Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H. Joint Res. 32

Should The Constitution Be Amended To Only Recognize Heterosexual Marriages?

Argument in favor

States need to have the right to decide which marriages they choose to recognize, and consequently, give benefits to.

Keith's Opinion
···
05/15/2015
Homosexual "marriages" are not the same. To say it's unnatural for two men or two women to raise children isn't bigotry. It's biology.
Like (121)
Follow
Share
Elinor's Opinion
···
03/11/2015
There is no "civil right" to gay marriage. You expand the term "civil right" to everything, every person, every aspect of our lives, except, of course, to Christians, white males, and thinking people. "Civil rights" is a term that has become trite and, through your left-wing politically-based overuse, ignored. Where is MY "civil right" to practice MY religion on MY property and in MY business? Mine is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. You have heard of the U.S. Constitution, haven't you? Is it a vague term lurking somewhere in your foggy memory? You might read it and its history. A little bit of info for you: the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land! It's purpose is to limit the power of federal government.
Like (63)
Follow
Share
Wendell's Opinion
···
03/18/2015
If that's what it takes to do what's right, then yes: change the constitution to prohibit marriage to a person of the same gender. And while at it, specify that a man cannot marry an under age child, nor a near relative, nor any woman who is already married, nor can he if he is already married, nor can he marry any other than a human being. It seems common sense, but the way things are changing it won't be long before such specifics are necessary. We all have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, who is of age to consent, who is not a near relative, who is not already married, if we are not already married. The LGBT have the same rights already.
Like (38)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

It’s the 21st century people; this bill aims to deny the LGBT community their civil rights that have already been granted in many U.S. states.

BarackObama's Opinion
···
04/03/2015
"All men and women are created equally regardless of their sexual orientation. The LGBTQ community deserves equality."
Like (1110)
Follow
Share
GavinNewsom's Opinion
···
03/12/2015
I directed the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the first place in America to do that. Why? Because it was the right thing to do and because the fight for equality requires bold action.
Like (316)
Follow
Share
Sawyer's Opinion
···
03/13/2015
If this passed, it would be the first amendment to the constitution that restricts the rights of citizens. It's wrong
Like (234)
Follow
Share

joint resolution Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on the Judiciary
    IntroducedFebruary 12th, 2015

What is House Bill H. Joint Res. 32?

This resolution would amend the Constitution to define marriage as a union only between a man and a woman. 

Passed in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) allowed states to not acknowledge same-sex unions officiated in other states that don't limit marriage to heterosexual unions. In 2013's United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court ruled that the previous federal ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional due to the “Equal Protection Clause” in the Constitution. 

This amendment would nullify the U.S. v. Windsor ruling, by mandating that "neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State," be required to bestow marriage benefits on any same-sex couple.

Update 6/26/2015:

A case heard by the Supreme Court in April 2015 — Obergefell v. Hodges — dealt with whether the Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and whether they must recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state. In a 5 to 4 ruling, the Supreme Court effectively legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The only recourse remaining to those opposing same-sex marriages would be a constitutional amendment such as this or other proposals.

Impact

Married couples, people who want to get married, the LGBT community, states that recognize same-sex marriages, federal marriage benefits, and the U.S. wedding industry.

Cost of House Bill H. Joint Res. 32

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable. However, a CBO cost estimate of a 2004 version of this bill — H.R. 3313 — found that implementation would have no impact on the federal budget.

More Information

Of Note: More than ten versions of legislation defining marriage as "between a man and woman" have been proposed to Congress over the years.

Sponsoring Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) argues in support of his bill that: 

“Given the current legal chaos on marriage, it’s important that we work to enact a definitive marriage policy on a national level. Defining marriage as between one man and one woman will preserve religious freedom, strengthen families, and benefit children.”

Over time, President Obama has "evolved" on the issue of same-sex marriage, and now opposes measures such as this. In October 2014, the president said, “Ultimately, I think the Equal Protection Clause does guarantee same-sex marriage in all fifty states.”


Media:

(Photo Credit: Flickr user Squidish

AKA

Marriage Protection Amendment

Official Title

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

    Homosexual "marriages" are not the same. To say it's unnatural for two men or two women to raise children isn't bigotry. It's biology.
    Like (121)
    Follow
    Share
    "All men and women are created equally regardless of their sexual orientation. The LGBTQ community deserves equality."
    Like (1110)
    Follow
    Share
    I directed the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the first place in America to do that. Why? Because it was the right thing to do and because the fight for equality requires bold action.
    Like (316)
    Follow
    Share
    If this passed, it would be the first amendment to the constitution that restricts the rights of citizens. It's wrong
    Like (234)
    Follow
    Share
    How ridiculous would it be, as a nation, to have a Constitution that claims to protect the rights of all, but implicitly deny the rights of many?
    Like (163)
    Follow
    Share
    Who ever wrote this bill should not be allowed to get married. Same with their supporters for being ignorant and cruel.
    Like (124)
    Follow
    Share
    "So grateful to the people of MD for leading the way on this important issue of human dignity and equality under the law. #MarriageEquaility" [twitter.com]
    Like (84)
    Follow
    Share
    There is no "civil right" to gay marriage. You expand the term "civil right" to everything, every person, every aspect of our lives, except, of course, to Christians, white males, and thinking people. "Civil rights" is a term that has become trite and, through your left-wing politically-based overuse, ignored. Where is MY "civil right" to practice MY religion on MY property and in MY business? Mine is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. You have heard of the U.S. Constitution, haven't you? Is it a vague term lurking somewhere in your foggy memory? You might read it and its history. A little bit of info for you: the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land! It's purpose is to limit the power of federal government.
    Like (63)
    Follow
    Share
    equal means equal........FOR EVERYONE
    Like (56)
    Follow
    Share
    Love is genderless and favors neither ethnical background nor religion. It has no boundaries, so we should not make attempts to limit it. Accepting this officiates one's belief that a person cannot control another's feelings and thoughts, a basic human right denominated by common sense. Banning any kind of marriage outside of heterosexuality would be a monopoly of beliefs, owned by religious individuals who view non-traditional habits as taboo. They feel the need to control the lives of others, even though the other forms of affection have no impact on their lives. By allowing its people the official freedom to follow their hearts, America secures its reputation as a country who cares for its habitant's inherent rights.
    Like (45)
    Follow
    Share
    If that's what it takes to do what's right, then yes: change the constitution to prohibit marriage to a person of the same gender. And while at it, specify that a man cannot marry an under age child, nor a near relative, nor any woman who is already married, nor can he if he is already married, nor can he marry any other than a human being. It seems common sense, but the way things are changing it won't be long before such specifics are necessary. We all have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, who is of age to consent, who is not a near relative, who is not already married, if we are not already married. The LGBT have the same rights already.
    Like (38)
    Follow
    Share
    Because SCOTUS. And get over it already. Go be crazy and stupid-hateful about some other topic. Your religion does not rule us all. And thankfully we have laws protecting us from that ever happening. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
    Like (38)
    Follow
    Share
    If homosexual couples want a union let them find a term that only they can have and heterosexual couples can not have. But keep marriage sacred to the male and female union.
    Like (33)
    Follow
    Share
    No. Stay out of personal business.
    Like (32)
    Follow
    Share
    A truly draconian and dangerous proposal that would have us at the table with religious .
    Like (26)
    Follow
    Share
    What the hell is wrong with people? This shouldn't be a question. People are allowed to believe in a man floating in the sky, but the LGBT community is wrong?
    Like (24)
    Follow
    Share
    Because fuck you, that's why.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is how children are brought into this world and that is the best way to raise them. Children in gay families are oftern miserable due to lacking a parent of the opposite sex. When don't need to sacrifice the next generation just because gay men and women want to play house.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Moral fiber of our country, moral health of our country and the destruction of our society as it was intended is at stake. How will our young people keep from becoming adrift if they don't have some moral, stable, ethical compos to go by?
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Come into the 21st century people!
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE