Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

2 Bumps

What is more important economic issues or banning gay marriage?

One Month After Saying Party Would Focus On Economic Issues, GOP Leader Pushes DC Gay Marriage Ban

Posted: 01/25/11 02:50 PM

WASHINGTON -- On Dec. 15, the Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) and other conservative groups met with Rep. Jim Jordan, chair of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC), and learned that the group's focus in 2011 was going to be on fiscal issues. R. Clarke Cooper, LCR's executive director, walked away from that meeting reassured that the GOP wouldn't be going after LGBT rights when they took control of the House.

But one month later, Jordan (R-Ohio) is now saying that the RSC will be pushing legislation to ban same-sex marriage in the nation's capital, a symbolic move that would appease social conservatives but be unlikely to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate.

"I think RSC will push for it, and I'm certainly strongly for it," Jordan told The Hill. "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."

Cooper said that he was "very disappointed" by the announcement. "From our perspective, not only is it an attack on states' rights, but it goes in direct violation to the DC Human Rights Act," he added.

Jordan's statement that the RSC will push for the DC marriage equality ban seems to go against the message he was sending groups -- which included the LCR, Heritage Foundation and National Rifle Association -- at the December meeting.

"What Chairman Jordan shared with us is that all the priorities for this Congress are fiscal-related," Cooper told The Huffington Post in early January. "One could interpret it as there have been lessons learned either at a pragmatic or principled level by certain Republicans on social issues, that they're not good for the party; they are divisive." He added that Jordan identified three areas of importance for the RSC: 1) a rescission package that would eliminate previously approved spending; 2) balancing the federal budget; and 3) federal welfare reform.

Asked for clarification, Jordan's Press Secretary Meghan Snyder said that the congressman's top priorities are still creating jobs and reducing government spending. However, she added, he also "believes that, in addition to addressing our country's fiscal issues, advocating for low taxes, less spending and a strong national defense, conservatives must advocate for traditional family values like life and marriage. Family is the cornerstone upon which our communities, our states and our nation is built, and conservatives must lead the way in promoting the strengths of the traditional family whenever we can."

Pro-choice advocates have also been dismayed that Republicans are going after funding for abortions in Washington, D.C. Last week, members of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus introduced the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which not only reinstates a ban on D.C. using its own money to pay for abortions for low-income women, but is also "designed to ensure that every federal government agency and program is prohibited from spending tax money to fund abortions."

Of course, with Democrats still in control in the Senate, these measures are unlikely to become law -- just as the House Republicans' vote to repeal health care reform was a largely symbolic gesture. On Monday night, House Republicans also moved forward with a two-page resolution to reduce "non-security" spending to 2008 levels or below, putting thousands of government programs on a potential chopping block with no specifics on what or how much would be cut.

Answer Question
 
SxyMartini

Asked by SxyMartini at 7:14 PM on Jan. 25, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 8 (271 Credits)
Answers (29)
  • Economic Issues.


    But to this, "Pro-choice advocates have also been dismayed that Republicans are going after funding for abortions in Washington, D.C. Last week, members of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus introduced the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which not only reinstates a ban on D.C. using its own money to pay for abortions for low-income women, but is also "designed to ensure that every federal government agency and program is prohibited from spending tax money to fund abortions."


    Beyond the Hyde Ammendment, taxpayer money should NOT be funding abortions... Woman's Choice. Woman's Body. Woman's RESPONSIBILITY.

    grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 7:17 PM on Jan. 25, 2011

  • Economic issues. NEWSFLASH!!! Gay marriage is already banned so I don't put banning it very high on the importance scale.
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 7:19 PM on Jan. 25, 2011

  • Seriously? ECONOMIC ISSUES. With the high rate of divorce in the US, celebs and POLITICIANS cheating on their spouses, a ban on gay marriages is the last thing that needs to be looked at. How about the economy, affordable health care for everyone, a better education system and getting our soldier home from overseas?
    tyfry7496

    Answer by tyfry7496 at 7:20 PM on Jan. 25, 2011

  • Same $hit, different republican


    Mike Pence, who the pubs are foaming at the mouth at to run in 2012 ALSO stated that SOCIAL issues were MORE IMPORTANT than the ECONOMY!


    and all you ipeeps that voted them in because they had their EYE on the ECONOMY, and you wanted fiscal responsability....and voted in many of teh same FOOLS that were a RUBBER STAMP for Bush's spending....THIS is what you voted for. Nothing different....status quo....


    We don't need laws REINSTATED...

    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 7:21 PM on Jan. 25, 2011

  •  

    Economic issues. NEWSFLASH!!! Gay marriage is already banned so I don't put banning it very high on the importance scale.


    umm....

    WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from opponents of same-sex marriage who want to overturn the District of Columbia's gay marriage law.




    Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/01/18/1510140/court-rejects-appeal-over-dc-gay.html#ixzz1C625mIIx

    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 7:23 PM on Jan. 25, 2011

  • The last I heard, they wanted to make sure Obama is a "one-term president". They need to get their priorities straight. I can't wait until when we can vote those bozos out...
    Fallaya

    Answer by Fallaya at 7:25 PM on Jan. 25, 2011

  • Republicans need to get their acts together, they're blowing it!!
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 7:28 PM on Jan. 25, 2011

  • and all you ipeeps that voted them in because they had their EYE on the ECONOMY, and you wanted fiscal responsability....


    Hrmmmm Bloviated over-spending social control obsessed nanny loving Progressive Liberal VS. Fiscally Conservative, Socially Conservative Republican.... If those ARE my choices???? As a Fiscally Conservative, Socially ModerateI, Capitalism loving American~  living in an economically stressed nation... Hrmmmm... What's a girl to do...Ohh yea, the party who has ALREADY put wasteful programs on the Chopping Block...  Ohh wait, will the liberal censorship police let me say chopping? ;o)

    grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 7:31 PM on Jan. 25, 2011

  • But they are NOT fiscally conservative, not in ANY sense of the word

    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 7:33 PM on Jan. 25, 2011

  • But they are NOT fiscally conservative, not in ANY sense of the word


     It's relative to the competition.......  The better choice of 2 evils... Unless you are condoning one NOT to vote because someone's views don't align 100%?

    grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 7:34 PM on Jan. 25, 2011

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.