How will DC same-sex marriage fare in Congress?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

The District of Columbia is probably going to legalize same-sex marriage.

It is likely a bill will be proposed in congress to overturn that. Though DC has been granted some autonomy that autonomy is granted by congress, not secured by rights. It can probably be taken away almost as easily.

Thankfully, Pelosi could block such a bill in the House unless a discharge petition gets 50%+ signatories.

But the prospect looms of our ostensible Democratic Congress voting on a particular, specific, real same-sex marriage situation, as opposed to some vague thing.

How would such a measure fare?

I would guess same-sex marriage in DC would fail in congress if it got to that point.

[glen123098]

1. If DC wants it they should be allowed to have gay marriage.

Congress needs to quit treating DC like a child and let it actually be a democracy.

[Skinner]

2. My guess is that it would fare pretty well, as long as they can keep it from coming up for a vote.

My gut says that the majority of members in the House know that there is nothing to fear from same-sex marriage. That would include some Republicans. But many legislators would wimp out if they actually had to go on record and vote.

The best bet for DC same-sex marriage is to make sure it never actually comes up for a vote in Congress.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. Question is whether refusal to sign a discharge petition is operative ad-bait

First, the pugs would require that all pugs sign a discharge petition.

Then they work on the needed conservadems (42 needed?), threatening the prospect of running for re-election as gay marriage supporters. It's a bad issue because the charge must be countered with a subtlety. (Like supporting DC's autonomy to make their own decision.) It's just not what anyone up for re-election in a reddish district wants to be talking about.

I remain shocked by the breadth of support for Stupak and choice is a lot more settled than Adam-and-Steve. I don't know how culturally conservative our House Dems are.

I agree that the objective is to keep it off the floor, and it will probably go that way.

If there were a vote in an election year vote in a year when even some seemingly safe Dems are going to get creamed there would be some rude surprises on the semi-left.

[Clio the Leo]

3. Certainly throws a monkey wrench into the whole "state's right" aspect of it, doesn't it. NT

[Ozymanithrax]

5. Would 218 congressmen vote to allow same sex marriage in D.C.

There are 177 no votes right off (number of republicans).

You could lose 40 Democrats who are either moderate/Centrist/live in districts that would not re elect a liberal that approved of same sex marriage.

I think it would be a very close call, but it would win. The reason Pelosi would keep it from coming up for a vote was that she would not care to put Democrats in a position of defending either a yes or a no vote on what is a controversial subject.

Yes, it is controversial. The record of defending same Sex marriage in an election with voters, rather than just elected members of judges, is abysmal. The same was true when the issue was interracial marriage. It took decades and a supreme court decision to finally end segregation of marriage in this country. It suspect it will require something similar with same sex marriage. Change in this country is slow and incremental.

[Clio the Leo]

6. And it's passed!

http://twitter.com/dilemmie

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. Cool. Thanks

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. ...