty-eight other Representatives as co-sponsors, all Republicans. Since then, that list of co-sponsors has grown to thirty-eight, including the first and (so far) lone Democrat, West Virginia’s Rep. Nick Rahall.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

jpeckjr
July 20th, 2013 | LINK

Oh, joy. My congressman is a co-sponsor. Not surprised. I wonder when he’s in town for the August break?

Mark
July 20th, 2013 | LINK

Since the amendment has no chance of passage it hasn’t gotten much attention from the msm. But I’d like to hear Rep. Rahall, or any of the other co-sponsors, explain exactly how forcibly divorcing something like 100,000 legally married couples in 13 states plus DC, promotes “family values.”

This would seem like a pretty important question to be answered.

Kevin
July 20th, 2013 | LINK

There was a time when I would have been afraid of this sort of proposal. Now, I actually hope the House votes on it. I wonder if it would pass there. Even so, the Senate would never garnish 2/3, and no way it would get 3/4 of the States.

Watching how Boehner handles this will be instructive. My guess is he hopes it goes away quietly, but if the Teabaggers are true to form, they’ll pressure him into a vote, which will just alienate the country away from the GOP.

Désirée
July 20th, 2013 | LINK

Just curious: since the text of the proposed amendment says that the Constitution (as well as any state constitution) should be read as requiring gay marriage, would this still prevent a voter proposition or purely legislative legalization of marriage equality as opposed to merely preventing judges from finding the the Constitution requires marriage equality?

Désirée
July 20th, 2013 | LINK

oops— “shouldn’t be read as requiring…” I meant to say

Mark
July 20th, 2013 | LINK

The first sentence of the amendment is “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.” Under the supremacy clause, this would supersede all state marriage laws, however they were decided.

Kevin
July 20th, 2013 | LINK

One thing to keep in mind,for the most part,any Democrat from WV is a blue dog and views gay marriage and other rights for gays and lesbians with as much disdain as most Republicans do.
Joe Manchin will NEVER support marriage equality and supported both DOMA and DADT.

Sir Andrew
July 21st, 2013 | LINK

He’s a straight man from West Virginia; what else should we expect.

It’s awful that so many straight people in that state should be so horrible when all the gays I’ve met when performing at various theatres in WV have been so gracious and welcoming.

But this amendment is going nowhere, and fast, so this story is merely a curiosity on a slow news day.

Mark F.
July 21st, 2013 | LINK

Why not put it up for a vote? It won’t get 2/3 in either chamber. Lets put all the bigots on record.

Zack
July 21st, 2013 | LINK

Sir Andrew,it is a slow news day but it gives us all an idea how tough it still is for us in many parts of the country.
The fact this guy is running on an anti-gay platform in WV simply highlights the fact it’s acceptable there.

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)
(Required, never shared)

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