The Weekly Feed: Experimentation Edition
Morning Roundup: Change Edition
Former Blade Staffers Launch 'DC Agenda'
D.C. Insurance Dept. Denies Birth Control Coverage Meddling
Controversy Over Rhee Now to Include Sex, Congress
Ever since the D.C. Council voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, there has been a growing debate over whether or not the District will proceed one step further and fully legalize the practice. Proponents have been thrilled at the possibility of the city's legislature making the move; opponents have warned of a great social and cultural conflict that could result.
One resolution that has been floated has been to put the question to the District's voters by having a referendum in the 2010 election on whether to allow same-sex marriage in the city. In a posting to themail, DC Watch's widely-read email newsletter, resident K. West warned that only a referendum could head off any future conflicts over the issue:
A referendum is a must to quell the brewing civil war and take the issue out of the hands of politicians. Whether you are for same sex marriage or against it, a referendum in the nation’s capital is a must. The issue goes beyond the votes of a handful of politicians and beyond the carefully, brilliantly, and strategically organized ward political meetings to push the Marriage Equality or same-sex clause.The Examiner's Jonetta Rose Barras, herself a powerful voice in local politics, similarly opined on the matter over the weekend, arguing that using local Democratic committees to vote on the matter (Democrats in wards 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 have voted; only Ward 5 came out in opposition) bucked public opinion. Marriage equality activists, she stated in an op-ed, "[C]ould take their cause directly to the people. They could push to place an initiative on the ballot in 2010. The results from that effort would provide indisputable evidence of District residents’ position, wouldn’t it?"
Picture snapped by bSmithPhotoBlogDotOrg
Barras is right, in a sense. Having the people vote on an issue is in theory the best way to establish consensus and closure on it. But after Proposition 8 passed in California in November and was upheld by the California Supreme Court yesterday, it's unlikely that many marriage equality activists will want to submit the question to popular vote. Additionally, they argue, marriage equality is an issue of basic civil rights, and rights of that sort should not be left to the whim of the majority. (Personally, I'm with them. Marriage is a state-recognized legal contract, and limiting it to heterosexual couples is discriminatory.)
Though pressure has been building on members of the D.C. Council, none seem to be backing from their pledge to support the legislation recognizing out-of-state gay marriages once it comes up for a second vote. (Update: Oops. It already came up for a second vote and passed, with only Marion Barry dissenting.) Of course, the current political dynamic might change once the issue becomes whether or not to allow same-sex marriage in the District. We still don't believe it's as divisive an issue as some opponents like to claim -- the polling data they cite dates back to 2006 and doesn't very conclusively prove that the city's majority African-American voters are overwhelmingly lined up against the idea. But if the issue heats up more than it currently has, the voices for a citywide referendum may well grow louder and more insistent.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"Though pressure has been building on members of the D.C. Council, none seem to be backing from their pledge to support the legislation recognizing out-of-state gay marriages once it comes up for a second vote."
A minor problem with canned posts. Somebody may want to edit this... the legislation already passed.
Thanks for using my photo! Proud that a capture from such a worthy event makes it into DCist's coverage. Please work to help your friends, family, co-workers and neighbors in their quest to gain equal rights!!! For too long they have been second class citizens and it is time that we all work to support their efforts...
Go to http://dcformarriage.blogspot.com/ and sign up to help with their efforts...
My mistake. Change made.
Don't do it. If there is a referendum then the LDS money will start flowing in. No matter what the public ward votes were, I still don't think you can underestimate the results among Blacks and Hispanics in the Calif. vote.
Actually, Hispanic voters have about the same voting profile as white voters on gay marriage. Nate Silver posted on this yesterday.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/hispanics-back-gay-marriage-at-same.html
Why are you bringing up all these data and facts, undermining our ability to fight predudice with predudice?
Wow, "predudice?" Twice? Cripes.
isn't it a pretty straightforward fact that if jim crow laws were put up to a popular vote in the 1960s, they would have been easily upheld by the white majority in every southern state?
you can't leave civil rights up to a popular vote.
So what's to stop Congress from overriding a same-sex marriage referendum, like they did the medical marijuana initiative?
If they seriously want to get this past the Congressional gauntlet, they need to include some pro-gun-rights legislation to mollify the Republicans. Maybe legislation to allow gay shotgun marriages, or to mandate shooting ranges in church basements.
I wish someone would start a DC chapter of the Pink Pistols.
So let's see.... if we're going to vote on fundamental civil rights, what else can we vote on.....
How about a referendum in DC to determine whether black people are allowed to live west of 16th St.? Hell, perhaps we should vote on the whole civil rights agenda of the 1960s? I bet there are a lot of people in DC who would just *love* the ability to vote away the crackhouse on the corner. Hey, I know people (Democrats, even, with *master's* degrees!) who probably would vote for resegregation because they're tired of shootings on their corner.
See, the funny thing is that the people in DC most opposed to gay rights are also those on whom the exact same discriminatory arguments were used decades ago. Those arguments weren't right then, and they aren't now.
Oh, and I love that this whole thing is being pushed by black churches from PG county and not, you know, people who actually live in DC.
If/When same sex marriage becomes legal in DC, I will be watching that mormon castle on the beltway very carefully.
One sign of a trebuchet on the ramparts and I'm heading for the hills!
They may even embrace the "Surrender Dorothy" slogan as their rallying cry.
(Note to anyone under 30: I don't know if this is still done in the post 911 security crackdown, but an overpass near the church used to be regularly tagged with this gem.)
I went to U of M with the guys who did the "Surrender Dorothy" tag! They were both in the Vet's Club; one held the other's ankles as he spraypainted the letters upside down. That's why the first "d" was backwards. Good times.
"..one held the other's ankles as he spraypainted..."
Dude, I know you are pro-gay rights and all, but that is just gross.
I always think Voltron when I see that place. And any astute Voltron watcher will remember that the Voltron palace had the ability to take off like a rocket and fly away. I suspect that the Mormon temple can do that too. All while telling you who your great grand parents were.
Speaking of the out-of-state marriage bill, has it been signed? What's the deadline for Congressional disapproval?
The timeline for the DC Marriage Recognition bill is 30 days from it's passing which was on May 5. That should mean that on June 5th it will become law if Congress has not stopped it (which as far as I know they have not actively done yet). Fenty has said he will sign it. *crosses fingers*...
I believe it's actually 30 "legislative days." I'm thinking that means days that Congress is in session, though it *could* just mean business days.
It's 30 legislative days from the time the bill is transmitted to Congress. Not sure when that occurred. The language is:
Anyone who trusts the general populace to make the best decision in an informed way is on crack.
Oh wait.
I'm all for it. It'll allow me to invite some of those strapping LDS lads in for 'coffee'. And by 'coffee' I mean naked cribbage and beer, their magic underwear piled neatly in the corner.
Then, right after that, it'll allow me time to put a referendum out there outlawing the LDS in DC. Then, after that, one outlawing interfaith marriages in DC. Then, I go after those freakish short people trying to marry up and hook themselves a regular size person.
Oh, the list of things we could mess with unnecessarily is long. So long.
So don't tempt me. I really do have that kind of time on my hands.
Then, I go after those freakish short people trying to marry up and hook themselves a regular size person.
Damn straight! Why should we allow short people to marry when they got nobody to love?
The false assumption to me appears to be that Barry and his 150 great protesters actually speak for blacks in DC. For one thing, most of the ministers serve people from PG and Mo. county who drive in for church, who can't vote in DC anyway, second Barry is out of touch with all but one fairly small segment of the DC black population.
As for the vote; my gut tells me it would pass and the people of DC can be trusted to support civil rights, but my brain tells me that the ballots would be full of right-ins which read like: "legalize mary uana and partees, no gay allowed, make jesus mayor"
Or, better yet, a simple referendum stating that we will apply Biblical marriage standards to all DC marriages.
I can't wait to marry some underage girls against their will. And the polygamy thing sortof appeals to me. I can't promise I can make it to 300 or so, like Solomon (blessed by God), but I can sure try. And they are just women, right, so I can really do as I please with them.
Heck, I'll do just like Jacob (who subsequently received God's blessing and 'attaboys') when he married sisters, one of whom he didn't love. Yep, married to one hottie sister and one non-hottie at the same time. That's the Biblical marriage life for me.
Then, I'll go find me some Iraqi widows of dead Iraqi soldiers. And I'll rape them and force them to marry me. But, as the Bible commands, I'll wait an appropriate time so they can grieve over their dead husband that we killed.
I'm with Hillman. DC definitely needs to amend its antequated anti-incestuous marriage laws. If it's good enough for Lot and his daughters, dagnabbit, it's good enough for me. Also, DC needs a more thorough application of Exodus 22:18, except with a broader definition of "sorceress" to include politicians who smoke crack and eat babies. Finally, I the church needs to accept my "marriage" to my rainbow-farting unicorn "Sardanapalus" and acknowledge and celebrate our love.
Should we vote to grant marriage rights to gays?
Should we have voted to free the slaves?
Should we have voted to end the 3/5ths law?
Should we have voted to stop Nazi oppression?
Should we have voted to desegregate schools?
Should we have voted to allow inter-racial marriage?
To me these questions all have the same basic flaw--the people in the majority (power) are NEVER the people who are being discriminated against--rather, they are the people who are allowing the discrimination to take place. Therefore, it is completely illogical to expect that people are qualified to vote on matters of equality, justice, and civil liberties where protection of minority group is concerned.
That is why we have an elected representative government. We elect people whom we believe are qualified to speak on our behalf for issues we don't have the time or the desire to speak on. If we begin to let people vote for these types of things, the entire system breaks down. It's basic Government 101 people.
There are times when change needs to be made by the people; but I do not believe this is one of them. The GLBT community has made tremendous social progress in the last decade but we are STILL second-class citizens under the law and this is not right. If we leave this up to "the people" it'll be decades (if ever) before society finally comes to its senses. I find it an embarassment that we're still having this debate when many European nations are light years ahead of us in civil equality--hell even CANADA was able to correct these injustices before us!
If we were to let people vote on these matters than I say we vote on an official religion... I guarantee you seperation of church and state would go flying out the window quicker than you can say "hail Mary" and we'd be an all-Christian nation real quick--so please, tell me how voting fixes all our societal ills? Judges and legislatures (unlike the people) are not supposed to be biased in their decision-making... the voters however, have religious, cultural, and personal biases--it is not fair to subject ALL of us to something that a slim majority favor. The legislatures and judicial branches are able to make these decisions without influence of religion (in theory) which is supposed to be the way our government works!
**Additionally, they argue, marriage equality is an issue of basic civil rights, and rights of that sort should not be left to the whim of the majority.**
Agreed, but isn't the whim of the majority of voters an improvement on the whim of the majority of a small group of politically-motivated councilpeople? Am I missing something?
Yes. The difference between representative and direct democracy and the fact that we've opted to generally operate under the former.
Yeah lets take a vote and while we are at it lets have another referendum that states that everyone who votes against gay marriage on the first referendum loses their freedom and becomes the propriety of a unwed gay couple.
I find it amazing how many people on both sides of the aisle think that everything comes to majority rules.
Did they all sleep through government class? Have none of them read the Constitution?
Civil rights are not up for debate.
I agree, I want my second amendment rights and I want them now.
everyone who votes against gay marriage on the first referendum loses their freedom and becomes the propriety of a unwed gay couple.
Well, that's one way of getting around the adoption agency's red tape.