Bigots: Let's Amend the Constitution to Ban Gay Marriage!

The most absurd response to the Supreme Court’s judicial inactivism on same-sex marriage has been the cry from the bigots to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. But this just isn’t going to happen. Nonetheless, John Eastman of the National Organization for Marriage, is all for it:

John Eastman serves as chairman of the board at the National Organization for Marriage. He understands the frustration people are feeling.

“They need to let their elected representatives know that they’re not going to tolerate this,” says Eastman, “and if it requires a constitutional convention to launch a constitutional amendment to overturn these decisions, then so be it. The courts need to be reminded that they are not supreme; that the supreme authority in this country is the sovereign will of the people.”

Ted Cruz, always eager to exploit hot-button issues for political gain, says he’s going to propose such an amendment:

“Marriage is a question for the States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.

“Traditional marriage is an institution whose integrity and vitality are critical to the health of any society. We should remain faithful to our moral heritage and never hesitate to defend it.”

Yeah, see, this was tried from 2004-2008 several times, at a time when a strong majority of Americans were opposed to marriage equality and it still couldn’t pass. It has no chance at all of passing now. And guess what? They know this. But they also know that it’s in their best interest to pretend that it could. That’s what keeps the money flowing in.

Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • RickR

    judicial inactivism

    Heh. I’m stealing that.

    I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws.

    I find this pretty revealing because it could be used on any and every law or Supreme Court decision ever that they don’t like. “The States are free to follow the laws they agree with (and would make ourselves if we were a separate nation, like the Second Amendment) but the stuff we don’t agree with, we can ignore”.

    It’s secession without actually seceding. Which is entirely the point.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    The bill’s sponsor and co-sponsors reads like a who’s-who of assholery.

    It’s nice to know that David Vitter is still standing up for Strong Marriages. I wonder if he got a hooker to read the bill to him.

  • D. C. Sessions

    I really, really encourage them to spare no effort (or dollar) in pursuit of this plan.

  • rabbitscribe

    “I find this pretty revealing because it could be used on any and every law or Supreme Court decision ever that they don’t like. “The States are free to follow the laws they agree with (and would make ourselves if we were a separate nation, like the Second Amendment) but the stuff we don’t agree with, we can ignore”.

    ***shrug*** Sure. They can make any new law or get rid of any existing law with a Constitutional amendment. They could ban gay marriage with all the conservative states and a dozen Michigan’s and New Jersey’s, and California would be powerless. We could ban guns entirely if all the liberal states and a dozen Missouri’s and Indiana’s got on board, and Mississippi could do nothing about it. Neither one is going to happen, but I’d much rather see people pursuing legitimate venues for change than just sort of decreeing that the law is different than what statutes and precedents say.

  • Loqi

    Let’s amend the Constitution to *allow* gay marriage!

    Oh, wait, we don’t have to. Suck it, bigots.

  • scienceavenger

    “Marriage is a question for the States.

    I’m sure Utah’s polygamous residents are thrilled to hear that.

  • iangould

    Of course, it isn’t going to happen but it could keep the votes and dollars rolling in for years to come and that’s what really matters.

  • gshelley

    Interesting

    I wonder of they are going to be explicit enough in this to genuinly give states the right to define marriage, is to outlaw mixed race marriage if they wish, or if it is only ssm they think states should get to ban

  • http://atheist-faq.com Jasper of Maine

    The courts need to be reminded that they are not supreme; that the supreme authority in this country is the sovereign will of the people.”

    You mean like how the sovereign will of the people is that gay marriage is okay?

  • John Pieret

    the supreme authority in this country is the sovereign will of the people.

    As long as the people have photo ID cards.

  • hunter

    “The courts need to be reminded that they are not supreme; that the supreme authority in this country is the sovereign will of the people.”

    Which is not true and never has been. The supreme authority is the Constitution, as interpreted by the courts.

    And now you know why John Eastman has such a distinguished career as a lawyer.

  • martinc

    They’ve proposed something that is a response to the real situation – that same-sex marriage is entirely legal under the current Constitution – and the proposal is something that would achieve their ends, as long as they can get the supermajorities required to vote for it. You and I are well aware that it has almost no hope of passing, but in the meantime it will generate plenty of publicity and money for the people proposing it.

    So I’m not sure why you categorize it as “the most absurd response” … it seems an entirely rational response to me, given the ab initio proviso that one is seeing things from greedy bigot eyes. It’s the bigots who try to pretend that the current Constitution outlaws same-sex marriage who are being absurd.

  • lorn

    I say we counter with an amendment that allows any person to marry anything and anyone of legal age. The legal minimum will use a species specific multiplier. Perhaps 6 for cats, 7 for dogs, and 9 for a ficus. So you can marry a 3 year old cat, a 2.6 year old dog, and a 2 year old ficus. In case a divorce a lawyer representing the less-sentient side will be appointed to make sure the ficus gets half of all your stuff.

  • thebookofdave

    judicial inactivism

    Heh. I’m stealing that.

    Too late, RickR. It’s already a Law And Order spinoff.