Rep. Jim Jordan Will Push for D.C. Gay Marriage Ban

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC), has said that he supports “100 percent” House conservatives taking up a bill to ban gay marriage in D.C. after the Supreme Court declined without comment a lawsuit to compel the District to hold a referendum on the law.

Jordan told The Hill, “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 was a lead sponsor on the D.C. Defense of Marriage Act in the previous Congress, but the measure only garnered 53 cosponsors. It is expected that the bill will gain more support this year in the Republican controlled House of Representatives, but how much remains to be seen.

However, D.C. Democrats have categorically stated that they will resist any attempts by Congress to intervene on this matter, with D.C.’s nonvoting delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) telling The Washington Post that she and fellow D.C. officials will be meeting with the Legislature to dissuade them from intervening, adding, “No self-respecting resident of the District of Columbia would ever want to ask the Congress of the United States to overturn local laws, any more than any Baltimorean or Virginian would ask the Congress to overturn local law.”

Marriage equality opponents including the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and a Maryland minister named Harry R. Jackson Jr. have been riled by the fact that, due to D.C.’s 1977 Human Rights Act, marriage equality legislation that was passed by D.C.’s City Council and signed by Mayor Adrian Fenty in December 2009 cannot be subject to a referendum as this would potentially allow for a change in the law that would codify discrimination, something that the Human Rights Act prohibits.

The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics made the original decision to deny a referendum and upheld that decision upon appeal. This was then challenged and narrowly upheld by the D.C. Court of Appeals by 5 votes to 4. Still, marriage equality opponents vowed to push the fight in Congress and to have the law blocked during the 30-day congressional review period.

At the time, Congress failed to intervene, which led to marriage equality opponents petitioning the Supreme Court—ultimately unsuccessfully. With the judicial road now closed to them, Congress would seem the only option for gay marriage opponents.

However, while the move may garner more support in the House of Representatives, there is no guarantee that a bill would pass. Furthermore, it is even more likely that the U.S. Senate’s Democratic majority will oppose the attempt, and near certain that President Obama would veto the bill in the unlikely event that it would reach his desk, suggesting that this is a costly political effort not intended for success but rather to appease certain anti-gay rights organizations.

Photo used under the Creative Commons Attribution License, with thanks to brainchildv.


Annmari Lundin
Annmari L5 years ago

I guess my previous posting got lost in cyberspace, so I'll try again.
As I'm reading all these articles on Care2 and elsewhere about rightwingers trying to dictate the lifes of others, forcing their beliefs on everyone else and get so agitated about civil rights for all, I get to wonder why it is so? Don't they know that this life of ours doesn't come with repeats? There's not going to be any re-runs. This is the one and only time we get to make something useful for ourselves and others. And I also ask myself why tea bags and rightwing xtians get so incredible involved in gay issues? I have two theories: They are either closet cases trying to attack what they fear the most OR they use insecure and selfhating and ignorant people to vote for them so they can have the freedom to rule as they like. Or maybe it's a combination of both?

And another thing: Why is it that so many of these tea bags demand referendums and such to get the majority to strip the minority of their civil rights?
Will gay equal rights just be the first step in their crusades and after they are done move towards blacks, hispanics and other minorities? Disabled, veterans, the elderly, children, women, anyone with any sort of protection by the laws may stand next in line.
Is this the sort of country the majority wants? Separate laws for separate people? Back to segregation and a world where only rich, white men decides everything? I don't know but I have my fears over their hidden agenda.

Annmari Lundin
Annmari L5 years ago

Finally, I have a question to Barbara Eardman. I have noticed that you always comment on every article I find interesting. I guess you comment on everyone that's available. I click on the links that interest me, but not always do I make a comment. I find that a lot of people have already said what I believe and that's good enough for me. But, Barbara Eardman, why is it that every time I see your comment it only reads: "Noted"? Nothing else. Can you explain that to me?

Carolyn Mah
Carolyn M5 years ago

I find it interesting that most of the folks who are really rallying behind the effort to ban gay marriage (and those trying to pass these laws) are the same folks/party that's screaming for less government in our lives.

So which is it? Do you really want less government in people's lives, or just not in YOUR life?

Martha Eberle
Martha Eberle5 years ago

Donna J., I just read your comment, and it is exquisite in its justice and simplicity. You are absolutely right, and it is so simple. To all those who would meddle in other people's business, keep your religion to yourself and your own soul. Marriage is a civil contract, with religion being injected into it, if you wish. Period.

Martha Eberle
Martha Eberle5 years ago

Congress won't let the citizens of the United States, living in the District of Columbia, have a voting representative. They pay taxes, fight in wars, just like other citizens, but they are denied representation.

What, then, makes these cocksure suckers think that they have a right to meddle in the affairs of D.C.??!! Of all the gall. They are treated as children, to be looked after by the "real" state representatives.

Donna J.
Donna J5 years ago

Marriage, whether performed in a church or at a registry, is a legal contract between two people. It's the choice of the individuals to bring God into it and to make it as spiritual as you want. It's never complete until you sign those papers!

When you get a divorce, the process is entirely legal. There is no church ceremony that will back you up and I know this because I had to get a divorce from a husband who proved to be a money-grabbing philanderer and impregnated someone else.

I'm Catholic and was not anticipating divorce as an option, but believe me, to protect myself and my assets, I did all the paperwork myself and it was all through the courts. It would be up to the Church to annul my marriage, but I wasn't coerced into getting married and I'm not looking for some escape chute so I can gain approval from the Christian community.

People, regardless of orientation, are entitled, in the land of the free, to get married, or in other words, enter a legal contract with each other. Denying them that is like denying people the right to vote, the right to education, the right to buy a home.

Equality is so simple and I don't know why people are going to great lengths to exclude others from it, even if you don't like them.

Don't be the ones to cast the first stone for crying out loud!

Barbara Erdman
Barbara Erdman5 years ago


Jae A.
Jae A5 years ago

To bad these extremist bible quoters don't quote the ones about ...leave judgement up to the Christian God and another one in the 10 Commandments that says thou shalt NOT LIE..which doesn't seem to matter,or is minor...which it is appears is what they believe... even though it is one of the 'ten' unlike anything to do with homosexuality which isn't. What mindless babble they spew over and over again. Needless to say, most haven't read their own bibles and those who have don't seen to recall other than the parts that are convenient for their purposes...which is mostly B.S. in general.

Mac R.
Mac R5 years ago

Zolt B and Jaunita G, you are both going to burn in Hell for spewing lies and hatred like that. I know this because God told me so. He told me he's coming for you soon, so watch your backs. MY God is the real one and he hates you both. You are an abomination in his eyes. You need to start praying fast and hard for forgiveness.

Zoltán B.
Zoltán B.5 years ago

Marriage is by definition a union between a man and a woman. One does not necessarily have to be biased, homophobic or bigoted to state that marriage between two individues of the same sex is pervers. Due to a defective set of genes, there are, and have always been, people with this inclination, so let them have their own way of life! But, why insisting on "their rights" to live in a marriage like couples with normal sexuality, why having "gay festivals" marching through cities falf-naked, singing, proclaiming proudly to everybody that they are -- well, just people with a defective set of genes??