Window on Washington
News, analysis, color and photography from Cox Newspapers' Washington BureauRSS feed
What's on this page →
The entry titled "Broun to propose Constitutional ban on gay marriage," and any of the comments about it.
Categories
| RSS | |
| RSS | |
| RSS | |
| RSS | |
| RSS | |
| RSS | |
| RSS |
Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F
Recent entries
- Mahoney: Honoring Soviet veterans?
- 911 records cited breathing problem for John Linder
- Will Wes Clark hurt Rick Noriega?
- Cornyn losing endorsement of Texas Medical Association
- Pelosi continues praise of Chet Edwards
- Lamar Smith, other Republicans want to amend Constitution on child rape
- Travelers would flock to see this
- More entries...
Home > Window on Washington > Archives > 2008 > May > 20 > Entry
Broun to propose Constitutional ban on gay marriage
Rep. Paul Broun, a Georgia Republican, announced today he would introduce a Constitutional amendment to counter the California Supreme Court’s decision to recognize same-sex marriage.
“There simply is no basis for the suggestion that homosexual ‘marriage’ is a right protected by the United States Constitution,” Broun said. His draft amendment says that marriage “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman” and rules out state-sanctioned same-sex marriages.
A similar amendment was defeated in the Senate in 2006. Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress plus ratification by three-fourths of the states.
Comments
By Chuck Anziulewicz
May 20, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this
That Gay couples seek to marry is not an attack on marriage. If anything it is an ENDORSEMENT of marriage, an acknowledgment that it far better to encourage couples toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and promiscuity.
Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, “We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!” That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.
No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration, before friends and family members, that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.
THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing. Gay couples recognize that and support that. And those that want to prohibit Gay couples from marrying do so only because they don’t want to allow Gay couples the opportunity to PROVE that they are up to the task.
For those who suggest that the issue of marriage is best left up to the states, it’s important to remember that the federal government has a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of income taxes and Social Security benefits. From the fed’s point of view, it wouldn’t do for a couple to be considered married in one state, then magically “UN-married” once they decide to move somewhere else.
Rep. Paul Broun says, “There simply is no basis for the suggestion that homosexual ‘marriage’ is a right protected by the United States Constitution.” Well guess what? the term “marriage” does not occur in the Constitution of the United States. There is technically no “right” for any couple, Gay or Straight, to get married, at least from the federal government’s standpoint. And that is why, ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to address the issue of what constitutes a marriage, much as I’m sure they would prefer NOT to.
Probably most dismaying in all his wailing and gnashing of teeth is ANY suggestion of compromise. My question to Rep. Paul Broun would be, “If you oppose marriage equality for Gay couples, are there ANY legal benefits or responsibilities you support FOR us?”
By Chuck Anziulewicz
May 20, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this
That Gay couples seek to marry is not an attack on marriage. If anything it is an ENDORSEMENT of marriage, an acknowledgment that it far better to encourage couples toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and promiscuity.
Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, “We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!” That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.
No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration, before friends and family members, that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.
THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing. Gay couples recognize that and support that. And those that want to prohibit Gay couples from marrying do so only because they don’t want to allow Gay couples the opportunity to PROVE that they are up to the task.
For those who suggest that the issue of marriage is best left up to the states, it’s important to remember that the federal government has a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of income taxes and Social Security benefits. From the fed’s point of view, it wouldn’t do for a couple to be considered married in one state, then magically “UN-married” once they decide to move somewhere else.
Rep. Paul Broun says, “There simply is no basis for the suggestion that homosexual ‘marriage’ is a right protected by the United States Constitution.” Well guess what? the term “marriage” does not occur in the Constitution of the United States. There is technically no “right” for any couple, Gay or Straight, to get married, at least from the federal government’s standpoint. And that is why, ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to address the issue of what constitutes a marriage, much as I’m sure they would prefer NOT to.
Probably most dismaying in all his wailing and gnashing of teeth is ANY suggestion of compromise. My question to Rep. Paul Broun would be, “If you oppose marriage equality for Gay couples, are there ANY legal benefits or responsibilities you support FOR us?”
By Chuck Anziulewicz
May 20, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this
That Gay couples seek to marry is not an attack on marriage. If anything it is an ENDORSEMENT of marriage, an acknowledgment that it far better to encourage couples toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and promiscuity.
Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, “We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!” That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.
No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration, before friends and family members, that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.
THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing. Gay couples recognize that and support that. And those that want to prohibit Gay couples from marrying do so only because they don’t want to allow Gay couples the opportunity to PROVE that they are up to the task.
For those who suggest that the issue of marriage is best left up to the states, it’s important to remember that the federal government has a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of income taxes and Social Security benefits. From the fed’s point of view, it wouldn’t do for a couple to be considered married in one state, then magically “UN-married” once they decide to move somewhere else.
Rep. Paul Broun says, “There simply is no basis for the suggestion that homosexual ‘marriage’ is a right protected by the United States Constitution.” Well guess what? the term “marriage” does not occur in the Constitution of the United States. There is technically no “right” for any couple, Gay or Straight, to get married, at least from the federal government’s standpoint. And that is why, ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to address the issue of what constitutes a marriage, much as I’m sure they would prefer NOT to.
Probably most dismaying in all his wailing and gnashing of teeth is ANY suggestion of compromise. My question to Rep. Paul Broun would be, “If you oppose marriage equality for Gay couples, are there ANY legal benefits or responsibilities you support FOR us?”
By Charlotte
May 20, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this
There are always people who are against equality.When the Massachusetts State Supreme Court ruled to legalize gay marriage in 2003. The towns & cities were given a few months until May 17, 2004 when gay marriage would go into effect. Of course Romney & his cronies tried everything to stop it but failed. Even after gay marriages were performed they tried to get an amendment on to the ballot until June 14th, 2007 when it was finally defeated in the State House. For those who are still uncomfortable with this check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com
By Charlotte
May 20, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this
There are always people who are against equality. When the Massachusetts State Supreme Court ruled to legalize gay marriage in 2003. The towns & cities were given a few months until May 17, 2004 when gay marriage would go into effect. Of course Romney & his cronies tried everything to stop it but failed. Even after gay marriages were performed they tried to get an amendment on to the ballot until June 14th, 2007 when it was finally defeated in the State House. For those who are still uncomfortable with this check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: OUTTAKEonline.com