Congressman Broun To Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Ban Same-Sex Marriages

Yesterday Bill Kristol opined that despite the fact that “the Republican Party is clearly in bad shape,” Gay Marriage is a promising development for McCain.

Today Georgia Congressman Paul Broun took the bait, announcing that he will introduce a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage:

“Marriage as an institution exists solely between one man and one woman. Americans have traditionally recognized this definition as being the most beneficial arrangement for the creation of stable family structures and for the upbringing of children. In fact, Americans have repeatedly shown their preference for the traditional definition of one-man, one-woman marriage by passing state and federal laws or by amending state constitutions to preserve the traditional definition,” Broun said.
“There simply is no basis for the suggestion that homosexual ‘marriage’ is a right protected by the United States Constitution,” Broun said.

Just in time, too. Dale Carpenter looks at the California decision to see how it will influence marriage litigation elsewhere:

…it could be influential in a case called Kerrigan v. Comm’r of Public Health pending before the state supreme court in Connecticut, which addresses the similar question whether the state may withhold the title of “marriage” to same-sex couples when the state has granted them all of the benefits of marriage under state law. Other states with civil unions – New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont – can similarly expect renewed efforts to persuade their state courts to extend marriage itself to same-sex couples.

RELATED: Congressman Broun’s announcement will, of course, be well received by his Georgia base. I’m sure you all have already heard about our state GOP chair saying Saturday that John McCain is “kind of like Jesus.”

  • GreenDreams

    What a waste of time. This will NEVER become part of the US Constitution.

  • Slamfu

    ““There simply is no basis for the suggestion that homosexual ‘marriage’ is a right protected by the United States Constitution,” Broun said.”

    Lol, way to paint yourself into a corner. Gay marriage is just as protected or not by the Constitution as straight marriage. There is no wording differentiating between the two. If you legal justify banning gay marriage, you have also legally justified banning straight ones. Now whose attacking the institution of marriage?

    P.S. – I mentioned the Equal Rights Ammendment earlier when I meant the 14th, its been edited out.

  • pacatrue

    Am I the only one who sees quite a leap from a list of popularity measures in the first paragraph of Congressman Broun’s argument to the legal conclusion about the Constitution? If legal matters were decided by popular vote, then Congress could serve as the Supreme Court.

  • Tully

    Sheer pandering, though likely effective pandering. GreenDreams nails it. There is no chance that a federal DOMA will pass into amendment status.

  • DLS

    “There is no chance that a federal DOMA will pass into amendment status.”

    Same for a flag-burning amendment. That is going too far (and is idolatry).

  • runasim

    So much for the new GOP platform.

  • DLS

    “Lol, way to paint yourself into a corner.”

    He’s done no such thing legally, just politically (the group to whom he would appeal is over-hyped by the Left but in fact is relatively and even absolutely small).

    There in fact is no such “right” in the Constitution. That means (despite “living, breathing” dishonest “constitutional law” [sic] activists) it’s something reserved to the states and localities to legislate as they see fit. To make it a constitutional and a federal issue (if the federal government is to be involved, such as for purposes of uniformity) requires a constitutional amendment. (The same in fact is true for other things like abortion, though dishonest activists will clutch at activist rulings with all the strength they can impart to their claws not to lose federal judicial and maybe someday legislative intrusion into the issue of abortion.)

    Additional note: the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has fallen out of favor as the perversely-“interpreted” political weapon of choice of the activist crowd. And no, the Ninth Amendment does not create any federal “rights” out of thin air, not to marriage, not to health care, not to anything else. (It indicates that the rights enjoyed by Americans — liberties, not claims or demands on others — were not to be construed to consist only of those found in the new Constitution. Not only does Washington *** NOT *** have general, unlimited powers — it only has those powers granted to it; the citizens do *** NOT *** only have a specific, limited set of powers “granted” to them. Even though some lefties would want it that way toward nearly everything other than matters of personal [mis]conduct.)

  • DLS

    “So much for the new GOP platform.”

    This amendment is nonsense but your statement applies even better to another recent thread on this site that describes some things the Republicans “should” consider. (Banning abortion across state lines and such — don’t know if this was the product of an all-night sleepless session with or without heavy drinking.)

  • DLS

    I wonder what these folks think of the latest Religious Right-appeal stunt.

  • Slamfu

    DLS, my point was that if you feel because it is not protected by the Bill of Rights, and outlaw gay marriage, you can just as easily, in legal terms, outlaw straight marriages. This would of course be seen as a breach of rights among straights, and also a violation of common sense, which it is.

    I also agree that it should be a state issue, I’m just saying there is no legal arguement for the outlaw of gay marriage that does not also work just as well for straight ones. In the unlikely event that a bunch of payback minded gay lawmakers ever come to power, it could get ugly.

  • JWindish

    On the state issue question, I think Terrance addresses that issue pretty effectively when he looks at Bob Barr’s statement on the California ruling here.

    Terrance is critical of Barr, pointing out that “One size does fit all for heterosexuals. Full faith and credit assures that they’re just as married in Massachusetts as they are in Mississippi.”

    Me, I do have to wonder why each state has to make its own decision when it comes to gays. Why is marriage a state issue for gays and not for heterosexuals?