Comments on: Same-sex marriage bill in DC appears unstoppable

By: robertocucina

robertocucina — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:20:08 +0000

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.

By: SteveMD2

SteveMD2 — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:52:32 +0000

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.

By: Robert Katz

Robert Katz — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:41:20 +0000

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.

By: randy

randy — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:06:59 +0000

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)