Quantcast
Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
Demonstrators chant outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, March 26, 2013, as the court heard arguments on California's voter approved ban on same-sex marriage, Proposition 8. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
GOP not sure how to respond to gay marriage rules

First Published Jun 27 2013 03:38 pm • Last Updated Dec 07 2013 11:34 pm

Washington • Conservatives demanded a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to straight couples in 2003 after the Massachusetts Supreme Court made that liberal state the first to sanction gay marriages.

A decade later, a dozen states have legalized gay marriages and the Supreme Court just ruled that the federal government must recognize those unions.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

This time around, conservatives responded with disappointment and calls to protect states’ ability to determine their own marriage laws, but plans for a constitutional amendment have all but evaporated.

The Republican abandonment of a traditional marriage amendment is just one sign of a dramatic and quick shift in public opinion.

"There was a great deal of interest in, and demand for, some kind of action on this," said former Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah. "There is absolutely none of that now, so any Republican or Democrats who wants to step forward and say I want to amend the Constitution would not draw enough support to justify introducing it."

If that’s true, Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., hasn’t received the memo.

The tea party Republican was the only lawmaker who reacted to the court’s decision Wednesday to invalidate part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act by promising to introduce a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages.

"A narrow radical majority of the court has substituted their personal views for the constitutional decisions of the American voters and their elected representatives," Huelskamp told reporters Wednesday.

That amendment is likely to be similar to the one then-President George W. Bush backed in 2004, at the height of his re-election campaign.

"The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith, " he said at the time.


story continues below
story continues below

President Barack Obama is the first chief executive to endorse gay marriage, a step he took before his 2012 re-election.

On Thursday, he not only cheered the court’s ruling on DOMA, he said he personally wanted to see legally married gay couples recognized by states, like Utah, that have blanket bans on the practice.

"It’s my personal belief, but I’m speaking now as a president not as a lawyer, that if you marry someone in Massachusetts and you move somewhere else, you’re still married," Obama said.

That’s exactly what Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, is worried about. He believes it’s possible that the Supreme Court will take up just such a case in the near future and he said voters should keep that in mind when electing the next president, who has the power to nominate justices to the high court.

"I worry the court is moving in the wrong direction," he said. "I do believe the states should be able to make these decisions and I applaud Utah for having a constitutional provision that marriage is between one man and one woman."

Chaffetz wasn’t excited about launching an effort to change the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. "I have said I supported that in the past, but I do believe that this is a state issue," he said.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has similarly shifted his position. Like Bennett, Hatch voted to propel the debate over a constitutional amendment in 2006, but recently has shied away from restarting that effort, saying each state should make up its own mind.

His colleague, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said he hasn’t heard much discussion about a constitutional amendment, nor has he taken a position on it. "It is not something that has gotten any traction in the past," he said.

An amendment would need to pass both the House and Senate with two-thirds majority, unlikely with the current partisan splits. It would also need to get the backing of three-fifths of the states.

Lee is a former Supreme Court clerk who said it’s possible the same five justices who shot down DOMA could shoot down state bans and there may be little Congress can plausibly do about it. He had a hard time thinking of anything Republicans could do legislatively to bolster traditional marriage that could pass Congress.

Public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans are fine with legalizing gay marriages. A new CNN poll, conducted in mid-June, found that 55 percent of respondents supported legal recognition of same-sex marriages, similar to what was found in 2012 and 2011.

Next Page >


Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment


About Reader Comments


Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Videos
Jobs
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.