The GOP controlled House of Representatives fights back against marriage equality

On the same day that President Obama and the nation took a major step forward toward marriage equality – Republicans in the House of Representatives tried to drag the nation backward. Hours after the President’s endorsement of marriage equality – House Republicans passed a measure in support of the discriminatory Defense Against Marriage Act – known as DOMA – which is a federal ban against same-sex marriage.

The Republican measure also forbids the Department of Justice from using taxpayer funds to oppose DOMA. Even though Wednesday was a historic day for the nation – with the President of the United States coming out in support of marriage equality for this first time in history – it’s clear that this will be a long battle before the LGBT community finally gets the civil rights it deserves.

And we’ll need the President’s leadership – and grassroots pressure on all lawmakers until victory is achieved.


DRichards's picture
DRichards 12 years 5 weeks ago

The future for progressives doesn't look good...

The Future Will Be More Religious and Conservative Than You Think

By Eric Kaufmann

On another note, it's a smart move by President Obama; to rally the disinchanted progressives who often see little difference in policy between Obama & Bush. The Fundamentalist Christians and Conservatives will not vote Democratic regardless, so he need not be concerned with them.

Pointofgrille's picture
Pointofgrille 12 years 5 weeks ago

The fundamentalist pulpits of America will be screaming over the DOMA fight. I can hear them now, "Lesbians, gays, transvestites running to America from all over the world, promoting godless lifestyles. Protect our family structure as one man one women. That will protect us and unite against these godless hoards". They (the right)have an angle to exploit on every possible issue. What a sorry state of affairs these days.

Jamesgart's picture
Jamesgart 12 years 5 weeks ago

I think that we will win the battle. I think same sex marriages, women priests in the Catholic Church, priest getting married, and using contraceptives will be accepted in the future and people will look back and say how stupid it was to think that these were wrong. This has already happened with some many things in the past. I think the Republics are taken us backwards!

SalmonNationWoman's picture
SalmonNationWoman 12 years 5 weeks ago

broca's area is located on the inferior, posterior frontal gyrus in the left hemisphere. wernicke's area is located in the superior posterior temporal gyrus on the left hemisphere. both speech related centers are in the left hemisphere. neither are in the parietal gyrus/lobe.

tdanfield's picture
tdanfield 12 years 5 weeks ago

My wife and I support the recognition of same-sex marriage. At the bare minimum, we detest the discrimination and denial of human and civil rights LGBT couples receive. The following are some observations:

Folks who oppose “marriage” by same sex couples overwhelmingly argue/justify their positions in two ways.

1) They claim an edict proclaimed in scripture. I’m not sure exactly where such an exclusionary edict resides within the Bible. For argument’s sake, let’s say there are passages that can be interpreted or spun in a way that “supports” such a stand. Now, having hypothetically conceded that point, let’s take a step further for consistency’s sake. If those folks are willing to and at peace denying human and civil rights to others based on the Bible, are they also willing to and at peace denying others human and civil rights based on the Biblical sin of adultery and fornication? I would dare say that there are few of the anti-gay contingent who have adhered strictly to the concept of intercourse solely within the confines of marriage. The hypocrisy prevalent within the intolerance is the beast in the room that ate the formerly dominant elephant in a single bite.

2) They claim that any allowance of same-sex marriage undermines and devalues the sanctity of “marriage” itself. Clearly, there are many conventional man-woman marriages that are dysfunctional and unhealthy in any number of ways. Are those anti-gay marriage folks advocating that those guilty of physical, sexual, or psychological abuse within the “sanctity” of marriage should lose human and civil rights because of the damage they do to that same “sanctity?” Regardless of the composition of the marriage partners, each marriage has to be considered on its own merits and judged accordingly. The basis for any such “judgment” resides within considerations of how members of the family are treated and encouraged to develop and grow. Such growth includes social, spiritual, moral and physical aspects and is independent of the constituency or composition of the family itself. Many single parents are capable of excellent child rearing and family development; many married man-woman couples are incapable of the same. Each and every family unit has its own unique dynamics and issues; it is how those dynamics and issues are dealt with that determine the relative “sanctity” possessed.

dowdotica's picture
dowdotica 12 years 5 weeks ago

uh...hmmm...gays, lesbians? i don't get it. the country is in the middle of a depression, the banksters are still making off with loot, there are 14,000,000 people unemployed and if I know 50 income tax cheaters , then there are really more important things the rebumblicans and demoquacks should be worrying about then then twinkies. leave them alone, stay out of my bedroom and stay out of my Va jj. get back to doing the work of the people and not the work of the theologists! God is scratching his head right now....

dowdotica's picture
dowdotica 12 years 5 weeks ago

so much for seperation of church and state, huh?

historywriter's picture
historywriter 12 years 5 weeks ago

Maybe we could easily make the right happyif we went back t o marriage as a business strategy, melding two families to strengthen them in terms of politics, money, power. Or perhaps they'd like arranged marriages. The two (presumably one male and one female) candidates are chosen by their parents for mutual benefit (although not to the couple necessarily). In biblical times there were multiple marriages which apparently were acceptable to the ruling elite--who no doubt had a few families themselves.

In the United States, black slaves were forbidden from marrying. There was a "jump the broomstick" ritual, I think, but no governmental or formal agency was involved or cared. Of course, married or not, children or not, any slaveowner could sell off his slaves, break up the families, send them to distant places and the family members would almost never be able to get together again.

Or, here, from another website, if the rightwing really wants to return to the form of biblical marriage, many changes would have to be made. (from another website on marriage in biblical times): For one thing, the status of women was low—they were regarded as the property of their fathers or husbands and could do nothing without their consent. The main purpose of marriage was procreation and the perpetuation of a man's name. Every healthy person was expected to marry. Single men and women were despised. A man could have several wives and concubines. (Jacob married two sisters, Leah and Rachel, and Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.) Divorce was not encouraged, but permitted if a man found some "uncleanness" in his wife. In such a case, he simply wrote her a bill of divorce and sent her out of his house. However, it was virtually impossible for a wife to divorce her husband.

Eventually, divorces were increasingly frowned upon, and there was a general trend toward monogamy. Another change concerned the man's obligatory marriage to his brother's widow. This kind of marriage was at times required and at other times prohibited. So much would depend on what chapter and verse of the bible you were reading to determine family obligation.

dowdotica's picture
dowdotica 12 years 5 weeks ago

well said...

chuckle8's picture
chuckle8 12 years 5 weeks ago

Unfortunately marriage is of the state. I think Thom has said it appears in 30,000 laws across the country.

historywriter's picture
historywriter 12 years 5 weeks ago

That's exactly why--it is rrelevant, a non-issue. Most voters are more coincerned about the economy and jobs and serious issues. The economy is warming somewhat, and in any case the repubs have no plan to right the economy except to cut taxes. They really have no plans at all. So bring out some red herrings and deflect the attention of Americans to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other social issues.

Seth.V's picture
Seth.V 12 years 5 weeks ago

I am sure that there are a lot of people who are just happy that President Obama decided to abandon his "evolving" opinion on the issue of gay marriage. People will remember his original words and realize that this is all politics and nothing more.

John232's picture
John232 12 years 5 weeks ago

Oppressers only satsisfaction is bullying and hate. The bullied of the would fight for liberty and the demise of tyranny. The reward for the evil lacks true satisfaction. Justice will prevail in the end.

Clarissa Smith's picture
Clarissa Smith 12 years 5 weeks ago
Quote DRichards:The future for progressives doesn't look good...

The Future Will Be More Religious and Conservative Than You Think

By Eric Kaufmann

That kinda prognosis was already to read decades ago. The author writes down what he's dreaming of, the result is his very personal wish list.

Conservatives need this stuff very much, in order to ease their depressions: The future will be conservative... the earth will be flat again, Constantinople Christian, and the Protestants kneel in front of the Pope -- Allelujah.

John Defalque's picture
John Defalque 12 years 5 weeks ago

Finally-Obama has done something admirably progressive!I'm not gay, but I don't care what any 2 consenting adults are doing in their own bedrooms-that's nobody else' business.The GOP claims that it is for monogamy and family values.Why do they oppose monogamous gay relationships or gay adoptions?This is hypocrisy!No one should have to hide in a sham marriage, the closet or live a lie.If you are opposed to gay marriage-fine-don't marry a man.

David_Selig's picture
David_Selig 12 years 4 weeks ago

HOW MUCH IS ALL OF THIS GOING TO COST? Presently, married taxpayers may file their tax returns as “Married Filing Jointly” which provides, in many cases, more tax benefits than filing separate returns - and if same sex couples become entitled to file federal MFJ, our aggregate tax revenue will decrease dramatically. As such, and irrespective of angry rhetoric, our deficit will increase because an entire class of taxpayers will be paying that much less. But this addition is chump change compared to the enviable Estate Tax consequences. In short, while our opportunistic panderer in chief may momentarily profit from this issue – the taxpayer must, as usual, foot the bill. Remember folks, in 2013 the exempt amount of an estate is a measly $1 million dollars – after that, the estate tax rate is a whopping 55%. In other words, all of that “previously taxed money” is about to be taxed again – and that’s just federal – after all, many states have estate taxes as well. Now, the spousal exemption for estate tax, known as the “marital deduction” allows a surviving spouse to inherit all of the decedent’s property without any tax penalty. And any property that was held jointly between the spouses will automatically go to the surviving spouse and won’t be included in the marital deduction. Thus, same sex marriage will cost us well over one billion dollars a year, and as such, the government will not receive the money it anticipates, and sadly, has already spent.

Thom's Blog Is On the Move

Hello All

Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.

Please follow us across to - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.

From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann is a creative thinker and committed small-d democrat. He has dealt with a wide range of topics throughout his life, and this book provides an excellent cross section. The Thom Hartmann Reader will make people both angry and motivated to act."
Dean Baker, economist and author of Plunder and Blunder, False Profits, and Taking Economics Seriously
From Screwed:
"I think many of us recognize that for all but the wealthiest, life in America is getting increasingly hard. Screwed explores why, showing how this is no accidental process, but rather the product of conscious political choices, choices we can change with enough courage and commitment. Like all of Thom’s great work, it helps show us the way forward."
Paul Loeb, author of Soul of a Citizen and The Impossible Will Take a Little While
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Through compelling personal stories, Hartmann presents a dramatic and deeply disturbing picture of humans as a profoundly troubled species. Hope lies in his inspiring vision of our enormous unrealized potential and his description of the path to its realization."
David Korten, author of Agenda for a New Economy, The Great Turning, and When Corporations Rule the World