(Washington, DC)  Civil rights triumphed over another failed attack from advocates of discrimination when today, the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics rejected a proposed referendum to put the rights of a minority up for a vote.

The proposed effort to limit the rights of District residents was brought by Stand For Marriage and Maryland pastor, Bishop Harry Jackson. The BOEE denied the referendum as a violation of the Human Rights Act of the District of Columbia.

 “Equality should never be up for debate or denied on a ballot,” said D.C. resident Michael Crawford, Co-chair of D.C. for Marriage. “We only want what every other American already has – the right to marry the person we love.”

Rev. Cedric Harmon, a D.C. resident and a representative of D.C. Clergy United for Marriage Equality, a group of nearly 200 Washington, D.C. faith leaders representing all eight wards of the District and a variety of religious faiths added the following statement in support of the BOEE’s decision:

 ”It is shameful when religious leaders fail to uphold the Christian teachings of our faith by trying to institutionalize a second-class citizenship on our neighbors. People of faith have worked for generations to achieve social justice for all people — regardless of race, creed, class, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. We serve our entire flock, and there is no justification under God that we should discriminate against any of God’s children.

“The District of Columbia has not voted on the civil rights of a minority since the Civil War, when a majority prevented freed male slaves from gaining the right to vote. Today, the Board of Elections and Ethics reminded us that human rights should never be put to a vote. As members of the clergy who support equal rights for all citizens, and who struggle to achieve social justice in the District of Columbia, we applaud the BOEE for standing up for human rights in the face of discrimination.”

So far, most city council members have refused to do that.

Catholic Charities has city contracts to provide services to about 68,000 people. The marriage bill would not require churches to perform same-sex weddings, but because Catholic Charities uses city money, the archdiocese fears it would have to offer employee benefits and adoptions to married same-sex couples.

The marriage legislation is expected to pass next month and has the mayor’s support.

Jane G. Belford, the chancellor of the Washington archdiocese, wrote Councilman Phil Mendelson on Wednesday asking for an exemption to protect the church’s religious freedoms. The church wants to be exempt from any measure that would require it to extend benefits to same-sex couples or allow gays and lesbians to adopt children.

Council member Tommy Wells said it would be dangerous to let the Catholic church start writing D.C. laws, a sentiment expressed by Mendelson and other members.

“Allowing individual exemptions opens the door for anyone to discriminate based on assertions of religious principle,” Mendelson said. “Let’s not forget that during the civil rights era, many claimed separation of the races was ordained by God.”

Archdiocese spokeswoman Susan Gibbs said the law would require city contractors to ignore their religious principles.

“We are not threatening to walk out of the city,” Gibbs said. “The city is the one saying, ‘If you want to continue partnering with the city, then you cannot follow your faith teachings.’”

Catholic Charities, one of dozens of nonprofits that partner with D.C. government, manages city-owned shelters that serve about one-third of Washington’s homeless population. The group’s contracts totaled $8.2 million in the past three years, according to the city council.

Council chairman Vincent Gray said Thursday the city would have to find another group to provide social services if the church backs out. He said he didn’t see any room for compromise.

Council member Jim Graham said the church hasn’t abandoned social services in New Hampshire, Connecticut or Vermont after those states began recognizing same-sex marriages.

However, Catholic Charities halted its adoption programs in 2006 in Boston because Massachusetts banned discrimination against same-sex couples who want to adopt children.

The bill requires religious organizations to obey city laws forbidding discrimination against gay men and lesbians, though they would not have to perform or make space available to gay weddings.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

“If the city requires this, we can’t do it,” Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. “The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that’s really a problem.”

Several D.C. Council members said the Catholic Church is trying to erode the city’s long-standing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination.

Catholic Charities serves 68,000 people in Washington DC, including one-third of the city’s homeless.

(Washington, D.C.)  Proponents and supporters, including D.C. religious leaders, will attend the scheduled mark-up of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009 at 2 p.m. Tuesday.

The Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, chaired by Councilmember Phil Mendelson, will review the text of the current bill for changes and amendments stemming from the 269 testimonies submitted during public hearings on Oct. 26 and Nov. 2. 

Over 80% of those who testified at the council hearing testified in support of marriage equality.

The committee is expected to debate sections of the bill that address D.C.’s current domestic partnership law and the impact of the legislation on religious institutions in the District. The final bill, including mark-up, is expected to be sent to the full committee for a vote following the meeting.

“Residents of the District of Columbia are eager for our friends and neighbors to gain full and equal recognition under law through the passage of the Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009,” said Aisha Mills, member of the board for the Campaign for All D.C. Families.

“We anticipate that this mark-up will emphasize the protections allotted to domestic partners and protect the religious freedoms of District residents,” Mills said.

When it comes to HIV, AIDS, and communities of color the news is always bleak. To break that cycle a new study, focusing in the Bronx and Washington, DC, will attempt to test and treat every adult.

Surprisingly, or not, this new study isn’t about slowing the virus. Instead the survey will examine  if a test and treat program can be carried out here—testing and treating is much more common in the developing world.

One of the reasons why this is being considered is because in some communities people fall through the cracks when it comes to HIV treatment, whether it’s getting tested or getting connected with drugs if needed. Apparently in DC in 2006, about half of residents with a recent HIV diagnosis sought out a physician about it within six months. In New York City, the Bronx has the highest rate of AIDS deaths, even though Manhattan has a larger rate of cases. This discrepancy is due to a delay in treatment.

There are multiple reasons why people wait to seek out medical care. Fear. Concern of what families and friends will say. A stubborn trend to be dismissive of traditional medicine. A sense that HIV and AIDS is a disease of the other. I still marvel at talking to a preacher, about 9 years back, who went into the history of AIDS. According to his rendering  AIDS was created in a federal lab, spread to gay men as a way to rid the world of homosexuality.

“Thank goodness the virus hasn’t hit the black community yet,” he said.

Hopefully that man of faith joined the reality based world, but as the numbers show too many are not there yet.

Rick Rosendall, a spokesperson for the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, was among the first to speak at the hearing in Washington, D.C. He told the D.C. Council that opponents of same-sex marriage “describe marriage equality activists as both a small minority and a Goliath that needs a David to slay us.”

“Bishop [Harry] Jackson,” a leading opponent of same-sex marriage in D.C., “talks as if gay people just arrived here from another planet,” said Rosendall. “In fact, our roots in this city run deep. We have helped build our communities, and we will defend them from the ministers of fear and intolerance.” That was around the start of the hearing, at 3:30.

Nearly 100 witnesses and more than seven hours later, Ernestine Copeland, an opponent of same-sex marriage, ended the first day of the hearing at 10:58, asking, “Who among you would allow your male dog to lie with a male dog?” She harangued the Council for deciding “to lead my people to hell” by supporting same-sex marriages which “will destroy our society.”

At the same time, the D.C. board of elections held its own hearing Monday — on whether to allow a proposed initiative to ban licensing of same-sex marriages in the city. According to the Washington Blade, a D.C. gay newspaper, about 100 people showed up for that hearing, most of them for the initiative. Earlier this year, the board rejected a ballot measure to overturn a new law that recognizes marriage licenses granted to same-sex couples by other states.

The same-sex marriage bill was sponsored by openly gay Councilmember David Catania, a former Republican, now Independent. It is co-sponsored by ten of the Council’s 14 members. The Council voted 12 to 1 in May to approve a law that gives legal recognition to marriage licenses obtained by same-sex couples in other jurisdictions.

Phil Mendelson, chairman of the D.C. Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary and a co-sponsor of the bill, said the committee would “hear from the remaining 169 witnesses” during the second day of the two-day hearing, Monday, Nov. 2.

In Washington State, polling data give pro-gay forces a slight edge going into Tuesday’s vote, where Referendum Measure 71 will ask voters whether to approve or reject a newly passed domestic partnership law.

Though it is a matter being put to voters, most of the media attention has been bogged down in various court skirmishes over whether public documents — such as petitions which called for the referendum — can be withheld from the public and whether contributions can be limited.

The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in briefly, voting 8 to 1 on October 20, to uphold a decision that blocks the release of the Referendum 71 petitions until a federal court can hold a trial on the issue. (Justice John Paul Stevens was the lone dissenter.)

The anti-gay group Protect Marriage Washington filed the original lawsuit, claiming the availability of the petitions publicly violated the First Amendment rights of the people who signed the petitions because the public disclosure chills their speech. In a separate federal lawsuit, the Family Policy Institute is challenging the state’s disclosure laws for contributions to the referendum campaign and limits on the size of those contributions.

Copyright 2009 Keen News Service

Well we made it. National Equality March Friday. Some of you are getting ready to head to Washington, DC. Others will remain home and do good deeds. There will be those at  their favorite bar in a  drunken haze complaining how once again the gay media failed because they just heard about the march.  And the rest will insist they are not gay while trolling the parks for some male booty. That last group always brings a little chuckle.

I have no idea what will happen these next two days. Can’t even  guess how many folk will show. Honestly all that matters is life on October 12 and after. Will this lead to a victory in Maine? Will we get concrete information on when DADT and DOMA will be dealt with?  If this march helps those goals, then happy day. If not, we got a problem and it might be time to consider keeping our eyes local.

My smallish ears will be  wide open though. You might, if you are good, get the occasional Tweet. And I’ll try to post stuff, but I have no laptop so that is not a promise in stone.

Drop by here if you are in DC and tell us what you think. If you don’t go,  share how your weekend is going and what you are doing. If you are in the park trolling, please take that mess somewhere else.

Feel free to say hello if you see me walking the streets of DC.

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.

The bill was almost certain to pass and had been expected for some time. But whether it becomes law is more complicated because Congress gets to review D.C. legislation before it takes effect.

At least one Republican congressman has said he will work to have the bill defeated if it passes the D.C. council.

“Some fights are worth fighting for,” said U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, who thinks Democrats in Congress would likely block any vote on D.C.’s measure. “This is one of them.”

The city began in July recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Congress had a chance to act on that legislation, but it quietly passed earlier this year.

D.C. Councilman David Catania introduced the new bill 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 said religious leaders and institutions are not required to perform the marriages or rent their space for same-sex ceremonies.

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 only rejected three pieces of legislation. According to Brian Flowers, the city’s general counsel, the last time was in 1991, when Congress rejected a law 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.

So the march for equality is gaining steam. People are dusting off their slogans, ready to get their national protest on and show some moral outrage. Cool (well not really but I’m an innocent bystander in all of this); however, here is a question rally attendees should ruminate on: why are event organizers not paying attention to the local gay community that has done the trench work to form a coalition in support of marriage rights?

Actually a larger question is why is the District getting no national love for its progress on gay marriage. Sure everyone had much ink to spill on California  and the failure of Proposition 8, but the nation’s capitol, a southern town with a sizable black population, is spitting distance from marriage equality. It would seem an easy call that any national rally in support of gay rights would be looking to DC folk for a few tips. It might be an easy call, but it wasn’t made and local marriage rights advocates are planning their own outreach efforts come October 11.

I will gladly defend the organizers of the march from unfair charges (complaining they didn’t get the word out is out of touch), but to plan a  gay rights rally and not talk to the local community, working on the same, is hubris.