GOP’s Gay Obsession Obstructs Democracy

Foxx_Virginia Congressional Republicans are using the defense appropriation debate to reignite long-simmering culture wars by adding patently homophobic amendments to the Department of Defense's 2012 budget.

In one instance, North Carolina Rep. Virginia Foxx included an amendment that would prohibit funding if the DOD doesn't explicitly back DOMA.

"The proposed amendment would reaffirm Congress’ expectation that funds shall not be used for benefits, such as housing, education, medical services, transportation, etc., for same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex married couples," reads Foxx's amendment.

Meanwhile, Indiana Rep. Dan Burton proposed his own amendment that bans any appropriation funds from being used to host civil union or same-sex marriage ceremonies, as if that would ever happen, and introduced another tack-on that would prohibit the Department from training combat troops on Don't Ask, Don't Tell's repeal.

While it's unclear how their amendments will impact the defense budget debates, Foxx and Burton make one thing painfully obvious: the Republicans are still willing to hold up legislative progress in the name of their social conservative politics.

It's queer that the GOP, a party whose members regularly claim they love America more than their liberal counterparts, would be willing to obstruct and hamper democratic action just because they want to whip up conservative support.

I'm can't say I'm surprised by such tactics, of course, especially from Foxx, who has previously, and repulsively, claimed that Matthew Shepard's murder was a robbery, not a hate crime, and therefore qualifies as a hoax.


  1. AllBeefPatty says

    The GNoP is going to be nothing but a grease spot in the road come 2012.

    How’s that Southern Strategy workin’ out fer ya….shitheads?

    You reap what you sow.

  2. Rin says

    Okay, so I don’t get the argument.

    What was the point of repealing DADT and then saying that Soldier A gets VHA for him and his children, but Soldier B does not?

    They should have gone hard or gone home on DADT. It’s even worse now than before, philosophically. Before the military’s stance was “no gays” which was crappy but also gave gays the option of dodging wars, the draft, etc.

    Now, they get to serve but they don’t get the same benefits for their families. To me, that’s worse. Now you have to put your life on the line (voluntary or involuntary in the case of a draft) and you get less support than your heterosexual brethren.

    What a way to screw up something good.

  3. Redebbm says

    Elections have consequences, and while there are those with a D next to there name that are just as bad, people keep letting these individuals have the power in congress which should be focused on economic growth, helping the jobless, and creating a strong foundation to move forward in the world economy, but instead all they can think about is how terrible it is for Gay people to receive Healthcare from there partners when they work for the government. They spend precious time, and tax money on issues that are irrelevant when large portions of the country are flooding and nuclear power plants are surrounded by water.

  4. ohplease says

    What’s an improper context for using “queer”? If I had to guess, it would be awkwardly shoving it into a sentence about LGBT issues in a manner that draws attention to itself for no reason other than to trumpet its own presumed cleverness.

    Please don’t applaud the pretentiousness, it will only encourage it.

  5. Steve says

    It’s DOMA that prevents the military from offering most of the really good benefits – such as health care or housing – to gay troops. DADT has nothing to do with it.

    Though they could do more than they do. The State Department for example offers access to facilities or relation assistance among some other things. The DoD is taking a more hardline stance.

  6. says

    These arguments in Congress by the Republicans only feed into the court cases, showing that the GLBT community is singled out for discrimination. If (and I do mean if) they had a brain in their head, they’d be playing nice at the moment with all these court cases playing out. As it is, litigators only have to remind the court of these statements to prove their point about gay discrimination.

  7. MichaelD1026 says

    Trying to add unconstitutional amendments to appropriations bills…and still no jobs have been created. Republicants are only happy when somebody else suffers.

  8. paul says

    none of that stuff is going to pass and they know it. Once DADT is done, you would have such a lawsuit in Federal court if you denied a solider those kind of rights.

Leave A Reply