Skip to main content

The GOP House tries adding an amendment to ban gay marriage (like with the Obamacare repeal effort - it will fail and cost money)

Sometimes, Republicans just don't know which fights to pick, do they? Like with trying to repeal Obamacare 37 times and failing all thirty-seven of those times, Kansas Representative and man voted most likely to be the hybrid of a tramp and a KKK member - Tim Huelskamp - said this in response to the Supreme Court's DOMA ruling yesterday:

"My response to this will be later this week to file a federal marriage amendment."

Recent CNN and Gallup polls have shown that a majority of Americans believe that gay marriages should be recognized by federal law (55% in the CNN poll and 53% in the Gallup poll), yet what did Mr. Huelskamp have to say about this?

"A majority of Americans don't like President Obama as president, but he's still the president. What did not happen is what the court and then the folks pushing for [DOMA repeal] hoped would happen: that it would end the debate. The debate is not over."

At this current time, 46.4% of Americans approve of President Obama as president and 48.3% of American's disapprove (net -1.9%). As far as Congress goes, which Mr. Huelskank is a part, 14.4% of Americans support the job it's doing, while 78.2% disapprove (net -63.8%). So, I wouldn't be talking too much smack about the president's job approval if I were Mr. Huelstank.

Like with Obamacare, Mr. Huelskamp's (I'll get the name right this time) proposed amendment to ban gay marriage has no chance of getting through the Democrat-controlled Senate or of being signed by Democratic President Barack Obama. Until Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House, this will have absolutely no chance of passing, and will just wind up costing taxpayers millions of dollars just like all those failed repeal efforts of Obamacare. But, sure, keep on trying, Mr. Huelstank, and before you know it, Congress's approval rating will be even lower and the GOP will have to try and win back both Chambers of Congress, along with the presidency.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/rep-tim-huelskamp-to-file-constitutional-amendment-to-restore-doma-93430.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/rep-tim-huelskamp-to-file-constitutional-amendment-to-restore-doma-93430.html

http://realclearpolitics.com/
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more