(no subject)
Apr. 20th, 2011 03:45 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
disneydream06Congressional Republicans running from a chance to beat up on Gays?????
The world must be coming to an end. :o
House Republicans Fail to Show Up for 'Defending Marriage' Committee Hearing
posted by: Steve Williams
Republican Rep. Trent Franks found himself rather lonely at his "Defending Marriage" subcommittee hearing Friday when other Republican members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, which Franks chairs, failed to show up.
The purpose of the hearing was, Franks said, to discuss the Obama Administration's decision that after careful review it could not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that bans federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
The bipartisan 10-member panel should have put Franks among solid anti-gay company with fellow Republican legislators Steve King and Jim Jordan.
However, all five Republicans declined to show up, leaving Franks as chair to deal with the Democratic members of the panel who were all advocating for the repeal. His only support came from two speakers who had opted to give their views at the hearing, one of which was the National Organization for Marriage's Maggie Gallagher who can always be counted on to offer her opinion on the so-called gay agenda.
From On Top Magazine:
New York Representative Jerrold Nadler, the lead sponsor in the House of a bill that would repeal DOMA, reiterated his call for the law's end.
"Rather than defending DOMA in court, Congress should be working to repeal it," Nadler said.
"Far from demeaning, trivializing, or destroying the institution of marriage, lesbian and gay couples have embraced this time-honored tradition and the commitment and serious legal duties of marriage. The exclusion of any married couples from programs like Social Security defies logic. The fact that DOMA carves out an entire class of married citizens based on sexual orientation also violates constitutional equal protection guarantees."
The panel heard testimony from three witnesses: Maggie Gallagher, the chair of the anti-gay marriage group National Organization for Marriage (NOM), Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a critic of the administration's defense of DOMA in court, and Carlos Ball, an openly gay law professor at Rutgers Law School.
"If, in fact, marriage, as a public and legal institution," Gallagher testified, "is oriented towards protecting children by increasing the likelihood they have a mother and father, then same-sex couples do not fit, and conversely, if same-sex couples fit the definition of marriage then marriage really is no longer about responsible procreation in the sense."
This comment is odd, however, because it really answers its own question -- marriage as a public and legal institution is not, nor has it ever been, solely about procreation (if it was, only heterosexuals who were fertile and committed to having children should be able to marry).
That other Republicans failed to show up for the meeting perhaps shouldn't be that surprising. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) said last week that gay marriage isn't the wedge issue it once was, and while it can still provoke in highly conservative circles, the general population is less concerned about the so-called "threat," recognizing that same-sex marriage has no impact on heterosexual marriage
The world must be coming to an end. :o
House Republicans Fail to Show Up for 'Defending Marriage' Committee Hearing
posted by: Steve Williams
Republican Rep. Trent Franks found himself rather lonely at his "Defending Marriage" subcommittee hearing Friday when other Republican members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, which Franks chairs, failed to show up.
The purpose of the hearing was, Franks said, to discuss the Obama Administration's decision that after careful review it could not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that bans federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
The bipartisan 10-member panel should have put Franks among solid anti-gay company with fellow Republican legislators Steve King and Jim Jordan.
However, all five Republicans declined to show up, leaving Franks as chair to deal with the Democratic members of the panel who were all advocating for the repeal. His only support came from two speakers who had opted to give their views at the hearing, one of which was the National Organization for Marriage's Maggie Gallagher who can always be counted on to offer her opinion on the so-called gay agenda.
From On Top Magazine:
New York Representative Jerrold Nadler, the lead sponsor in the House of a bill that would repeal DOMA, reiterated his call for the law's end.
"Rather than defending DOMA in court, Congress should be working to repeal it," Nadler said.
"Far from demeaning, trivializing, or destroying the institution of marriage, lesbian and gay couples have embraced this time-honored tradition and the commitment and serious legal duties of marriage. The exclusion of any married couples from programs like Social Security defies logic. The fact that DOMA carves out an entire class of married citizens based on sexual orientation also violates constitutional equal protection guarantees."
The panel heard testimony from three witnesses: Maggie Gallagher, the chair of the anti-gay marriage group National Organization for Marriage (NOM), Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a critic of the administration's defense of DOMA in court, and Carlos Ball, an openly gay law professor at Rutgers Law School.
"If, in fact, marriage, as a public and legal institution," Gallagher testified, "is oriented towards protecting children by increasing the likelihood they have a mother and father, then same-sex couples do not fit, and conversely, if same-sex couples fit the definition of marriage then marriage really is no longer about responsible procreation in the sense."
This comment is odd, however, because it really answers its own question -- marriage as a public and legal institution is not, nor has it ever been, solely about procreation (if it was, only heterosexuals who were fertile and committed to having children should be able to marry).
That other Republicans failed to show up for the meeting perhaps shouldn't be that surprising. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) said last week that gay marriage isn't the wedge issue it once was, and while it can still provoke in highly conservative circles, the general population is less concerned about the so-called "threat," recognizing that same-sex marriage has no impact on heterosexual marriage
