November 21st, 2009
 

365 Gay: News

GOP moves to ban gay marriage in DC


A Republican-led group of lawmakers wants to define marriage in the
District of Columbia as between a man and a woman.

The group introduced a bill in the House on Thursday, hoping to thwart a city council vote this month recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Five states — Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont — allow gay marriage.

Congress, which has final say over laws in the nation’s capital, has until July to act against the district measure. Otherwise, it automatically becomes law. Some council members have said the legislation is the first step toward eventually allowing gay marriage in Washington.

More than 30 lawmakers have signed on as co-sponsors of the House bill, said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. However, all but two are Republicans, and it will be a fight to get the bill approved in a Democratic-controlled Congress and signed by President Barack Obama.

Obama publicly supports civil unions and believes states should be allowed to make their own decisions about marriage.

©365Gay.com 2009


Login or Register to comment.

or Login with Facebook:

  • tjr Said: May 23rd, 2009 at 2:42 am
    • America will do well without the Grand Old Pervs. Let this party stay in minority indefinitely.

  • A Plague on Both Their Houses Said: May 23rd, 2009 at 2:18 am
    • Well…let’s see…hmmmmm…Democrats in control of all branches of government on Captial Hill gave us the gift of DADT that just keeps giving…then….hmmmm…let’s see…Bill “Give The Man a Cigar” Clinton gave us the wedding present of DOMA (and no one twisted his arm behind his back to make him sign it either).

      So, yep, the Demo-craps really ARE our friends!

      Typical Obama-bot lame-ass distortions of reality.

      You brainwashed Democrats-are-our-Saviors sycophants must really love putting on your butt-less chaps and getting a good ass-kicking — you pathetic masochists.

      Screw both the Repugnant-cans and the Demo-craps. Put at least ten percent of Congress in the hands of a truly liberal Third Party (you know, like what most other countries have) and only then will you see progress as each of the two look-alike ruling “business as usual” parties scramble to caucus with them. It is the only way. Wake up to reality, people!

      ——————————

      drewski Said: May 22nd, 2009 said: “This isn’t coming from Obama. It’s not coming from the Dems. It’s coming from the Republicans. Would any of you who say that voting for Obama/Dems was being hoodwinked, and that by inference we should’ve voted GOP–would any of you care to justify your party’s actions?”

      ==============================

      Hmmmm…just waiting for the shoe to drop (on us) by the Dems again.

      Tick…Tock…Tick..Tock

      …just a matter of time.

  • MavsFan Said: May 23rd, 2009 at 12:55 am
    • In my mind, a 2-party system is really the only option. While it does seem to severely limit one’s choice, the alternative would be disasterous. For instance, if the country somehow moved to a 3-party system, then technically a candidate could win an election with about 1/3 of the populous vote. So, in effect the majority would not have supported the elected official. And imagine the prospects of a 4-party system and so on…. I will settle for a 50/50 approach myself.

  • Alexa Said: May 23rd, 2009 at 12:30 am
    • @ drewski:

      I concur that the reality we are in is a 2 party system. I’m not throwing rocks at you.
      Myself, I usually vote Democrat not because I like the Democratic Party, but because I REALLY DETEST the hate and bigotry that the Republican Party stands for. I lament that there are generally only 2 possibilities for an election when we have 50 feet of cereal choice at the grocery store.

      I was mostly commenting on your statement “by inference we should’ve voted GOP”. One doesn’t HAVE to cast a Democrat ballot to rob the GOP of a vote. I agree that in reality, that’s usually the better option, but I don’t agree that it’s the assumption one should make.

  • drewski Said: May 23rd, 2009 at 12:19 am
    • @ Alexa–as I’ve said before, there are other parties, but how often do they even win local races? A “choice” which satisfies your intellect but does nothing in the real world isn’t a choice, it’s a form of mental masturbation. I’m not mocking the right to vote your conscience, I’m mocking the denial of current reality, which is that American politics is a duopoly at almost every level. In some places, at some times, under some circumstances, third parties have made inroads in the US. That’s the exception, not the rule. Show me two US cities, population certified at 250,000 or greater, which are not primarily university towns and where at least a quarter of local officials are not aligned in some way with Dems or GOP. That’s silence I hear, because you’ll have to get in a time machine and go forward to report on that achievement. We don’t have multiple votes (which has been discussed by Lani Guinier, among others), so my one vote in my one life (sorry–Sally Field moment) needs to do something NOW, not when I turn into fertilizer at Forest Lawn Gardens.

  • KaninZ Said: May 22nd, 2009 at 11:44 pm
    • The GOP has an opportunity to re-invent itself into a party that embraces the Constitution and fiscal responsibility and what does it do?

      “Crank up the crazy!!”

      It’s now the party of the American Taliban and KKK values.

  • Alexa Said: May 22nd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
    • @ Kris: I think it’s safe to say that April Morris’ comments were sarcasm.

      @ drewski: Believe it or not, there are more than 2 political parties in the USA. The GOP has a strong history of hating gays, but the Democrats don’t really have that strong a history to prove they LIKE gays.

  • Fed Up Said: May 22nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
    • @ Don in IL

      AMEN to that! ;-)

  • Don in IL Said: May 22nd, 2009 at 5:21 pm
    • Can’t we just outlaw the GOP? Or better yet, write a constitutional amendment baring them from doing business in the U.S. Even better, write a constitutional amendment baring any church from any political discussion. This includes bible studies, the pulpit, or any other group with a church or religious affiliation. I know it’s a pipe dream, but it sure helps thinking of a country where they don’t exist.

  • Kris Said: May 22nd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
    • ummm…April Morris, is it? This article says “GOP moves to ban gay marriage in D.C.” What do you mean by “no way the GOP
      is against gay marriage”. Did you forget to read the title of this article???

      Are we supposed to believe you or what is in print? Please clear up this idea of yours.

  • April Morris Said: May 22nd, 2009 at 3:56 pm
    • okay Mr. Drewski makes absolutely no sense. and no way the GOP is against gay marriage what next abortion probably. how shocking and scandolous.

  • Fed Up Said: May 22nd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
    • Leave it to the Gay Oppression Party to try this line of BS. Let’s hope we win on this one in the nation’s capital…. it would be a NICE symbolic win.

  • drewski Said: May 22nd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
    • This isn’t coming from Obama. It’s not coming from the Dems. It’s coming from the Republicans. Would any of you who say that voting for Obama/Dems was being hoodwinked, and that by inference we should’ve voted GOP–would any of you care to justify your party’s actions?

  • Mark Said: May 22nd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
    • This from the Party of No? Who woulda thunk?

  • Bob Said: May 22nd, 2009 at 12:03 pm
    • As far as I know, the provisions of the DC Home Rule law permit Congress to overturn legislation approved by the city government but don’t permit them to actually make local laws. So good luck with that.

 
Login

Register
Lost your password?


or Login with Facebook