House Republicans To Target D.C.’s Same-Sex Marriage Law

House Republicans have decided to make what is largely a symbolic attack against the District of Columbia’s law allowing gay marriage:

House conservatives say they will pursue legislation that would ban gay marriage in the nation’s 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 I’m certainly strongly for it. I don’t know if we’ve made a decision if I’ll do it or let another member do it, but I’m 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.

Jordan’s measure garnered 53 co-sponsors last year. But it is expected to attract more support in the GOP-led House in 2011.

Because, of course, this is all part of the GOP’s plan to focus unrelentingly on  the economy, jobs, and the federal budget deficit.

FILED UNDER: Congress, Quick Takes, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020.

Comments

  1. Vast Variety says:

    Why is it that Republicans feel the need to take away my civil rights. Are I not just as much a Human being as they are?

  2. tom p says:

    Coming up next: A law to keep states from recognizing gay marraige (DOMA was just the beginning)

  3. TG Chicago says:

    It was widely predicted that once the alleged deficit hawks got to Congress, they’d realize that deficit-hawking is hard… but stigmatizing gay people is soooo easy!

    Good thing the Tea Party movement has ensured that the culture wars are behind us and we can focus on grown-up stuff like our fiscal future.

  4. mantis says:

    Dear Washington, D. C.,

    You want representation? Go f*ck yourselves.

    You want to be discriminated against out of pure bigotry? No problem!

    Sincerely,
    The Republican Party

  5. Michael says:

    Because the best way to represent their constituents back home is to over turn the popular will (through the only actual representation they have) of people somewhere else.

  6. Neil Hudelson says:

    And the long gradual march into obscurity continues…

  7. Concerned Citizen says:

    “Why is it that Republicans feel the need to take away my civil rights.”

    There is no “civil right” to “same-sex marriage”.

  8. Michael says:

    There is no “civil right” to “same-sex marriage”

    How about to equal access, equal opportunity, and equal recognition?

  9. Concerned Citizen says:

    “How about to equal access, equal opportunity, and equal recognition?”

    All Americans currently have equal access to marriage, as traditionally defined, subject to the exact same limitations.

  10. Michael says:

    All Americans currently have equal access to marriage, as traditionally defined, subject to the exact same limitations.

    Well no, I don’t think that’s true. A heterosexual person is free to marry the person they are most attracted to, while a homosexual person is not. Just because black people had their own restrooms just like white people did, didn’t make it equal.

  11. Concerned Citizen says:

    Since marriage is not defined in terms of “the person they are most attracted to”, that’s a non sequitur.

    Skin color has no relationship to going to the bathroom. Sex is central to what marriage is. There’s no analogy there.

  12. An Interested Party says:

    Ahh, but there is an analogy between skin color and sexuality, unless of course you think it is simply a “lifestyle choice”…

  13. Concerned Citizen says:

    “Ahh, but there is an analogy between skin color and sexuality”

    I don’t think there’s any analogy between skin color and sexuality.

  14. Michael says:

    The analogy is between race and gender, not race and sexuality. You’re saying that one half of the population can not marry someone in the other half of the population, based solely on their genitals.

  15. Concerned Citizen says:

    I don’t think there’s any analogy between race and gender either.

  16. TG Chicago says:

    Aren’t Republicans supposed to care about Federalism and local control? I guess that’s true until locals wish to ban guns, decriminalize drugs or allow gays to marry. Basically, they have a Get-Out-Of-Federalism-Free Card they pull out whenever they want. Must be nice!

  17. An Interested Place says:

    “I don’t think there’s any analogy between skin color and sexuality.”

    Why not? The analogy is that people are born this way and cannot change what they are…