Updated Forecast: In Excess of 8" of Snow, Plus Wind
And Now, 10-20 Inches
Federal Govt. Closed Tuesday
Snowmaggedon 1.0 in Time Lapse
Martin made the case yesterday that playing up the racial divisions within our city when it comes to same-sex marriage was misleading, especially when considering how the Ward 8 Democrats recently voted to support marriage equality legislation, despite opposition from their D.C. Council member.
Well it looks like things got a little more heated at last night's Ward 5 Democrats meeting. The D.C. Democratic Party released some video of the discussion/near-shouting match that led up to an 87-51 vote against same-sex marriage. That's a massive turnout for any Ward party meeting, and it's clear that the same group of ministers who organized last month's Wilson Building rally are targeting Ward 5 D.C. Council member Harry Thomas, Jr. as a potential "no" vote on broader marriage equality legislation.
The video shows a series of impassioned speeches before the vote, alternating between gay Ward 5 Democrats and religious black Ward 5 Democrats, until the whole thing starts to fall apart and both D.C. Democratic Party chair Anita Bonds and Gertrude Stein Club president Jeff Richardson were forced to stand up and remind everyone to keep things civil.
Along with Ward 8, the Democratic committees of Wards 2 and 4 have already met to approve similar resolutions.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Discrimination isn't justified by majority vote.
I agree. Let's get rid of these unconstitutional gun laws, no matter what the Council says.
Bravo on the screwball tangent. Not that it's relevant, but you failed on guessing my politics. I happen to think that DC's blanket gun ban was unconstitutional and, with that, no referendum or council support could justify it.
"How blessed are the bigoted...for they shall inherit Alabama.."
I say we vote to keep fucking religion out of politics.
All in favor.
Braise the Slord and bass the mammunition!
Here here! Why are religious arguments even being considered? What happened to the first line of the first amendment? The marriage equality act is a civil issue before a civil body.
This continues to piss me off; religious assholes getting involved in politics.
Did you all read/see the GQ article about Donald Rumsfeld's Morning Briefings to the President?
Doesn't bother me so much. Churches have had a political voice since day one. As much as I wish they'd shut their traps up about abortion and gay rights, remember that they were a huge force in civil rights.
Civil Rights for Straight People I assume you mean?
No, not at all. I am all for the gayz. I just don't think its a "if it wasn't for churches, we'd be filling out registries at Macy's right now." issue.
People have free will. They can vote how they want no matter what the church says.
Sorry I didn't mean to imply anything about your views. My point was the churches supported civil rights when it was a "safe" bet (general civil rights). When it comes to civil rights for gays they turn away.
Not all churches supported civil rights then, not all oppose them now. It's worth remembering that churches are just the people that make them.
It's worth remembering that churches are just the people that make them.
Maybe...maybe more often churches aren't the "people" but instead their pastor, the one guy who is the figurehead, and those who don't agree either leave the church or acquiesce.
My point was the churches supported civil rights when it was a "safe" bet (general civil rights).
This can't pass by without comment. Rethink your wording here. I can't think of a less accurate word than "safe" to describe civil rights-era activism.
Agreed. The cops should bring out the firehoses and attack dogs on these clowns.
Operative woed: WERE. For the past few decades, the churches have been squarely against civil rights, as the video proves.
Being religious is a plus in the Federal Gubment. Iffen you ain't the religious type, thens you's a Satanist or terrorist. Trust me....I've been there.
As it is said, "Been there, done that". I had a thumping co-worker who bugged the shit out of us. I fought fire with fire. Told her she was going to hell because she had not dedicated her total soul to the lord. Told her the lord didn't want women working, only having babies. Told her if she wasn't home having babies she was cursing the lord. I was ruthless and in time she left the office. One down.
This vote needs to be thrown out; the minister and his congregants from the SE were causing such a commotion that nobody could figure out what was going on. The ballot was confusing and totally invalid due to faulty questions. I would not put much stock in this pole from Ward 5.
Oh, and Minister, I ask you again, the same question I asked you in this meeting...
"How can you justify what you want to do? How can you justify what you want to do in the name of God?!"
And no this bill has nothing to do with marrying cousins, sisters, or children--you need to stop spreading your lies to my neighbors in Ward 5!
The bible can be used to justify just about any argument that you want to make. And for the record: the bible also condones slavery so if we're gonna follow the bible...(hey, I'm just sayin')
Can you die from an overdose of irony?
While my one vote as a Ward 5 Democrat would not have changed the outcome, I wish I had attended the meeting and added my voice.
First of all, I, too, am a native Washingtonian who was taught by my mother, my church, my school, my peers and the surrounding culture that marriage is between a man and a woman.
But just because everyone says it's so doesn't make it so.
As I heard a minister argue that Biblical teaching and culture dictated that the District not recognize same-sex marriage, I recalled a time that Biblical teaching and majority culture dictated that my ancestors not be treated as fully human because of their dark skin. Majority culture accepted that my father could repair a bus for D.C. Transit but only his white co-workers could drive that bus -- until people who believed in the equality of all people defied the majority view, and in the process defied white ministers who preached segregation and black ministers who preached acquiescence to the old order.
This is not to denigrate Christianity -- I am a proud Christian -- but it is a reminder that when the Founding Fathers forged this nation, they created a legal system that was informed by, but not bound to, the culture of their day. And the Bill of Rights explicitly separates politics from theology, making it clear that one must never govern the other. Thus under our government a theological precept can never be used to argue a political precept -- especially when the issue is the rights that governments confer to their citizens.
Nonetheless, one of the continuing disturbing tendencies of the past three decades, as the conservative movement has walked arm-in-arm with fundamentalist Christianity, is that we look aghast at how fundamentalist Islamic societies use religion to justify government control, suppression and even brutality against groups of people because of their gender, sexual orientation, their refusal to adhere to the majority religion or to its practices -- and we mimic some of the same behavior.
The next time a meeting like this happens in my community, I pledge to be there. I will not have my rights circumscribed (and my own faith as a Christian disregarded) by a Christian Taliban.
amen, amen, amen!
These ministers always scream "referendum vote" and "let the people decide" beause they know that is the only way they can win. I wonder if that same black minister was crying "let the people vote" when it came to the debate of interacial marriage and desegregation (which he was likely around to whitness given the appearence of his age).
I can't understand why people think that civil rights, equality, and the status of oppressed people should somehow be left to the benevelance of the majority (or the lack thereof, in most cases)!? The majority of people in power during President Licoln's time would have undoubtably voted NOT to free the slaves; likewise I very much doubt the people of this nation would have voted to strike down segregation back in the late 60's. Hell in most states you STILL would probably see voters supporting such things, even in 2009! The protection of the minorities CAN NOT be left to the people to decide; nor should it--the entire foundation of our electoral system is that we realize we are not able or qualified to make all of the decisions of government--that is why we elect people to do that job for us. We place our trust in them to act as an agent of the people, but with a higher responsibility to protect the interests of ALL people, not just a certain group that happens to be more vocal (numbers aside). If our elected officials do not act responsibly than it is our duty to publicly correct them and vote for someone different the next time around.
The argument that the DC council members are not listening to the will of the people is invalid and defunct; for in fact they ARE listening to the will of the people; by protecting those who cannot protect themselves. The DC council has made no changes to laws infringing upon the rights of these ministers nor will they ever. The idea here is that the government should be able to issue marriage licenses to two consenting, non-related adults regardless of their gender. If churches desire to do this as well, they will be permitted to--there is NO desire on anyone's part in this movement to FORCE churches to grant same-sex marriages against their beliefs!
These ministers have no rational argument--they have only fear, lies, bigotry, and empty emotional appeals to rely on! How dare some southeast minister with his congregants in tow, come to our ward meeting and create such confusion and upheaval!
FYI—that first speaker in the video is barrie daneker, the anc commissioner for the northern part of bloomingdale and stronghold. and i'm damn proud to have him as one of my community leaders.
that second speaker should be happy if we go back to seperate but equal then. i'm going to start a petition drive to bring back the jurisprudence and legal framework of plessy v. ferguson, and have it signed in black churches. i mean, if you follow his logic, that makes perfect sense, right?
and did he really say, "you use the term gay, which suggests to me you're already happy."? that has to be the quote of the day.
the THIRD speaker....i can't believe she invoked godwin's law in this debate.
i'm embarrassed by the folks in my ward who voted for intolerance, hatred, and bigotry.
Seriously?
You know, I'll bet that a couple of generations ago a lot of people where taught by their mothers, their grandmothers, their school, and their church that marriage meant a holy union between a man and a woman of the same race. Has the minister not considered this? I'm sorry, but this man is clearly an idiot.
Civil marriage is CIVIL! Churches don't have to recognize it within the church. This is about the government recognizing it.
And this is where activists in the lgbt community lost (or at a bare minimum made it way harder to win than it had to be) the fight for marriage equality: by insisting on the word marriage.
Fine: let marriage be between a man and a woman only. Let it be a sacrament performed in a church setting with the blessing of the congregation. And let it convey no legal rights whatsoever.
The conveyance of rights under the law is the province of government and government only.
By insisting on marriage, lgbt community leaders placed a higher value on assimilation than then did on actually reforming a system that has been broken for centuries.
The only fair way to approach the joining of two people as a couple recognized under the law and granted special privileges not given to people not so joined is to make all such joinings civil unions.
I tend to agree with you that marriage as the ceremonious blessing should not convey the legal protections. In all reality I think people should go before a judge and get their license, than if they so desire, go to a church for the pomp and circumstance that goes along with weddings these days.
HOWEVER, if these ministers have people convinced that allowing gays to marry will destroy the "traditional institution of marriage" IMAGINE how upset they'd all be if we actually were trying to change how marriage is performed?! It would be counter-productive however necessary it is.
The idea behind the marriage equality movement is that there must not be "marriage for straights" and a second-class "marriage for those other folks, the dirty gays". We will not be second-class citizens with second-class rights. If I recall, that didn't go over to well during the 1960's among ethnic and racial segregation opponents. Separate but equal is a myth that can never happen.
I think the real problem here is that the GLBT community lacks unity, organization, purpose, energy and focus. We need leaders who can speak passionately and who live amongst the ignorance and prejudice we're working against. We need more people like the handful of us who spoke up during that meeting to start talking more and bridging the gap between the confused Ward 5 residents who sit on both sides of this debate.
You both make valid points, but one can't be "almost equal" to others. The problem here isn't persons of the same sex wanting to live together in a recognized union. The problem is with those who don’t want them to.
Calling it something else to “please” others is degrading. It is as BigBreakfast said a legal recognition. It really doesn’t matter what churches or church-goers have to say about these unions. It is none of their business and the LGBT community should distance themselves from those who are closed-minded.
Protections for religious freedom can be built into the marriage equality statutes, as is being done now in New Hampshire. No church is going to be "forced" to recognize, support or endorse same-sex marriages within its walls. That's just a red herring designed to gull the masses.
The church continues to lead the ignorant and uninformed masses.
San Dimas High School Football Rules!