Posted on 11/10/2011 2:34:39 PM PST by NYer
WASHINGTON D.C., November 10, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a narrow vote Thursday morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would grant federal recognition to homosexual “marriages.” The bill, titled the “Respect for Marriage Act,” passed the Democrat controlled committee by a 10-8 vote, with the members of the committee voting along party lines.
The “Respect for Marriage Act” was introduced in the Senate in March by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) with the goal of repealing the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). DOMA asserts that states where homosexual “marriages” are not currently recognized are not required to recognize same-sex “marriages” from other states. It also defines marriage as the “legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” for purposes of federal law.
The vote is largely symbolic as the bill is not expected to get past a Republican filibuster in the Senate, or the Republican majority in the house. Due to the unlikelihood of the bill becoming law, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) characterized the vote as “no more than a cynical political gesture to the Democrats’ base.”
Proponents of the “Respect for Marriage Act” argued today that DOMA is discriminatory towards homosexual couples because it denies them benefits reserved for married individuals, especially benefits from Social Security reserved for spouses. During the committee’s meeting, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said, “If you’re paying the taxes, if you’re fulfilling the obligations, you should get the same benefits as anybody else.”
President Obama echoed these sentiments in July when the White House issued a statement supporting the bill saying, “President Obama is proud to support the Respect for Marriage Act…This legislation would uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections as straight couples.”
However, during the meeting today, Sen. Grassley argued that marriage should remain defined as the union of one man and one woman because such unions provide the best environment for raising children. “To me, this debate is about stable families, good environments for raising children, and religious beliefs. It’s not about discriminating against anyone.”
The “Respect for Marriage Act” has come under increasing attack this year. In February, the Justice Department announced that at the recommendation of President Obama it would no longer be defending DOMA in court, saying “the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny.”
Less than a month later, though, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) announced that the House of Representatives would take up the defense of DOMA. In announcing the decision, Boehner said, “This action by the House will ensure that this law’s constitutionality is decided by the courts, rather than by the President unilaterally.”
Because no 10-year-old boy should ever have to sleep alone.TM
NO Cheers, unfortunately.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
check post 17 out.
I don’t understand but maybe you can.
Is this sarcasm? I'm asking because there have been FReepers who support militant homosexualism.
not sure,hoping it is sarc.
They go from homophobic to breeders getting bigger tax refunds Palestinians, to how the bigots voted it down and then there is homosexual families thrown in.
Bizarre.
same here.
I’m not sure of anything anymore, but I hope you are right.
I’m not sure of anything anymore, but I hope you are right.
Eleutheria5 is being sarcastic.
Manc, my tagline says what I think.
OK thanks
If it doesn’t pass they’ll get the courts to do it for them.
Geeeze. Of course it’s sarcasm. Do I have to paint a big white line down every avenue of thought?
Right by the courts, not the people. Thanks Boehner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.