Walker calls for constitutional amendment to let states define marriage

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker applauds during his State of the State address to a joint session of the Legislature in the Assembly chambers at the state Capitol Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2014, in Madison, Wis. Walker made the case in his State of the State speech Wednesday that extra money collected thanks to an improving national economy should be returned as property and income tax cuts, even as some Republicans are saying his proposal goes too far.  (AP Photo/Andy Manis)†

The Hill- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) is calling for a Constitutional amendment to allow states to define marriage and strip the Supreme Court of its authority over the issue after the justices legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

“As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage,” Walker, a likely 2016 contender, said in a statement.

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that every state must recognize same-sex marriage under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

Most of the Republican presidential candidates responded by blasting the court’s decision as overreach on a matter they say should be settled on a state-by-state basis. Walker, however, is the only contender to call for an amendment to the Constitution to enshrine into law a state’s right to determine whether gay marriage should be legal.

more

19 Comments on Walker calls for constitutional amendment to let states define marriage

  1. Great idea hope it works. By presidential order, you know like Obama likes to do with his pen. A republican president should be able to reverse everything Obama has done…..no?




    0
  2. The majority of voters confirmed they wanted the DOMA by 2 to 1 and even THREE to ONE – the FUCKING ACTIVISTS JUDGES have SCREWED the American people OUT of their vote.
    TRUE VOTER SUPPRESSION.




    0
  3. It’s nice of him to call for it but with even with GOP-comprised majority, as the GOP currently exists, there’s zero chance. He’s got to know that so…does he really mean it?




    0
  4. He means it. But he knows it’s a long, uphill battle that few want to fight. There are a great many mal-educated in this country who would rather sit in front of their TVs or iPads and pick their noses rather than concern themselves with questions of good and evil. And all, I mean ALL, the ‘punditry’ will be braying about how ‘fair’ the decision is and compare it to a civil right.

    The fact that the Constitution doesn’t recognize, or even confer, a ‘right’ to marriage by ANY-fucking-ONE will be totally lost.

    How can it guarantee a ‘right’ to perverts that it doesn’t recognize in the first place? This is total “Wonderland” bullshit.




    0
  5. If we were going to go to the trouble to ratify an amendment, it needs to be much more than just this one issue.

    I’d be in favor of severely limiting the power of courts. As I understand the Constitution as it is written, that could be accomplished by the Legislature right now if they’d only grow a pair.

    I predict it has to get a lot worse before it gets better. I’m beginning to doubt I’ll live to see it.




    0
  6. It makes more sense to repeal and re-write the 14th amendment, get rid of the feds imposing one state’s laws on everyone and the anchor baby problem.

    All of the “Reconstruction era” amendments are too broad for what they were intended to do.

    I’d vote to repeal the 17th as well and re-gain the Republic Franklin and the framers gave us. . . if we could keep it.




    0
  7. Tim…The “punditry” would not stand by and do nothing if the vote had gone the other way. If Walker wants to do something then that’s good.




    0
  8. Me too. I’ll even throw in my third born child. First and second ones are now of mowing age so they cant leave for awhile.




    0
  9. I like Walker, he keeps kicking the left’s teeth in. I see he also has called for a Constitutional amendment for states to decide the SSM issue




    0
  10. Sounds like more phony election rhetoric by politicians who lack the courage to act on their professed beliefs. If they really objected to same sex marriage,they would have stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction on this issue BEFORE the cases ever came to court (see US Constitution Art. III Sec. 2 paragraph 3.) Or how about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping

    We all see how those constitutional amendments on abortion worked out.




    0
  11. Tone deaf and a waste of time. Wanna know how to win an election? Promise to shut down the border for 5 years and deport every illegal. But, of course, no GOP candidate will do that because the GOP central wants to turn this country into a turd world shithole as much as the DNC does.




    0
  12. Even if we succeed in amending the Constitution this way (likelihood of success, zero) SCOTUS would just declare the amendment unconstitutional

    If you can find a right to gay marriage in a document written by men who took every word in the Bible literally …. you can do anything




    0

Comments are closed.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!