Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

US House will defend gay marriage ban

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. How can 5 people make a decision for millions?

    1. Failed logic.

      It would be like saying “how can one judge make a decision for millions” (concerning the prop 8 federal lawsuit).

  2. They won’t the courts will.

  3. Does anyone think we should just revoke Americas independence.
    We have let them have a couple hundred of years to get sorted, yet they still bugger it up.
    Lets extend the reign of Queen Liz and put some sanity back into the US.

    They are like naughty children, they just need someone to sit them on a step and say “no” sternly.

    1. To be honest, the queen already has a good grip on this country and we are truly not fully independent from the British empire.

      All of our banking is done in London, and the queen has access to our military.

  4. This is the correct route for a decision of this nature. Patience, brothers and sisters – it may take a while yet, but we have patience.

    The original law was hasty; why allow its replacement to take the same bequeathal.

  5. BTW, gay marriage is not “banned,” The law does not give marriage a corporate status like straight marriage.

    Lets get that fact straight.

  6. Jock S. Trap 11 Mar 2011, 8:09am

    Another backward step. When will these people get it that marriage should Never be a used to help just some in society and as a weapon to others.

    Every consenting adult should have the right to celebrate their love in any way they see fit, marriage or civil partnered or indeed not to at all.

    If they don’t want religious ceremonies fine but stop hijacking civil marriage.

    This is just yet again nothing more than over inflated male egos not wanting to let go of the control they think they have.

    Lets hope change comes soon.

  7. “What will the House argue in defending DOMA? Will they go back to Congress’s 1996 arguments for passing the law – that it is necessary because marriage equality is “a radical, untested and inherently flawed social experiment” and contrary to the “moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality”?”
    http://prop8trialtracker.com/

  8. Jen Marcus 11 Mar 2011, 9:59am

    As long as we live in a patriarchal society and many Americans remaining ignorant, or drunk on certain religions, we will continue to experience this kind of backward response and behavior from politicians not acting out of leadership, or justice ,but the pandering and soliciting of votes from a segment of unenlightened or bigoted constituents.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all