Will Congress Block DC Council’s Same Sex Marriage Recognition?
NO! But before getting into it…
I linked yesterday to Marion Barry’s “We may have a Civil War” over gay marriage quote. Ta-Nehisi Coates puts Barry & his quote in some much-needed perspective:
I don’t think that can be said loudly enough. There are 12 members of the City Council. Seven of them are black. One is Marion Barry. To anyone who’s followed Barry’s career, I’m not sure why “Marion Barry Is A Demagogue” is breaking news. It’s really wrong to erase the other six votes on that measure, and make Barry the face of blacks on the Council, and blacks in the City.
Here’s something else–consider the fact that D.C. is in the South. Not the deep South, but the South all the same. It’s bordered by two slave states, and one Confederate state. I can’t think of any other southern jurisdiction that’s gone this far on gay marriage. To the contrary, most Southern states have set about the business of a constitutional ban.
That leaves with a very uncomfortable fact–the most progressive place for gays in the South, is also the blackest.
On the Congress question, HRC reports House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that Congress shouldn’t intervene to overturn the DC bill passed Tuesday by city council recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. (She also said that she wouldn’t be trying to repeal DOMA.) David Waldman explains in detail why Congress is likely to follow Pelosi’s lead. He starts out quoting the Washington Blade:
In drafting and approving the Home Rule charter in the early 1970s, Congress created a process for overturning city laws through a direct disapproval resolution. A disapproval resolution initially required a simple majority vote by either the House or Senate. A court ruling later forced Congress to change the process by requiring both the House and Senate to pass a disapproval resolution and for the president to sign it.
Capitol Hill observers note the disapproval resolution used to kill the bill that would have repealed the city’s sodomy law in 1981 may have been among the last times Congress used the process to overturn a D.C. law. Since that time, lawmakers opposed to a number of D.C. laws — including the city’s first domestic partnership law — have used the D.C. appropriations bill to address bills passed by the Council.
Throughout the last decade, Congress amended the D.C. appropriations bill to overturn city-approved bills to legalize medical-related use of marijuana and distribute syringes to intravenous drug users to curtail the spread of HIV, among other measures.
Gay rights and AIDS policy advocate Carl Schmid, who has worked on issues pending before Congress for more than 10 years, has said congressional opponents of proposed D.C. laws learned it’s easier to block bills through the appropriations process because Congress has to pass an appropriations bill each year to approve the city’s funding and budget.
But Capitol Hill observers note that passing a disapproval resolution is much more difficult in a Democratic-controlled Congress, when the Democratic chairs of key committees where a disapproval resolution would have to pass would likely block such a resolution.
Waldman concludes that even though “wherever the issue of same sex marriage comes up, there are wavering Democrats to be found… The likelihood that they’ll win over enough Blue Dogs and other nervous Democrats, though, is probably pretty slim.”
9 Responses to “Will Congress Block DC Council’s Same Sex Marriage Recognition?”
“Will Congress Block DC Council’s Same Sex Marriage Recognition?”
You already know how Congress will address this highly controversial issue that may cause a deep rift in this country [deeper than many are willing to admit] in these troubled times?
Think about it. If democrats support gay marriage, then guess what that will automatically do? Answer to rhetorical question: thin the ranks significantly.
Here's why. I'm outspoken about how I feel about gay marraige, but many who privately feel very strongly the same way I do are currently burying those feelings for fear of upsetting their PC friends and others who are ram-rodding this legislation [evidenced by your pre-predicting the outcome of Congress as "NO!"]. But when push comes to shove, these strong feelings may surface in the form of switching party affiliations…particularly if the GOP is clever enough to sieze on this new harvest of middle-grounders who will be newly estranged from “the new party of the queer agenda”.
Mark my words, there will be an exodus and I may be among them.
Such a pity. Democrats always biff it on strategy and lose. The same mistake the GOP made in embracing the nutter far right to the exclusion of the majority of their ranks will be the same one the dems make with miscalculating how many people are actually opposed to gay marriage in their closer-to-middle ranks.
We'll see how this plays out.
Sil, there's probably some intriguing dark psychology behind your fear of gays and moreso of polygamy. You might want to take a look inside and attempt to figure it out.
I couldn't care less who marries whom. None of the things that seem to terrify or disgust you have any impact whatsoever on my very heterosexual marriage. It's really none of my business. Matters of the heart should not be the subject of government action. It's none of OUR business and quite beyond our control.
Sil, We will watch and see. The key I see in your comment is “if the GOP is clever enough.” I welcome a clever opponent but these days that looks like a pretty big IF.
Yeah, I agree. I think they're getting a little slow en la cabesa these days..lol..
BTW GreenDreams, polygamy isn't “fearsome” to me because it is actually closer to the purpose of sexual reproduction than monogamy. It ensures an even greater potential to pass on superior genes, given of course that the patriarch has good genetics to begin with.
Polygamists have been trying to get rights to marry long before gays have. Undoubtedly they are waiting with baited breath to see if the precident is set or not.
I don't see how any precedent is set by allowing gay marriage. But threesomes and moresomes are already popular. It doesn't threaten me at all. Let them have their fun.
Washington Citizens vote the council members out that stood for this immoral act. Block, Ban whatever you have to do to stand against this UNGODLY law. GOD will never and nor will the American people accept homosexual marriage not because of hate or fear but because its a culture of DEATH. Based On The Bible, THEY CAN'T PRODUCE anything but DEATH. So, is GOD homophobic? GOD calls this life style sinful and a disease to society. This lifestyle is from the gates of HELL. We have some people let in this nation that still know the difference between RIGHT and WRONG remember that? This is one of the reason why I didn't vote for Obama and the democracts. Look what side there on! NEED I SAY ANYTHING MORE. This opens the door to all other deviant behavior. This is not normal. Maine Citizens should Veto as well. Contact the American Center for Law and Justice. Jay Sekulow 4 more details. WaKe up Maine you have Fight left!!!
“fun”, but not love eh?
hmmmm…
The watering-down has nearly met its goal.
Meahwhile…
Bigamy laws are prejudiced against more than two people being married. I hardly see how that is constitutional. Gays are pleading their case for consenting adults in “love”. So there's your precident. Polygamists will argue that they are consenting adults in love. How can you set an arbitrary number on that? It would be just as limiting as setting an arbitrary notion of “between a man and a woman” only. Right? I mean really, right?
Mom Blogs – Blogs for Moms…
…
Sorry, Sil. Not my fight. As I said. I couldn't care less what people do in their bedrooms. And if 3 wives want to split the Social Security benefits of their dead husband, I don't care about that either.
As for love, Sil, it is beyond all human laws and has no hatred for anyone.
BTW, 208etc, the same scripture that supposedly describes how “ungodly” homosexuality is (an abomination), says that shellfish are as well. It also allows me to sell my daughter into slavery (that's way godly, right?) and that unlike male slaves, she can't be freed. God would cast you into hell for trying to free any of my female slaves.
Oh, and women should just shut up, according to Corinthians, and cleave to the beliefs of their husbands. I have no respect for that book, and those who do just pick and choose the parts they think REALLY are the word of God, and which are not.
Theocracies are a real problem in today's world, in case you haven't noticed. A supernatural demonic satanic curse on them all, I say.