Phil Gingrey joins fight against gay marriage in D.C.
U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey of Marietta is dipping into local D.C. politics.
The Georgia congressman has joined 38 other GOP lawmakers who have put their name to an amicus brief filed in support of a lawsuit calling for a voter referendum on whether same-sex marriage should be legalized in the district.
Lead signatures include those of House Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio and Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia. According to the Washington Post, the lawmakers are:
…asking the court to reverse a D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics decision prohibiting the same-sex marriage question to be put before voters.
“Under the United States Constitution, they serve as members of the ultimate legislative authority for the District of Columbia and the very body which delegated to the District its limited legislative power under home rule,” the filing states. “As members of the District’s ultimate legislative body, amici are concerned about the extent of the District’s delegated legislative authority, the preservation of Congress’s constitutional authority, and the interpretation of home rule.”
….Last month, the D.C. Council voted 11 to 2 to legalize same-sex marriage in the District. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) signed the bill shortly before Christmas, but it is undergoing a 30-day legislative review. Under Home Rule, Congress can block any law passed by the council.
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
151 comments Add your comment
Road Scholar
January 7th, 2010
9:41 am
Are Repubs for state’ rights (I know DC is not a state) unless they disagree with their legislation? Now this is high on the must do list, huh?
JohnD
January 7th, 2010
9:57 am
Keeping gay folks in the closet is a hallmark is of the GOP platform.
Unless you are a gay Republican Congressman, then your simply a hyprocrite.
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace
January 7th, 2010
9:58 am
Civil rights shouldn’t be put up to popular votes in America.
Onward to equality, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA
BoarderThom
January 7th, 2010
10:04 am
Imagine, gay people are human and fall in love, and the consequence of this is that the ‘religious elitists’ (whether Christian, Muslim, or Jew) get their panties all wadded up in a bunch.
John Anderson
January 7th, 2010
11:27 am
These small minded people are running this country revolting
Common Sense
January 7th, 2010
11:29 am
Road Scholar, you are quite correct. DC is not a state and does not fall under the issue of states rights. I know that in this day in age the Constitution is seen as a hinderance to some people getting what they want, but DC is the Federal district and falls under the jurisdiction of Congress. There is no hypocrisy here.
Marriage is not a Civil Right, it is a religious institution. Imagine, religious people actually adhering to the tenets of their faith.
Fed up
January 7th, 2010
11:37 am
It is a good thing that people did not have a chance to vote (referendum) to allow black people civil rights or allow women civil rights, as, at the time, those measures would not have passed. It was thankfully the courts that gave these segments of the population their equal rights and equal access; these courts are now what some call “activist judges.” These people want to put a vote before the people so that they can outlaw or pass constitutional amendments to dent citizens theirs due rights because they are afraid of what they do not understand or identify with – the same unfounded reasons that black people were denied their rights for so long. These amendments passed in the last few years are the first time EVER, constitutional amendments have been used to DENY a group of people civil rights instead of to GUARANTEE a civil right. Think about this people, what is to stop a group from trying to get any other rights denied through legislation and amendments simply our of fear or non-understanding. These actions have set very dangerous precedents to make it seem that other similar actions would be OK. Our laws and constitutions are supposed to protect citizens and provide rights, not deny rights and protection. I am a gay conservative man and support a mostly conservative GOVERNMENT platform, but not a conservative people-bashing platform like these current republicans are pushing. Republicans have completely lost sight of what their base platform is supposed to be: less government interference and fiscal responsibility. They should be focusing their time and attention on fixing the GOVERNMENT problems that their egos helped create over the last 10-15 years!
Fed up
January 7th, 2010
11:42 am
@Common Sense: you are indeed so right – marriage is a religious institution, not a government right. Government bodies should stick to their true responsibilities and stop trying to force their version of religious morals on everyone else. There is a basic truth to all laws and rights: “your rights end where mine begin,” as long as you are not hurting another person or property, what you do in your personal life should be of no concern to government.
Sam Smith
January 7th, 2010
11:43 am
I’m sure glad these folks are focusing on the “real” problems we’re facing as a society! I don’t have health care coverage right now, but I’ll sleep well at knowing that at least them gays ain’t able to get hitched! Don’t ever forget the standard GOP mantra: When all else fails, focus on God, guns, and gays.
Hank
January 7th, 2010
11:44 am
Civil unions are not enough the GLBT group, they insist on forcing marriage (as a religious sacrament) down the throat of those of us who believe that marriage is a relationship between men and women. Let the citizens vote on the matter and be bound by the common decision. Do not elevate the matter to a civil rights issue.
turtle
January 7th, 2010
11:49 am
Common Sense (or lack of it): our founding fathers clearly established a separation between church and state. If marriage is a religious institution, as you declare, the government should have no jurisdiction over it. Taking your thinking (I use that term loosely) a step further, given that half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce, that doesn’t say much for your religion, does it?
Collin
January 7th, 2010
11:50 am
Common Sense: Marriage is not just a religious institution. Have you examined the number of laws in place that benefit married persons? All of the tax breaks? All of the rights of access? I agree with you that marriage has its place in the church, but the legal benefits off marriage should not be dictated and screened by religious doctrine. Do you even know when and why marriage was sanctioned by the Church?
I agree with Joe Mustich above: civil rights and civil benefits issues should not be decided by popular vote. Referendums are proper for taxation issues, recalls, and matters that do not single out people based upon their racial, religious, gender, or sexual status, among others. Not Here. Just look at California and Proposition 8: the Mormon Church and other religious institutions funneled millions of dollars into the public referendum process, placing its opinions/agenda above the reasoning resulting from years of litigation and legislation. I know that gay marriage won’t make people tolerate or like gay people, in the same way that civil rights legislation in our past century has pushed racism under the rug, but it is a benefit that all couples who make a commitment to each deserve, regardless of what popular thought is.
Sam Smith
January 7th, 2010
11:53 am
Road Scholar: The GOP stopped using the “states’ rights” battle cry right after they usurped the state of Florida’s judicial process to decide the outcome/results of the state’s 2000 election results.
Fed up
January 7th, 2010
11:55 am
@Hank: a government recognized civil union is fine with most GLBT folks, but even this is denied to us with a basis reasoning in religion. My husband and I were married in our church and I am happy for that, what we would like to have also are the same legal rights and protections provided to our marriage just as there are provided to any other marriage. Government should not be in the “marriage” business at all, but in the “civil union” business for legal recognition; marriage is a religious and church institution, but a government one. Laws recognizing same-sex unions as well as well as man-woman unions would then not be forcing anything down the throat of anyone. It would be up to an individual church to decide what marriages they allow and do not allow. I am so glad that my church does recognize same sex marriage so they we could be married in our church and under the God that we serve – and that part had nothing to do with government.
Engaged
January 7th, 2010
11:56 am
It’s not safe to fly and millions are without health care, and THIS is the issue Rep. Dyed Hair wants to engage on?
Darius
January 7th, 2010
12:07 pm
Notice how the GOP is always exspousing “individual rights,” “keeping the government out of our lives,” “smaller government,” “we don’t need the government telling us how to spend out money,” “states rights,” ectra, ectsra… ALL HIPOCRISY. How can you claim to promote individual rights and then tell grown people whom they can/cannot marry? @ Common Sense… how about Human Rights? Its is a HUMAN RIGHT to decide what other Grown Competent Adult you wish to spend your life with. NO ONE ELSE’S OPINION SHOULD PLAY ANY PART IN THAT.
Harry H. Homo
January 7th, 2010
12:11 pm
Hank: Guess what this member of the GLBT community would like to force down your throat! I’m talking about a little taste of injustice hitting you and yours for once. It’s easy for you to talk about civil rights so casually when you have yours intact.
Tom
January 7th, 2010
12:12 pm
Government shouldn’t be involved in “marriage” (a religious sacrament or cultural rite) in the first place, much less trying to act as arbiter to who can or cannot partake in it.
Oppressed
January 7th, 2010
12:15 pm
I don’t think the gay community should have to pay taxes until we are granted full human rights. Period. Fair is fair right?
CJ
January 7th, 2010
12:23 pm
The time and millions of dollars spent by right-wing, “Christian” organizations to fight gay marriage could provide the homeless with many homes, the hungry with many meals, and the sick with lots of medicine.
Karl Rove helped draft the Bush Administration’s attempt to Constitutionally ban gay marriage. Karl Rove just filed for his second divorce. Exactly what sacred union is he trying to preserve? The ones he keeps disposing of?
Cutty
January 7th, 2010
12:26 pm
How about they have a referendum on Taxation without Representation first! Because they know the electorate in D.C. would vote overwhelmingly for representation in Congress. If the population was republican, this would’ve been done years ago.
JT in Atlanta
January 7th, 2010
12:30 pm
What Rep. Gingrey needs to do is worry about what’s going on in Georgia and keep his nose out of the affairs of DC. Marietta, Georgia was boycotted by the Olympics in 1996 because of the anti-gay Commission “proclamation”. Since Rep. Gingrey is from Marietta you would think he would know better. The GOP is digging itself deeper and deeper by bowing to the pressures of its religious fanatics better known as America’s Taliban.
Ima Nidiot
January 7th, 2010
12:30 pm
Glad to see our Georgia elected officials have their priorities in order.
Two wars going on, and at least a couple more countries on the brink of war, terrorism, unemployment, health care, the environment, the deficit, clean drinking water, a flu pandemic…..and yet somehow preventing gay people from getting married in Washington DC is somehow more important?
Can we hold a recall election? Like right now? Get this bozo back in Georgia and picking up litter on the side of the road with the prison work crew, where he belongs.
RainbowMittens
January 7th, 2010
12:32 pm
I’d love to hear that the constituents in Gingrey’s district flooded his office with calls to quit wasting taxpayer time and money on something that affects probably less that 50K people in the Nation’s Capitol, and focus on fixing problems that affect his district residents. When will we ever move past all this political posturing?
@Hank: When human rights become subject to the arbitrary whims of voters in the USA, we truly have let down the Founding Fathers. Also, “civil marriage” is not the same thing as Holy Matrimony (religious).
Trudy
January 7th, 2010
12:37 pm
Gingrey is a nincompoop.
NegNews
January 7th, 2010
12:38 pm
Let’s fight against stupid, incompetent people in Congress.
Jeffrey Amos
January 7th, 2010
12:38 pm
13% unemployment in HIS district and he is worried about gay marriage in DC. For Gods sake will the Democratic party come up with a viable candidate and rid us of this useless moron.
It' Simple Really
January 7th, 2010
12:40 pm
Marriage is a contract, and persons who marry can choose either a religious ceremony or other established means. To insist that marriage is all about religion is bull. If we follow “the marriage is a religious matter” argument, then only churches would be allowed to grant divorces.
Lynn
January 7th, 2010
12:40 pm
Common Sense you arent a Rhoads scholar either. You are denying people the right to apply for a license not get married in a church.( Denying anyone a right to apply for a license is against your civil rights). So Harvard grad I want you to look that one up. This is like denying a tax paying citizen the right to a drivers license.
Lloyd Braun
January 7th, 2010
12:41 pm
good luck, gingry. but it’s a hopeless battle. marriage could not be any gayer.
itstrue
January 7th, 2010
12:49 pm
I grew up in DC, and the issue of congress meddling in its internal affairs is a bit of a sore subject for us natives.
No need to quote chapter and verse from the constitution, we all know that they are allowed to do whatever they want. It used to be that we couldn’t even vote for president or elect a mayor. We still have no vote in the House or the Senate. We fight in wars and pay taxes. Sure, it’s all constitutional, but it’s not fair. It’s why the DC license plates say Taxation Without Representation.
These guys could choose to allow the 600,000 residents of DC to pass their own laws, but they take over whenever the district tries to do something they disagree with.
I can think of three times that supposedly libertarian, states rights, local authority-preferring members of congress decided to use DC to grandstand on this or that moral issue to score points with the voters back home.
The self-proclaimed libertarian Bob Barr went after DC’s medical marijuana law in the 90s. The whole GOP has used DC as a 2nd Amendment soapbox for the past decade, and now our GA congressmen are doing it on gay marriage.
My point isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing with the issues. It’s around the hypocrisy of these guys. If they’re so into local decisionmaking, they’d leave DC alone. There’s a difference between the use and the abuse of authority, and this crosses it.
If they’re so into having their own voice heard in Washington, why can’t they make some room for Washington’s voice to be heard in Washington?
Anyone with a libertarian or (small-d) democratic bone in their body should rally in support of local rule.
John K
January 7th, 2010
12:53 pm
Gingrey is an incredible tool and an embarrassment. Which guarantees getting elected in Georgia.
For legal matters, there should be civil unions. Two consenting adults should be able to enter into one. The religious aspect of marriage could be decided by each church, support or not support gay marriage? Fine. But legally it should all be civil unions.
If he’s so concerned about marriage, why not look after the 50% divorce rate of the institution we have now? Can’t blame that on the gays, but no doubt Gingrey and his ilk will try.
lovelyliz
January 7th, 2010
12:54 pm
If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t have one. If you want to “protect”, traditional marriage just ban traditional divorce and send Newt Gingrich back to wife #1.
masivatack
January 7th, 2010
12:57 pm
“Marriage is not a Civil Right, it is a religious institution.”
Weird, I’m not religious, does that mean that my marriage means nothing? If so, what if my wife or myself is badly injured or sick, do we not deserve to be able to visit each other in the hospital? Do we not deserve to share healthcare benefits, as my wife is self-employed. Should we have to jump through even more hoops to adopt a child. Do you religious types believe in a “Right to Life”, or just a “Right to life as you see fit”.
And just one other question.
Does this religious institution apply to all religions?
Maybe we should start a religion that has respect for all people.
Then would it be okay for any two people in love to share the same benefits as anyone else?
Just wondering.
lovelyliz
January 7th, 2010
12:58 pm
This is one are where I tend to lean topwards political consevatism. Leave the legal aspects of marriage to the government and the religiou implications to the churches. All the government should require is the civil ceremony & paperwork. The rest is up to you.
John K
January 7th, 2010
12:59 pm
And I do think if the anti-gay folk are all about so called “traditional” marriage they should start respecting the tradition. Marriage should be a business deal between the father of the bride and the father of the groom.
It' s Simple Really
January 7th, 2010
1:01 pm
A stolen cookie always tastes better. That’s why closeted individuals oppose gay marriage. They still want to sneak around to rest stops, airport restrooms, parks etc.
JF McNamara
January 7th, 2010
1:03 pm
Its just another case where the Republicans want to limit individual freedom. Their entire platform is about making people conform to their rigid ideals. It’s not shocking or suprising. Its how they do business.
John K
January 7th, 2010
1:07 pm
Exactly JF, the GOP is all about control. They want to control all aspects of our lives according to their rules.
This is why it’s hilarious whenever one of them stumbles. (Gov Sanford, etc.) Not that there aren’t scoundrels from both parties, but when one holds itself up as high and mighty, Godly and moral, it is hilarious when they crash.
Gingrey caught with a page in 3…2…1….
Byron Mathison Kerr
January 7th, 2010
1:08 pm
Same-sex marriage will eventually become a national standard indistinguishable from opposite-sex marriage. “Traditional” marriage has undergone many changes over the years: Women who marry no longer become the husband’s chattel. People can get divorced even though marriage is a “’til death us do part” vow. And different-race marriage became nationally legal a few decades ago.
So it is not a question of “if” but a question of “when.” It is also a question of how much money and time resources are going to be wasted fighting the inevitable — resources that could be spent to improve our lives rather than to attempt to codify bigotry into our highly-revered Federal and State constitutions.
As for public referendums in this country, they are the absolute worst form of legislation imaginable!
WTF
January 7th, 2010
1:25 pm
Gingery is pandering to his ever-narrowing fringe base. He went to medical school, he is a Tech graduate… he knows better than this, yet he insists on playing the backwoods scare monger. Phil Gingery knows that homosexuality is not a life-style choice but rather a biological condition. He knows gay people in Washington DC and here in Georgia and so does his wife and children, yet he would rather win votes by bashing people instead of helping his community. He is pathetic.
scrappy
January 7th, 2010
1:26 pm
If marriage is a sacred religious tenement then why must I get a state marriage license? Why are my taxes different? Why is the government involved at all? Answer – it stopped being a religious tenement when government figured out how to tax it.
The only reason conservative elected officials try to keep gay people from marriage is because it gets their name in the paper, and publicity is publicity, good or bad.
itstrue
January 7th, 2010
1:32 pm
I’ve read about conservatives being angry and declaring the End of Days about civil marriage in the early 1900s. They saw marriage as the jurisdiction of the church and not the state. They predicted the end of marriage as it was known. They were right.
It seems to me that the gay marriage battle was lost then. Churches and clergy can marry or not marry whoever they want. Now it’s a question of what the government can and can’t do.
With over a century of civil rights case law, it’s only a matter of time before the federal government decides it can’t discriminate and grants benefits and tax status to same-sex couples married by a state.
It doesn’t matter if states or churches follow suit or not. They’re either going to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, or find it unconstitutional on the grounds of it violating the “full faith and credit” of civil status and commerce between the states. It’s in the constitution. Since marriage is not defined federally (but by states), a marriage in one state is valid in all states.
In the short run, Gingrey might get some political street cred by shooting down DC’s choice on the matter. But in the long run, gay marriage opponents are probably on the wrong side of history.
williebkind
January 7th, 2010
1:37 pm
John K: And others
Wow you are so full of it. The GOP is married more to the mainstream than the progessive liberals who keep spewing crap. You do not want homosexual marriage! You want everyone to recognize it as NORMAL. How big is the population of homosexuals in the US? 12% maybe 15% but we hear about it everyday. This is not about marriage or homosexuality but simply some tool to change the mainstream minds about conservatism. That is not going to happen. This not a democracy! I want to remind the progessive liberals of that. Can you repeat that…this is not a democracy.
itstrue
January 7th, 2010
1:40 pm
“Answer – it stopped being a religious tenement when government figured out how to tax it.”
… actually, most people pay a lot less in taxes when they get married. I know I do. It’s the government giving an incentive to get hitched. I think no one, gay or straight, should be penalized for being single. But the fact is that you’re better off on April 15 if you’re married.
reebok
January 7th, 2010
1:41 pm
gingrey & his ilk have obviously forgotten the lessons of the civil rights’ movement…separate but equal doesn’t work, brainiacs. with heterosexual marriages failing at a 50% clip, exactly how much damage do these tools think gays are going to do to the ‘institution of marriage…?’
Bill
January 7th, 2010
1:44 pm
To those commenters stating that ‘marriage is not a civil right’ and that ‘marriage is a religious institution:’
2 Questions:
1. Why has the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a “FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT OF MAN” if it is not so?
2. If marriage is a ‘religious institution,’ why do you need a license from the state where you reside to have a legally valid marriage? And why is no religious affiliation required for heterosexuals to marry?
The real problem here is that you people are so stupid that the light from stupid would take a million years to reach the earth.
Mind your own business. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with you. Nothing at all. You are simply trying to further abuse (via the law) the gay children YOU YOURSELVES created. Only the heterosexual human being participates in such vile, disgusting abuse against their very own offspring.
Morality indeed, heterosexuals.
Morality.
Indeed.
John K
January 7th, 2010
1:44 pm
Willie, I am anti-williebkind marriage, and think your relationships are immoral and will be working toward a law against you engaging in them.
or, please tell me how you are harmed by what two consenting adults do, it should be fascinating!
williebkind
January 7th, 2010
1:48 pm
stodgy
January 7th, 2010
1:40 pm
Is that how it is done?
John K
January 7th, 2010
1:53 pm
how are they going to infringe upon your life, “Christian” Mom? Have sex in your kitchen?