Ohio Congressman "Fighting" to Ban Gay Marriage in District of Columbia

Ohio Republican Congressman Jim Jordan reckons them Ohio gays shouldn't be married. And Thursday he introduced legislation in Congress to make sure them Washington D.C. gays can't get hitched neither.

Jordan, along with Democrat Dan Boren (the same Dan Boren who refused to endorse Barack Obama in 2008) rolled out the D.C. Defense of Marriage Act in response to the May 5th vote of the Washington D.C. Council to recognize same-sex marriages of other states and countries. The vote passed 12-1 and is expected to lead to future legislation legalizing same-sex marriage within the District of Columbia. (Full D.C.-based coverage of this story at the Washington Blade)

Jordan, in a statement, seemed way too pleased with his himself saying:

"...the family is truly the foundational institution of our nation, and marriage is its cornerstone."

"I look forward to working with the D.C. community, a majority of who — like a majority of Americans — support traditional marriage," he said. "This is a fight we cannot shy away from, and it is a fight we have to win."

Keeping two people apart who love each other, and care for each other so much that they want a legal contract binding them together as one is "a fight we have to win?" Seriously?

Ohio is a diverse state. We've got every type of person with every type of opinion. Those opinions don't always work together in perfect harmony, but the beauty of our form of government is that these differing opinions can find a home in Congress where legislators advocate for every issue imaginable. What's disturbing about the issues Jim Jordan champions is that they deprive people of their civil liberties. At the end of the day, you can't be less American than that.

It's a pretty safe bet that the voters of Ohio's Fourth Congressional District are a bit more conservative than other parts of the state. That's not always a bad thing. When they sent Jim Jordan to Washington, it's likely they expected to get someone working to keep taxes low and government out of their lives. They've received neither to date. Jordan, who is passionate about eliminating federal earmarks isn't afraid to take them. And on keeping government out of the lives of Americans, Jordan again proved this week that he simply can't walk the talk as he went above and beyond in imposing his "values" on people well outside his district.

I don't expect voters of the 4th District to send Jordan home in 2010, but it would be nice if they could reign him in a bit. When a leader fights so passionately to deny people civil liberties, it's only a matter of time before he begins trying to criminalize thought and speech. Those aren't conservative values, and they certainly aren't liberal values. They're Stone Age Values and Jim Jordan is going "old, old, old school" in his efforts to push us there. Way to represent Ohio, Jim.

Gay Marriage Debate is About Finances

"Keeping two people apart who love each other, and care for each other so much that they want a legal contract binding them together as one..." No you, seriously.
That is misleading statement.

Lets start with the fact that I don't care who does or doesn't marry. Homosexual couples should have the same right to be as miserable as everyone else. :)

As with all legal contracts, marriage contracts are not about "love" it is about FINANCES. To ascribe it to love is misleading.

There are numerous reasons to allow gay marriage just as there are for straight couples, none of them should is "love."

1. Single health insurance plans result in serious savings of sometimes thousands of dollars per year. Some companies will not share coverage or include loved ones on policies unless they are married, in a civil union or domestic partners. (insurance companies lose premiums)

2. Lower federal taxes when sharing deductions such as children, mortgage payments and other deductions.
(Government loses revenue)

3. Spouses do not pay estate tax, which makes it easier to inherit assets and property, and leaves no question to assets left when a loved one is deceased. No probate, no arguments over who-gets-what with family members.
(Government loses revenue)

4. Gifts between spouses not subject to gift taxes. I am not sure of the amount. (Government loses revenue)

5. Financial protection from legal separation and divorce, including spousal support or alimony.

6. Social Security benefits are paid to surviving spouse. After 10 years of marriage, spouses entitled to their spouses' Social Security benefits (increased benefit payments from Social Security)

7. Property is more easily shared. Claims to property are more easily defined.

"Gay marriage" is a FINANCIAL issue that many politicians support publicly, but are in reality against for financial reasons.

It is about love.

Public recognition of love. Yes, there are financial aspects to the contract, but when people like Jim Jordan start talking about "protecting marriage" for one man and one woman, it's not about finances. It's about denying the existence of a legally recognized commitment two people share with each other based in love. Period.

I am not married

I am not married, but I love the person I am with does the fact that we are not publicly recognized as being in love make my love for my partner less valuable?

I have been with my partner for over 2 years, we live together, share finances together eat meals together, even work together on occasion.

At this time, we do not own property together or plan on raising a family in the next 12 months so PROTECTION of property or sharing of benefits does not seem like a factor in the next 12 months.

If it were a simple as being publicly recognized, we could just have a ceremony, invite our friends and hang our names together on the mailbox with a sign in the yard. BOOM, publicly recognized. YOU are taking the position of being LEGALLY recognized, not publicly recognized.

That is completely admirable that you perceive that it is an argument of emotion and states a lot about your good character, but I just outlined 10 reasons why it is a LEGAL and financial debate.

The preservation of standards in society for which people can get together and intact in a "loving" way is left to the law.

Sadly, no matter how many "PERIODS" you place behind your assertion, or how strongly you feel about it, will change that while the sometimes irrational emotion of "love" (which could be argued as only being an evolved biological mammalian drive of self-interest and self-preserving survival) is NOT dependent on laws to exist, thrive or propagate.

Coming from a conservative family, I can attest to conversations I overhear, they are, that what many conservatives want to deny, are the BENEFITS that hetro-sexual marriages enjoy, which are financial.

The reasons that civil unions or gay marriages are not "fair" are because they are not viewed under the law in the same ways which is the denial of benefits.

It is not "fair" to be in a committed relationship, share many, many, years of "love" with a person building a life and at the end when a spouse expires to have possessions, property and assets, accumulated over a lifetime contested by outside family members.

Nor is it "fair" to be in a committed relationship and have a spouse not be able to enjoy good health that health benefits provide. The debate is about fair treatment in society legally.

If it were about an only about an obscure, difficult to define, ethereal, biological emotions no one would need the legal protection that a legal marriage provides.

It is ok that we don't agree, please don't dislike me because we don't see eye-to-eye.

Thanks,

Dennis

No problem.

Dennis, I don't take this stuff personally (usually), so don't worry about my impressions of you. We've got different opinions. That's a healthy thing and this is a great place to debate and discuss them. Be well!

Calling all Helping Hands

Good day people, I just took out my petition to run for election of Congress. I think Jordan has lost track of working people and the problems we all face. Looking for any and all input and help to defeat this man and place the 4th District back in the hands of the people! Doug Litt Mansfield,Ohio

Sponsored Post

The Views Expressed In Reader-Contributed Comments, Forums And Posts Are Not Necessarily Those Of OhioDaily, Plus2 Communications LLC Or Its Management.