Lawmakers Clash at Domestic Partner Benefits Hearing
Not that it's surprising, but lawmakers are sharply divided on the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act at a markup being held in the House Oversight and Government Reform. After ranking Republican Darrell Issa cited unemployment figures among African-American men to make the case that the bill wasn't necessary to attract workers into the federal government, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton snapped back "I'd be pleased to work with him if he is interested in [minority employment], which I'm sure he is." After Rep. Jason Chaffetz declared that "I recognize the sensitivity of this subject, but I also want to stand tall for traditional marriage. I don't' think we should be bashful and shy away from the fact that there are some of us who believe in the precepts, and believe in this issue of traditional marriage," a variety of Democratic lawmakers have come back with parables of love and tolerance. It's an interesting intrusion of the culture wars into federal management. But with a majority on the committee, it's hard to believe the measure won't pass later this afternoon.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Staff Correspondent Alyssa Rosenberg takes a look at news affecting the management and operations of the massive federal bureaucracy.
To Republicans are so anxious to jump on to the "traditional marriage," how about a federal law to forbid divorce? Now THAT would really go a long way to support marriage! If marriage is in trouble in this country, it's got nothing to do with gay people, whose legal marriages are disrespected and held in contempt by the Federal Government. So much for equality under the law.
Tim Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:16 AMGovernment recognition of "domestic partners" is completely inappropriate and these attempts to wrongly rationalize homosexuality are ludicrous. Marriage is, and always will be strictly between a man and a woman - period. You want benefits? Marry someone of the opposite sex like normal humans do. Otherwise, stop scheming for unwarranted entitlement programs to support the deviant and immoral homosexual agenda.
American Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:23 AMPlease remove the hateful, bigoted comments of "American." I am a normal human, not a deviant, and not immoral. What an awful thing to allow to be shown on your blog.
TRUE American Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 1:40 PMNot to cause the fight to intensify, but a few thoughts here -
1. Why do we constantly feel like we have to cave in to the PC concepts forth by an obvious minority that has made a conscious life-style decision that no one has forced upon them? Remember when the "right" thing to do was what benefited the majority, not penalized them or shifted the cost to them for the benefit of a few?
2. Why is it that the same minority and their PC supporters want "nothing but acceptance and the right to express their opinion", yet when anyone disagrees with them, they are labeled as a bigot or worse? Is it only one side that gets to express an opinion?
3. Marriage between a man and a woman is not a new concept. Neither is it a "christian concept". Look around at all of the recorded history of man on the planet. Regardless of their location, nationality or religion, you will find that the same concept has applied for at least the last 5,000+ years.
The sad part is that even after the majority speaks, the politicos and lawyers come out of the woodwork to over-rule what most people want. Kind of like congress and health care huh?
Bud Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 2:23 PM"American"...maybe you should go and live in Iran/Iraq where WOMEN are being stoned to death and the "just as adulterous guilty men" only get a lashing or two! Your mind-set would be served well over there...NOT HERE! Your hatred is not wanted.
UMustBKidng Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:04 PMTo "UMustBKidng" and "TRUE American" just because you disagree with other people doesn't mean you get to be rude. All Americans are entitled to their opinion, whether you agree with them is not a question. Instead of responding so violently, you should respond to their questions or opinions with the rationale for why you chose your lifestyle and why you feel the need to have special benefits because of your choice. Not everyone agrees with your lifestyle choice and, in fact, some people find it quite offensive.
My Opinion Posted Monday, November 23, 2009 10:23 AM