Same-sex marriage bill in DC appears unstoppable
10.07.2009 9:20am EDT
(Washington) A bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in the nation’s capital was introduced Tuesday, a measure that even opponents acknowledged seems almost unstoppable.
The bill was nearly certain to pass the D.C. city council, but whether it becomes law is more complicated because Congress gets an opportunity to review D.C. legislation before it takes effect. Still, even challengers in Congress acknowledged the bill was likely to become law.The city began in July recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Congress had a chance to act on that legislation but didn’t.
U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah who said he would work to defeat the new bill, anticipates that will happen again with the proposal. A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she believed it was a matter for D.C. to decide.
D.C. Councilman David Catania introduced the new measure at a standing-room only council meeting. The independent and one of two openly gay council members said he hopes for a vote in December.
“There is no question that we are about to embark on an exciting journey here in the district,” he said.
His bill specifically says religious leaders and institutions are not required to perform the marriages or rent their space for same-sex ceremonies unless they let the public use or rent them.
If the bill becomes law, the city will follow Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, which issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. New Hampshire will begin issuing them in January.
The legislature in Maine has also passed a same-sex marriage bill, but voters will decide in November whether to reverse it. California briefly issued licenses before voters passed a law stopping the practice.
In the District of Columbia, the bill was co-introduced by 10 of the city council’s 13 members and has the support of the mayor.
If Congress blocked the bill, it would be rare. In the past 25 years, Congress has rejected only three pieces of legislation. According to Brian Flowers, the city’s general counsel, Congress rejected a law in 1991 that would have permitted taller buildings in the city.
In 1999, Congress amended a bill so that city medical marijuana would not be legalized. Congress also repealed a law that would have required D.C. government employees to be city residents.
Same-sex marriage supporters cheered the bill’s introduction. D.C. residents Juan Rondon and Edward Grandis came to the meeting wearing T-shirts that displayed copies of their California marriage license.
“I feel a sensation of relief,” Grandis said.
According the U.S. Census Bureau, there were about 3,500 same-sex couples living together in the city in 2008, though the number has a wide margin of error. D.C. has 600,000 residents.
Rick Rosendall, vice president for political affairs for the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, said he was proud of the city but acknowledged: “We have a long way to go, of course.”
The Catholic Church and Washington’s archbishop, Donald Wuerl, have been vocal in opposing the legislation. And a group led by Bishop Harry Jackson, the pastor of a Maryland church, had previously asked D.C.’s board of elections to authorize a ballot initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
The board will consider the request later this month.
“We are prepared to go to court,” Jackson said.
(Washington)The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal to review a Florida law that requires public school students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance each day unless they have their parents’ written permission excusing them.
The justices declined Monday an appeal filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida on behalf of a high school student removed from his math class because he remained seated during the pledge.
A federal appeals court upheld most of the law. The ACLU said that ruling, if left undisturbed, would undermine the Supreme Court’s 1943 ruling that schoolchildren could not be forced to salute the flag and say the pledge.
Florida argued that the law, by giving parents the right to have their children excused, does not violate the First Amendment.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama plans to address the nation’s largest gay rights group this weekend in an effort to mollify an uneasy Democratic constituency frustrated with the White House’s slow pace.
Obama plans to address Saturday’s Human Rights Campaign fundraising dinner gala, the organization and the White House announced Monday afternoon.
“It is fitting that (Obama) will speak to our community on the night that we pay tribute to his friend and mentor Sen. Edward Kennedy, who knew that as president, Barack Obama would take on the unfinished business of this nation – equal rights” for the gay community and for “every person who believes in liberty and justice for all,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.
The dinner falls on the eve of the National Equality March, expected to draw thousands of gay and lesbian activists to the National Mall. Many have been critical of Obama’s slow pace on redeeming campaign promises to end a ban on gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military and pushing tough nondiscrimination policies.
“Eleven months after his election, he has failed to deliver on any of his commitments to gay Americans, but even worse has been his refusal to engage around these issues,” said Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton’s administration on gay and lesbian policy.
“What he needs to do now is engage and deliver,” said Socarides. “Spend some of his political capital on ending the gay military ban, a hugely symbolic issue. And with no intellectually sound arguments left against it, come out squarely for gay marriage equality.”
Obama wasn’t likely to go that far, though, despite a rocky relationship with gay grass roots activists. He has taken a slow and incremental approach to the politically charged issues. He has expanded some federal benefits to same-sex partners, but not health benefits or pension guarantees. He has allowed State Department employees to include their same-sex partners in certain embassy programs already available to opposite-sex spouses.
But that remains far short of his campaign rhetoric.
“At its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans,” Obama said a 2007 statement on gay issues. “It’s about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect.”
Since then, he publicly has committed himself to repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they don’t disclose their sexual orientation or act on it. On Jan. 9, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs answered “yes” when asked whether the administration would end a policy that has seen the dismissal of more than 12,000 troops after their sexual orientation was revealed.
But as president, Obama hasn’t taken any concrete steps urging Congress to rescind the Clinton-era policy that some former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have acknowledged is flawed.
Yet the office of the current chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, signed off on a journal article that called for lifting the ban, arguing that the military is forcing thousands of military members to live dishonest lives.
Obama also pledged during the campaign to work for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which limits how state, local and federal bodies can recognize partnerships and determine benefits. But lawyers in his administration defended the law in a court brief. White House aides said they were only doing their jobs to back a law that was already on the books.
Even before Obama took office, he disappointed gay and lesbian activists who objected to the invitation to evangelist Rev. Rick Warren’s participation in the inauguration despite Warren’s support for repealing gay marriage in California.
President Barack Obama to Deliver Keynote Address at the 13th Annual Human Rights Campaign Dinner
U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy will also present first Edward M. Kennedy National Leadership Award to Judy and Dennis Shepard
WASHINGTON, D.C. –The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, announced today that President Barack Obama will deliver the keynote address at the 13th Annual National Dinner on Saturday, October 10th, in Washington, D.C. U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy will also present the first-ever Edward M. Kennedy National Leadership Award to Judy and Dennis Shepard. The award is named in honor of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), a champion in the fight for LGBT equality.
“We are honored to share this night with President Obama, who has called upon our nation to embrace LGBT people as brothers and sisters,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “It is fitting that he will speak to our community on the night that we pay tribute to his friend and mentor Senator Edward Kennedy, who knew that as president, Barack Obama would take on the unfinished business of this nation – equal rights for the LGBT community, and for every person who believes in liberty and justice for all.”
The event will begin at 7 p.m. at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C. All media planning to attend the Human Rights Campaign National Dinner must pre-register by Thursday, October 8. To request credentials please contact Trevor Thomas at trevor.thomas@hrc.org.




SteveMD2, I doubt if any religious cult will be forced to marry gay couples under any circumstances. If you look at the seven countries where same-sex marriage is legal and in the five states in the U.S., there is a clause that exempts every religious cult from performing same-sex marriages. Every marriage equality bill passed so far is based on civil marriage for same sex couples. Religious cults are free to do as they wish and are not compelled to marry a gay couple. I very much doubt if the final bill in DC would be any different.
I’m 100% for gay marriage. But if the DC bill says that churche properties are protected and can’t be forced to rent for gay marriages unless they rent to the public at large…….
All I can say is that this is a terrible mistake.
All it will become is a lightning rod, tested very quickly by a gay couple. And then the churches will be able to point to a fact – that they can be forced to let gay couples use their properties for marriages.
And that will enrage the good people in the middle, who support gays, but also support the right of churches to choose to whom they rent their properties.
And this will set the movement back 5 or 10 years.
And before many of you bitch at me – I’ve sunk nearly a 6 figure sum into supporting equality for gay couples. If my wife realized the amount – she knows it is significant – she’d be pissed.
If what I read is true – sorry people – this is a classic fuck up. The only reason I can see to do this is to give someone a chance to stick some church in the eye.
Forgetting that a tiger is very dangerous. But a wounded tiger is ever more so.
HOpefully the powers that be will fix this issue…… Copy the language from the NH bill that got passed. Basically churches, their closely allied organizations eg knights of columbus, and employees of churches are absolutely free to refuse to be involved directly or with their properties in marriage ceremonies against their beliefs.
Damn it – sorry – I have so many gay friends, but this language suggests a need to go take politics 101 – it is the end result, greatest good situation that will work. Not a politics of spite, deserved or not.
I am surprised by some of the information that was left out of the paragraph regarding those occasions on which Congress overrode DC legislation. Throughout the 1980’s, the city regularly attempted to remove sodomy laws from their statutes; each time they were overturned by Congress, generally at the behest of Jesse Helms and his minions. When DC passed a domestic partner law, Congress spent several years making sure that there was no money in the city’s budget to implement that program.
The original intent of the law that provides for Congressional review of DC laws was to ensure that the DC government didn’t interfere with the business of the federal government by (for example) refusing to permit the appropriate siting of embassies. Instead, the law has often been used as a means for interfering with DC internal affairs. I’d like to hope that, as with the recent attempt to block recognition of same-sex marriages legally entered into elsewhere, the next attempt will fail as well.
Props to David Catania. He began his career in local politics as one of those quaint anachronisms known as a moderate Republican; he was brave enough even then to be openly gay. He had the good sense to realize where the Republican Party was headed and to disassociate himself from it.
There appear to be several articles mixed together here.
1. DC marriage
2. Pledge of allegiance
3. Obama to speak to HRC
4. Obama, HRC (second article)