House conservatives say they will pursue legislation that would ban gay marriage in the nations capital.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC), told The Hill that he will push for a vote on the controversial issue in the 112th Congress. The RSC has 175 members.
I think RSC will push for it, and Im certainly strongly for it. I dont know if weve made a decision if Ill do it or let another member do it, but Im 100 percent for it, Jordan said.
In the last Congress, Jordan was the lead sponsor on the D.C. Defense of Marriage Act. The bill was introduced after the D.C. City Council and then-Mayor Adrian Fenty indicated they would recognize same-sex marriages.
Jordans measure garnered 53 co-sponsors last year. But it is expected to attract more support in the GOP-led House in 2011.
Recently, Jordan added his name to a legal brief with other gay-marriage opponents who challenged a decision by the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics denying a ballot initiative banning gay marriage. The board concluded that such a ballot initiative would violate D.C.s Human Rights Act.
No matter how bad (or good) gay and gay marriage is not the society, its a human problem and its for us human beings to decide what to do about it... why are politicians poking their nose in our matters. they should stick to their kind and see what hey can or cant do for the bankers...
No matter how bad (or good) gay and gay marriage is not the society, its a human problem and its for us human beings to decide what to do about it... why are politicians poking their nose in our matters. they should stick to their kind and see what hey can or cant do for the bankers...
Wonder if he's gonna push through a bill that bans divorces too.
Why don't gay people just become strait and not have to worry about people being bias against them? Choosing to be gay seems really illogical; even if they are born with a homosexual predilection, wouldn't it make more sense to 'bight the bullet' and just pretend to be hetero?
I think biting the bullet is what got them in trouble in the first place.
This is important to social conservatives, probably more important than balancing the budget. Just goes to show that we don't have a small government party, merely a really big government party and a really, really big government party. No government with the authority to determine whom one can and cannot marry can ever be described as small government, no matter how few services it provides.
This isn't quite the same as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, but it's enforcing a dress codes.
Isn't everything we legislate based on what we find to be moral or immoral? I personally find taking living human lives detestable and think a primary goal of the government should be to reduce (not spend billions on achieving) this end. I personally find an egalitarian start to one's life, improved educational chances for everyone, to be a moral imperative; as is helping those who can not help themselves and many other social-liberal agenda things.legislating morality
Isn't everything we legislate based on what we find to be moral or immoral? I personally find taking living human lives detestable and think a primary goal of the government should be to reduce (not spend billions on achieving) this end. I personally find an egalitarian start to one's life, improved educational chances for everyone, to be a moral imperative; as is helping those who can not help themselves and many other social-liberal agenda things.
It's not that we shouldn't legislate from morality, but rather that the morality we should legislate from is love and not shame.
"Legislating morality", whether out of love or shame, is using the full force and credit of government to essentially say: "government knows best"... when the truth is that none of us is as dumb as all of us or a majority of us.
Beyond the constitutionally set standard of ensuring the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, government has no role legislating morality.