U.S. House to Vote on Ban Soon

Last month the U.S. Senate voted on and failed to pass an amendment to the federal constitution. Now, the U.S. House is getting in on the election year tactics.

Back in 2004, Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado) introduced the amendment that the House could vote on as early as next Tuesday:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
The second sentence would ban civil unions and seriously threaten domestic partnership laws. This means that civil unions in Vermont and Connecticut would be retracted.

But earlier this week, Rep. Louis Gohmert (D-Texas) -- a former judge -- introduced this new version of the ban:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of a legal union of one man and one woman.
A spokesperson for Gohmert, suspected he made the change (which removes the second sentence and adds the word "legal" to the first) because he was "uncomfortable" with the orignial wording, and in part because of his previous experience as a judge.

It's worth noting that states with two-sentence bans -- like Michigan and Ohio -- are the ones dealing with lawsuits and judicial interpretation of the second sentence.

2 Comments:

At 12:36 PM, Blogger Paul said...

It is also worth noting that amendments to the US Constitution MUST emanate from the Senate. Therefore, this House measure is purely ceremonial and subsequently a complete waste of time. This is just another chapter in the game of politics since the Senate has rejected the measure in the past and will, in all liklihood, continue to reject it.

What about the immigration reform? Or the war in Iraq? Or healthcare? Or unemployment? These are the issues that the American people want our government to deal with. Have our leaders given up on the real issues?

Paul.

pdcook.blogspot.com

 
At 2:17 AM, Anonymous Special Touch said...

I know I've said this before, but this is a real issue to real families right here in Wisconsin.

These bans aren't only unnecessary or unimportant, they are wrong. These bans impede ordinary people from protecting their families with health insurance and hospital visitation rights. That's unreasonable, unfair, and unjust.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

A Fair Wisconsin Votes No
Add this banner to your website