The Manhattan Project
Morning Roundup: Second Helpings Edition
Compromise Uncertain on Same-Sex Marriage Law
Fire at 17th and L NW Forces Evacuations
Sculpture Garden Ice-Skating Rink Remains Closed
As Capital Pride weekend approaches, this morning the Washington Blade reports that Mayor Adrian Fenty is ordering a review of the city's legal options in anticipation of same-sex couples in D.C. heading to California next week to get married. Nearly one month ago, the California State Supreme Court struck down a ban on same-sex marriage; the court's decision goes into effect Monday at 5 p.m. PDT.
Interim attorney general Peter Nickles has been directed to conduct this review, including developments since a similar review conducted in 2004 prompted by the ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Former attorney general Robert Spagnoletti conducted that review under former Mayor Anthony Williams. Williams never released that review.
Despite vowing to do so upon taking office, Fenty also hasn't released the review. Nickles told the Blade late last month, "I’ve advised [Fenty] that the Spagnoletti memo is outdated and that it ought not to be released."
Fenty plans to march in Saturday's Capital Pride Parade, as he did last year, evidenced by the photo at right.
Photo by maxedaperture
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
i hate to say this, but just hold off until after the election, fenty.
once we have a democratic president, and a larger majority in the house and senate, let's push for full marriage rights for all.
@IMGoph: Have many Dems actually come out in favor of Gay Marriage? Most seem to hedge their bets by supporting Civil Unions but being against using the word "marriage."
voteprime: no, i don't believe many dems support the use of the term marriage when it applies to all citizens of the country, but i do feel that they would be more likely to let the district pass laws that protect all of its citizens equally than repubs would be.
Speaking a Pride Week. Yes its Pride Week. No we don't want any breeder chicks at any of the events, bars, etc. Yeah, it might be really "neat" for you vaginas to come out and gawk and giggle but NO gay man wants to see you (or hear you), especially at a Gay Bar. So straight vag. keep acting like you're thirteen, expecting some guy to buy you a drink or move out of your way, and be really annoying at a straight bar. No man wants or needs you at these events.
IMGoph said:
once we have a democratic president, and a larger majority in the house and senate, let's push for full marriage rights for all.
I agree completely. Just give it a little more time, and DON'T give the Republicans something they can use to get their base riled up before the election.
old city - I hate vag as much as the next mo, but gay pride is for anyone who supports the cause. Why dont you tell that message to PFLAG members?
i happen to love the Pride Parade. i went two years ago, and it was so much fun. the participants and spectators are fantastic [and eagerly willing] photo opportunities.
if it's not too hot out, i'll be out there, camera in hand, with my lovely coworker - who happens to be gay. what a great time it'll be!
the government should get out of the business of marriage, it's an inherently religious institution. the government should instead allow civil unions for all. that way the church's can restrict whoever they want from getting married.
Ces12 - I guess I could have been clearer in the message. How about annoying vag wearing a cute little summer dress, big glasses, fli-flops, talking and gigling way to loud, standing in the way and getting WAY to drunk after 1 drink. I should have been a little less vague.
Old city, what if you're drunk, loud and giggly and wearing a cute summer dress and big sunglasses, but you're bi? Does this meet your exacting standards?
I promise I won't show up in flip flops.
DC can become a state and then recognize gay marriages no problem.
Can some lucky guy PLEASE make Jim Graham an honest man and get him to adopt so he can keep his club-closing, MD-hating, stay-at-home-dad ass at home?
IMGoph: I understand your point of not making this a divisive issue in a national election year. But I think you're missing the point. He's not talking about legalizing performing gay marriage in DC. He's talking about recognizing the gay marriages of DC citizens performed in other states.
Like it or not, California's Supreme Court opened a floodgate when it overturned the ban on gay marriage. Because there is no residency requirement to get married in California (unlike Massachusetts), gay DC couples can and probably will get married in California. So you're suggesting the Mayor allow these people live in legal limbo until after the election?
Fenty is bracing for the after effects of such actions. He can't simply ignore the situation that raises legal questions on the marriage rights of some citizens who were legally married in other states.
The Council has already stated that it doesn't plan on taking up the issue of gay marriage performed in DC until after the election.
Someone should ask to see the confidential memo written by the DA a few years ago about what to do if/when this situation arose. It's not like the mayor's office doesn't already have a plan to follow, even if it's a somewhat outdated plan.
Hey, VotePrime--
Actually a recent poll in California showed that 55% of Californians approve of having same-sex marriage in their state. That's the first time a poll showed a majority support for same-sex marriage, anywhere. So who knows about Democrats in general?
Can some lucky guy PLEASE make Jim Graham an honest man and get him to adopt so he can keep his club-closing, MD-hating, stay-at-home-dad ass at home?
David Catania's single, right?
Now that would be a power couple.
It seems fundamentally wrong to celebrate inclusivity by practicing exclusivity, but what do I know, I'm just straight vag.
erincarly: Yours is exactly the mindset Old City rightly criticized: "i went two years ago, and it was so much fun. the participants and spectators are fantastic [and eagerly willing] photo opportunities."
Why else would you be interested in taking pictures of so many random people if not to gawk at all the silly queers and take pictures of them to post on your myspace page to show everyone in Peoria how progressive you are by stooping to stare at a bunch of freaks. (My, that's a lot of infinitives!)
drew: i understand. i guess that forcing our newly married district friends who were married in california to live in limbo for a couple months might not be the worst thing in the world. better than having some draconian order passed that guarantees their limbo status for years and years to come.
mellbell: It's not being exclusive. It's being fed up with people who venture into the Gayborhood (or whats left of it) for the pride parade and high heel race and walk around patting themselves on the back and expecting everyone else to do the same for being so "open-minded". I know most straight people don't intentionally have this attitude, but, nevertheless, most do and most gays find it incredibly frustrating and demeaning.
Pride is the one time of year the gay community celebrates itself. I easily share Old City's frustration, although I might not express it in exactly the same way. (I always spelled it "vadge" not "vag")
I like the idea of civil unions or partnerships better than the term marriage. One of the benefits of gay partnerships is that they tend to be more egalitarian and I like being able to define my relationship rather than have society do it for me(great article in NYT on it). That being said, I agree that the State should only perform civil unions and allow each religion to choose to or not to perform a marriage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/health/10well.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin
Actually, this poll shows support for gay marriage throughout the US: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-03-gay-marriage-poll_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip.
That doesn't say a lot regarding support among Democratic politicians, but it is interesting and cool.
No we don't want any breeder chicks at any of the events, bars, etc. Yeah, it might be really "neat" for you vaginas to come out and gawk and giggle but NO gay man wants to see you (or hear you), especially at a Gay Bar.
What about straight guys?
If Fenty really wants to prove that he's 100% behind this effort, then he will get gay married to someone — perhaps Sinclair Skinner — or else I'm not buying it.
ironically, I don't believe California will grant divorces unless you are a resident for at least 6 months...
Hey, old_city and others, referring to any woman as vagina, vag, or even vadge is seriously demeaning to all women -- including those of us who fall on the purple spot of the rainbow.
Don't like the straight people who come out for Pride and crowd up your favorite bar? Fine. Be a grouch if you want. I don't think that's what Pride's about, but I can understand that it's frustrating to feel objectified and/or get annoyed that obnoxious people are crashing your party. But do you really have to take your gay and bi sisters down at the same time with a comment that reduces women to our genitals?
If Fenty should marry anyone, they should be a MD driver or, barring that, a Harkonnen.
You think only of the gays' desire for a wedding? Desires don't figure into this! A DC Mayor could have been wed to a Harkonnen heir and sealed the breach. We may lose both blood lines now.
Yeah, tophersez, I've never understood the License to Hate thing. Pride shouldn't be negative.
@nowisthetime And that would be precisely why this paranoid lawyer won't get married until it's clear that DC would fully recognize the marriage as valid for purposes of ALL of DC's marriage laws.
Why else would you be interested in taking pictures of so many random people if not to gawk at all the silly queers and take pictures of them
Some people enjoy capturing happy moments for posterity. And hey, this queer guy hopes more straight people come celebrate with and support us.
i guess that forcing our newly married district friends who were married in california to live in limbo for a couple months might not be the worst thing in the world. better than having some draconian order passed that guarantees their limbo status for years and years to come.
IMGoph: The Human Rights Campaign advocates that there are something like 1,542 inaliable rights guaranteed to couples who can marry that don't apply to couples who cannot. They range from everything to power of attorney, to making medical decisions, to spousal privilege, to filing joint tax returns.
To have couples legally marry only to leave them in limbo in terms of recognizing the validity of that marriage is ridiculous. By advocating that they should forego these rights just so it stays off the radar screen of the election is avoidance. It only further cements that they are second class citizens at best.
And I hate to tell you, but regardless of whether the Fenty Administration prepares for this or not, the actions of the California Supreme Court will in-and-of-itself have a more profound effect on this election.
All I know is, my queer wedding shower is Saturday, so I'll be missing Pride! But hey, it's for a good cause!
Oh and Mellbell, maybe you know -- what's the going rate for walking over a bridge these days, or are the trolls all independent businesspeople?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/24/national/main601828.shtml
Republicans, conservatives, and people in the South are the most likely to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage – about three-quarters of each group does. Majorities of Democrats, Independents, moderates, those without a college degree, and those in the Midwestern and Western regions also favor a marriage amendment.
Opponents of the constitutional amendment include liberals (62%) and those who have a college degree or higher education (51%). Northeasterners are slightly more likely to oppose the amendment than support it, 49% to 45%. Young Americans under age 30 are more likely than older people to oppose the amendment, but a majority of them still favors it.
That's 2004. Right around the time that the state referendums were in the news. Things seem to be shifting toward more support of same-sex marriage, at least in liberal strongholds. And it is the 40th anniversary of the Loving decision. . . which helps put things in a wee bit of context.
Thanks Bill for providing polling data that is over four years old.
According to Pollster.com, support for gay marriage is on the rise. In 1985, only 11% of Americans supported the idea. In 1996, when the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law, the number had risen to 28%. In 2004, when Massachusetts enacted gay marriage rights, support stood at 30%. And the week before the California ruling (in 2008) support stood at 40%.
When asked whether American support gay marriage or civil unions, that number jumped from 40% to 53%. Ergo, a majority of Americans support granting some legal recognition to gay relationships.
And, according to a most recent Field Poll, a slim majority of Californians support gay marriage. 40% oppose.
i second tophersez and mellbell.
old city,
pride is not exclusive to gay men, and not all straight people are at pride to gawk. get over yourself.
- from a straight woman who will go wherever she damn pleases.
drew: in an ideal world, yes, i would say that the rights that are withheld from same-sex couples should be granted to them immediately. but this is a horribly bigoted and narrow-minded country that we live in, and to just say "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" is admirable, but a fool's task.
shit, i hate to be a downer, but we're not going to change the world overnight. it's a struggle. we're closer than before, and closer than ever, but not there yet.
IMGoph: Then your beef is with California's Supreme Court and not the Fenty Administration. They were the ones who said their marriage law was unconstitutional and they were the ones who opened the flood gate.
Even if California amends its Constitution in November to ban same-sex marriage, all of those couples who did get married between Monday and November would still be legally married.
All the Fenty Administration is doing is trying to determine what course of action to take to deal with the legal implications of all of this. The bell has already been rung and you can not unring it. To avoid preparing for future problems is a fool's task as well.
drew: let me reiterate, i have no beef with anyone here. just trying to share an opinion. i feel like we're talking past each other, and i really see no point in that. i'm just going to end this by saying i want equal marriage rights for all.