AP Photo/David Lewis
Sgt. Brandon Morgan, right, is embraced by his partner Dalan Wells in a helicopter hangar at a Marine base in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, upon returning from a six-month deployment to Afghanistan on February 22 of this year.
President Obama's historic affirmation of support for marriage equality yesterday was followed up by some Republican machinations on the Hill today, passing a measure in the House along party lines that would, per Politico, stop the Justice Department from using taxpayer funds to actively oppose the Defense of Marriage Act.
The regression actually began last night, when, overshadowed by the President's news, the House Armed Services Committee voted to ban "marriage or marriage-like ceremonies" between same-sex couples from occurring on United States military bases.
The $554 billion defense bill was approved to include a measure to prevent same-sex marriage on American military bases, even if the bases are located in states where same-sex marriage is legal. Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), who is currently running for Senate, introduced the measure and positioned it as a defense against the President's promotion of gay rights:
"The president has repealed 'don't ask, don't tell' and is using the military as props to promote his gay agenda," Akin said Wednesday while defending his amendment.
A statement on Rep. Akin's website includes praise from Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, who applauded Rep. Akin "for his efforts to ensure that the military is not used to advance the liberal social agenda of the Obama administration."
Opponents of the measure argued that this ban is a huge step backward from the President's repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) said that this amendment "sends a message [to gay and lesbian service members] that their service is not valued."
Currently in the United States, there are 38 states that have laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman; 31 states, most recently North Carolina, have amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage as well.
Leave a Comment:
The evangelical GOP is so willing to send our young men and women to war. However, they seem to be dead set on taking back those same soldiers' rights. That sets a horrible example for the liberty of the U.S. that is supposed to be a model for the world. The religious right would be happy reversing any step. I don't know where hatred is such a key part of their supposed loving religions. Maybe they should spend some more time in their own damn bible.
A SIMPLE solution, allow civil unions (people of the same gender can marry legally) churches (separation of church and state) can choose (optional) not to marry persons of same gender! Oh, is that TOO much common sense! FYI, does anyone know what a 'PUBLIC SERVANT' is?
I recommend that all concerned persons look at the history of marriage, and learn when, where, why and how the concept of marriage began, and follow the historical pathway that has led from then until now. Discover why the concept of marriage really and truly was created. And then note how the idea of marriage has changed to become what it is generally considered to be, now.
Gather all the facts, THEN resume the argument. Ok, get to it . . .
Regardless of your feelings about gay marriages, all of us, gay and straight alike, should be opposed to allowing the Federal government authority over marriages. Doing so opens the door for more and more control over the lives of each one of us by our government. Careful consideration should lead to realizing that setting precedents leads to changes at fundamental levels, whether or not those changes are apparent. Sometimes it takes decades or longer before the impact of a precedent is encountered, or understood.
The following is an example of a precedent changing event, and how the impact from that change wasn't understood until years later.
In the 1970's, baseball player Curt Flood went to court in order to force major league baseball teams from contractually binding players to teams beyond the terms of their contracts. The "reserve clause" built into player contracts up to Flood's law suit, enabled club owners to keep players together on the same teams for many years. Flood won his case, and it was from that point on players were allowed to become the free agents we see in MLB today.
But hidden within this lawsuit were the effects this change was to have. As players realized they could earn what were to become enormous salaries, many times greater than what players earned in the past, major league baseball became dominated by and directed by the desire for money. This was the result of enabling the players to play for whoever was willing to pay the most. And since a team's expenses became exponentially higher because of the collective size of each individual paycheck, owners had to increase the revenue the team collected in order to operate and function successfully and profitably.
I'm going on to long here, I will resume this discussion later.