Georgia Congressman Paul Broun announced yesterday that he intends to introduce a Constitutional Amendment that would ban same-sex marriage nationwide:
Georgia Congressman Paul Broun announced Tuesday that he will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex marriage in response to a recent decision by the California Supreme Court that recognizes same-sex marriages.
“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.
Well, you’re a Congressman sir, not a Judge so your opinion of what the Constitution allows really doesn’t matter.
More importantly, though, there is simply no justification for the Constitution to say anything one way or the other about marriage. Marriage laws are, and always have been, a subject of state law and one would have thought that a Republican who believes in Federalism would want to keep it that way.
Of course, this is the same guy who wants to prevent American serviceman from buying Playboy, so draw your own conclusions.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:33 am
“Well, you’re a Congressman sir, not a Judge so your opinion of what the Constitution allows really doesn’t matter.”
Wow, Doug. I know we disagree on marriage, but that’s a pretty radical statement in support of judicial tyranny. Ever hear of “separation of powers”? “Co-equal branches of government”?
I seriously doubt that even the Great Chief Justice would endorse writing the legislative and executive branches out of the business of constitutional interpretation.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:33 am
James,
As a Congressman, his opinion of what is and isn’t Constitutional is as legally relevant as mine, which is to say it’s not.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:48 am
Doug, we can agree to disagree about whether homosexual “marriage” is a good idea. And I don’t pretend to know enough about the California or Massachusetts constitutions to know whether the decisions of their highest courts creating a “right” for people to “marry” people of the same sex are sound (though I have a sneakin’ suspicion that the suggestion that the latter, authored by John Adams more than 200 years ago, does is utter nonsense). We can even have a reasonable debate over whether it’s a good idea to amend the Federal constitution to protect marriage; I’m generally dubious over ANY attempt to amend our fundamental law, but I’m also troubled by the assault on the fundamental institution of human civilization and the language.
But you first misrepresent what Congressman Broun said. He said nothing about “what the Constitution allows”; his comment was about what “is a right protected by the United States Constitution.” Then you not only belittle him with ad hominem, but you write out the two co-equal branches of government.
That something less that what I have come to expect.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:57 am
Did I belittle him ? You bet. The guys a rube whose other major legislative initiative involves making sure that men dying for their country don’t get a peak at Pam Anderson’s boobs.
Yes, Congress has a role in Constitutional interpretation in this respect — I would think that no Congress person would knowingly pass a law they believe is unconstitutional. Similarly, I would hope that no President would sign into law a bill he believes may be unconstitutional — which, of course, is exactly what GWB did when he caved in on McCain-Feingold.
Let me ask this — do you think that his idea that marriage is something that Congress needs to take out of the hands of the states and put in the Constitution itself ?
If something like this were to happen, it would be another nail in the coffin of Federalism.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:33 am
Just a good ol southern boy trying to keep things in the past. If he is opposed to gay marriage thats fine but he shouldn’t feel or think that he can decide for all of us.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Well, Doug, perhaps he is “a rube whose other major legislative initiative involves making sure that men dying for their country don’t get a peak at Pam Anderson’s boobs.” And Earl Warren’s major accomplishment before being appointed to the Supreme Court was as the California Governor who championed internment of Japanese-Americans, including citizens. And Robert Byrd was once a Klansman. And Strom Thurmond was ran as a segregationist. And Doug Mataconis is an apologist for pole-smokers. And Jim Young once thought allowing abortion was a good idea.
Just because they and you and I did those things does not delegitimize later proposals or things that they support.
As for your question, I think — on balance — that it is. The far Left and partisans for the radical homosexual agenda have already gone far beyond “equal” rights, and tolerance, and now demand acceptance. They demand state sanction for their perversions, and I believe that a civil society is entitled to refuse it.
By way of example, I had opportunity to meet Phyllis Schlafly a few months back. I remember the first time I heard of her, when I was under ten and living in Indiana. She was then at her zenith, opposing the Equal Rights Amendment. She asserted that among its many unintended consequences would be permitting one man to “marry” another.
Now, I didn’t even know what a homosexual was at age nine, but I thought that the notion that someone would suggest that that one man could “marry” another was about the silliest damn thing I’d ever heard of.
Turns out Mrs. Schlafly was prescient. Turns out that she understood these people better than most, perhaps better than some of them understood themselves. And I felt the need to apologize to her for my youthful foolishness in dismissing her warnings.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Well, we’re obviously coming at this from different directions.
My basic attitude about homosexuality is that I really don’t care what consenting adults do with their private lives as long as they don’t threaten my life, liberty, or property.
Since homosexuality does none of this, it doesn’t bother me at all. What does bother are people like Phyllis Schafley who think that an individual’s private life is a proper concern of theirs.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I just wanted to leave my mark here on this particular topic. First let me say as a conservative Catholic homosexual I understand where both James Young and Robert are coming from. Doug Mataconis leaves a very important message that adults, in relation to legal activities, should concern other adults what they do. Second James, marriage is a state definition and I agree with you when you said that society should have the right to refuse homosexual marriage. However, as it is a state decision, voted on by state citizens that Briun is going over the states’ heads and superseding what they can and cannot agree with is idiotic at best and unconstitutional at worst. If this does go to the Supreme Court, I believe that it will be shot down. Even though we have a fairly conservative S.Court, many times once a judge is appointed you cannot predict what they will and will not vote on particular cases. We are a Republic of united states right, so that means we are a republic of similar yet divided societies. If Mass. and CA. or any other state wants to declare homosexual marriage legal, those that oppose said marriages should welcome their citizens to leave and go to where they are welcomed. I for one am from MI and I hope that my state eventually reaches the enlightenment of nonjudgement. What is really the issue of gay marriage besides the bible? And if you want to go to the bible look at I am sorry, I just tried to find my bible and I am in the process of moving and was unable to locate it, there are two comments made in the New Testament that Jesus admits that had he been to the towns of Sodom and Gamora that they would have been included in salvation. Again, I am sorry that I can’t get you the specific passages. I just also think that in the seperation of Church and State that the definition of marriage is still biblical in nature, at least in terms of society. Do we not count as citizens? Should we not be included in the same rights as citizens of heterosexuality, the tax breaks, the inheritence taxes, divorce, having children, health insurance etc etc I mean if you really don’t agree with homosexuality give them the burden of marriage and watch how they handle the commitment and responsibility. I am getting away from what I really wanted to say so I will wait to hear from your responses.
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
amend that second statement, adults with legal activities should not concern others.