October 5th, 2007
03:55 PM ET
15 years ago

Tancredo calls for federal marriage amendment

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado, held a press conference on the steps of the Iowa State Capitol Friday.

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) - Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo said Friday that if he were an Iowa resident, he'd sign a petition calling for the impeachment of Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson.

Hanson overturned Iowa's state ban on same-sex marriages in August. Hanson has since issued a stay on his ruling.

At a press conference on the steps of the Iowa State Capitol, Tancredo, a Republican congressman from Colorado, denounced Hanson, calling him an "activist judge."

"I believe Judge Hanson is flat wrong to say the state of Iowa, through its legislature, has no legitimate interest in the regulation of the institution of marriage," Tancredo said. "You might as well say the state has no legitimate interest in regulating the validity of commercial contracts or prohibiting prostitution or public execution."

"If a community cannot limit marriage to a man and a woman, how can it stop two men and a woman or three women and two men from declaring a communal marriage?" Tancredo continued. "If a child is just as well off with two mommies instead of a mother and a father, why is it not even better off with four momies or three daddies?"

He said the solution to the problem of activist judges in regard to this issue is a federal ban on gay marriage.

"If the Constitution needs to be changed, and in this case it apparently may need to be as a result of the actions taken by this judge, then there's a way to do it: it's an amendment process, and that's what I propose."

-CNN Iowa Producer Chris Welch

Related: Watch video from CNN Des Moines affiliate KCCI

Filed under: Iowa • Race to '08 • Tom Tancredo • Uncategorized
soundoff (61 Responses)
  1. P Bull, Seattle WA

    Ah, so we don't want to allow gay marriage because a gay couple cannot, by themselves, procreate? Well, how about we force all straight couples who marry to have children within, say, three years of their wedding day? If a straight couple can't have kids, then in this brave new world we're creating, perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's well known, after all, that we need all the help we can get to solve the burgeoning underpopulation problem that's plaguing our planet.

    Or maybe, just maybe, we can separate church and state for ourselves on this one. From a governmental point of view, a marriage should be nothing more than a business contract. Recall that the primary activity of government in the process of getting married is PROVIDING A PERMIT! They should not be allowed to go further. If a particular church doesn't want to perform ceremonies for gay couples who wish to marry, that is their constitutional right. The government, however, shouldn't have that right. And let's be very clear that this is an issue about equal rights. Someone made a comment earlier that we would have to, under the same reasoning, sanction pedophelia. This argument is ridiculous in the extreme: pedophilia is a forcible act upon a child who can't legally consent to the sex act. The act of sex for a gay couple is, as it is for a straight couple, consensual. It is mean spirited, bigoted, and just plain wrong to try to compare the two. Finally, does my reasoning allow groups of more than two individuals to marry? Yes, and so what? Does it really harm the Tancredos of the world that there are loving gay couples? Would it do Tancredo harm that a group of more than two entered into a contract for mutual support? I hope the answer is obvious. And now really finally, to the religious fanatics that want to keep spouting the Old Testament to support their bigotry, I would point out that in the Old Testament, God told Israel on a number of occasions that slavery was okay. Don't know too many people these days that would agree with God on this one.

    October 6, 2007 08:27 pm at 8:27 pm |
  2. Peter, Wausau, WI

    To Representative Tom Tancredo:
    I absolutely agree with you! Thank you very much for supporting traditional values and basic morality.

    To everyone who has been posting here:
    I notice that many of you disagree with Rep. Tancredo... seriously, you need to get over your "political correctness" and acknowledge the fact that homosexuality is immoral.

    October 7, 2007 09:51 am at 9:51 am |
  3. Mark R. Fort Lauderdale FL

    Always the same- republicans who have no new ideas or ability to lead try to rally their faithful through homophobia. Please note the example of Massachusetts- no straight person was inconvenienced in any way when gays were given the right to marry. The gay community is not trying to hurt straight people or to take over the world- just to have equal protection under the law. I PROMISE all of you this will not lead to people marrying their pets or their cars. I really believe we will look back on this in 75-100 years and be ashamed that we were so backward as a country.

    October 7, 2007 11:30 am at 11:30 am |
  4. Pam Holt Los Angeles, CA

    Concerned Citizen of MA: How sad that your family members would never feel they could come out and so they conform to what your close-minded type of society expects. I know at least one gay man this is "happily" married with a child. He hasn't acted on his homosexuality YET, and has denied his true self (he is even a Republican!). I find this so sad. Life is too short to not be who you really are.

    As far as the procreation argument: I have been married for 11 years and my husband and I are being responsible and choosing NOT to have kids. The last thing our Earth needs is MORE people. I feel the same way about breeding animals- there's too many kids in foster homes and orphanages that deserve a chance at a decent life too. Why not adopt if you feel you must have children (and make the world a better place- God forbid)? I believe it's an ego thing for many people... they have to have your genes or you don't want them.

    What a sad world we live in.

    SMARTEN UP those of you too ignorant to even realize how MORALLY wrong (and hateful) you are by treating your fellow Americans as unequals because they were born different from you.

    October 7, 2007 05:15 pm at 5:15 pm |
  5. Pam Holt Los Angeles, CA

    Tom Dedham, Mass: My answer is YES, Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and the rest ARE bigots and homophobes. It's absolutely disgusting.

    Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are the only two candidates that agree that ALL Americans should have equal rights. It's really a no-brainer.

    It's embarrassing to hear ignorant arguments against it. Just stop people, stop. You are showing your EXTREME ignorance. I feel as though I'm surrounded by rednecks and hillbillies. STOP!

    October 7, 2007 05:22 pm at 5:22 pm |
  6. Hipple, Rev. Paul T.

    It is indeed a slippery slope. If we give them same sex marriage, they'll come back latter and demand the right to marry their pets and farm animals.

    We need to stop it here and now, Praise Him!!!

    October 8, 2007 04:13 pm at 4:13 pm |
  7. Tom Dedham, Mass

    Funny how only one of you half answered my question.

    The lack of an honest rebuttal proves my point about whom the real hypocrites are.

    October 8, 2007 05:54 pm at 5:54 pm |
  8. Concerned Citizen of MA

    Oh, dear Pam Holt Los Angeles, CA, judging from your comments here, I want to say that you have no idea what you are talking about because you DON'T KNOW what happiness REALLY is. I feel sorry for you. Hope you find that great feeling of happiness before it's too late.

    October 8, 2007 11:13 pm at 11:13 pm |
  9. Pam Holt Los Angeles, CA

    Tom Dedham, Mass : Sorry I didn't give an answer for all your questions, but I think that gay marriage being on the ballot was a ploy by the Republicans to bring out all the homophobic hate-mongers from the woodwork knowing they would also vote Republican while they're there.

    And really what's the big deal about calling it "marriage"? Really, what's the freakin' big deal? Let's make everyone (men & women) have civil unions instead of marriages to bring down the ridiculous divorce rate.

    It's just stupid to be so hung up on a word, and so into other people's private business.

    October 9, 2007 05:35 am at 5:35 am |
  10. armando norcross, GA

    this is a sure sign that not every one in politis is educated, what garaties that a straight will raise a kid in a "family atmosphere" how many divorces and abuse problems aren't there in "normal couples"

    October 9, 2007 09:03 am at 9:03 am |
  11. Tom - Dedham, Mass

    Again, the Republicans are only singled out, so everyone voting against this was just a Republican?

    This was not just done during Presidential elections, it was done in many states (45 or so) that also had just local elections with DEMOCRATS running for office and in some of those cases the DEMOCRATS won, but the gay marriage question STILL LOST.

    Sorry, but that is the truth.

    October 9, 2007 01:45 pm at 1:45 pm |
1 2 3