Congressmen introduce “D.C. Defense of Marriage” bill

Boren, JordanRep. Dan Boren (D-Okla., left) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio,right), totally more qualified to make laws for D.C. than people elected by D.C. residents

Just a few weeks after the D.C. Council almost unanimously passed a bill recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.) introduced the “D.C. Defense of Marriage Act” yesterday, which would define marriage in D.C. as “a union of one man and one woman.” The bill has thirty co-sponsors, including one Democrat besides Boren.

So what are the bill’s chances of success? According to an aside in the Politco article on it, not so hot, thankfully:

It’s not clear if there’s any legislative vehicle for the anti-gay-marriage bill or whether Democrats would even allow a vote on the measure.

Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), for one, seems skeptical about the bill’s prospects. When asked about the bill, Norton’s spokesperson said her May 5th statement—”I do not believe a serious attempt to overturn the council bill will be made or would be successful”—still stands.

6 Comments on “Congressmen introduce “D.C. Defense of Marriage” bill

  1. The defense of marriage bill shouldn’t pass for the same reasons why Prop 8 should not be overturned. Just because something didn’t go the way one pleases doesn’t mean that there needs to be mass demonstrations to overturn the decision voted on by the majority of the people. Let it be.

  2. Vox Pop offering editorial opinions on campus news (where it’s one of the only shows in town) is one thing, but on national issues like this where tempers run high, I’d suggest a more neutral tone would be best

  3. I feel like anyone who lives or studies in the District, whatever their opinion on gay marriage, should be angry about this bill. Congressmen should stop trying to win points with their constituents by changing D.C. laws.

  4. Will is exactly right. Not to mention the fact that exit polling shows the college student population to be overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage. I think The Voice is perfectly entitled to take the default position of our age group on this issue.

    and re: “okay” – Do you really think that a 52% majority should be able to strip away the equal rights of a minority? If so, I suggest a popular vote to decide whether or not YOU can marry the person you love and see how you feel about that.

  5. Well, here is the argument I have. Are people fighting for the federal rights that come along with marriage and not with civil unions or domestic partnerships? Or are they fighting for being able to use the term “married?” The latter is what most people have a problem with.

  6. “Are people fighting for the federal rights that come along with marriage and not with civil unions or domestic partnerships? Or are they fighting for being able to use the term “married?” The latter is what most people have a problem with.”

    Maybe true, maybe not, depending on which poll you’re looking at. Some polls still show the majority of people opposed to gay marriage, but an ABC/Washington Post poll last month found people in favor of gay marriage 49 to 47 percent. A CBS/NYT poll found support for full marriage rights at 42 percent, civil unions at 25 percent, and no rights at 28 percent. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/two-national-polls-for-first-time-show.html)

    There may not be an outright majority now, but the trend is clear. The CBS/NYT poll reported just 33 percent in favor of gay marriage just a month before this most recent poll–a 9 point jump. As gay marriage is slowly legalized state-by-state and the world doesn’t start to fall apart, people are realizing that opposition to gay marriage has no logical or public policy basis. Combined with the obvious demographic trends, as younger generations who overwhelmingly favor gay marriage reach voting-age and older generations opposed to gay marriage shrink, it’s only a matter of time before it’s legal across the whole country, as it should be. This is a losing issue for people who claim to be concerned with semantics to disguise the injustice and prejudice of their position.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>