Man Stops Traffic at 17th and K to Demand $200 Million
Morning Roundup: Goodbye, Abe Edition
Judge Throws Out WTU Suit Over Teacher Layoffs
Vegetate to Close at the End of the Month
Morning Roundup: Rain Won't Go Away Edition
As expected, Bishop Harry Jackson filed his petition with the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics today to request a ballot initiative on legalizing same-sex marriage in the District. It's a move designed to preempt legislative action from the D.C. Council on the issue later this year (At-large councilmember David Catania has promised to introduce such a bill this fall), with Jackson betting on a redux of California's Prop 8. Perhaps more surprising, however, is that the Archdiocese of Washington has also gotten involved in the movement, although without officially joining Jackson's Stand4MarriageDC coalition. The Post reports that Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl also submitted a letter to the elections board today calling for a referendum. Via Tim Craig:
"It is ironic that at the same time the city is asking for voting representation in the U.S. Congress, its leaders are denying residents the opportunity to participate in the Democratic process for an issue with widespread implications for children and families," Ronald Jackson, executive director of the D.C. Catholic Conference, said in a statement.Sigh. It's a real shame to discover that the Catholic Church doesn't understand the difference between representative democracy and direct democracy.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"Sigh. It's a real shame to discover that the Catholic Church doesn't understand the difference between representative democracy and direct democracy."
I know! It's a especially disconcerting that I never received my mail-in ballot for last year's Papal election.
Well, give them a break. Most of their priests can barely navigate that fine, fine line between mentoring and fondling.
Love that one sign -- "Let's vote on your marriage". And that person hopes to gain...what, exactly?
I'm surprised more things don't go up for referendum in this town given the general wackiness of the city council.
@Reid: nice blanket generalization. I think I've seen your work on some really awful SNL sketches a few years ago.
I think that person is trying to get you to think about how absurd it is to have a popular vote on the validity of marriages between consenting adults. Pretty clear message I think.
Wait is that your hand under the blanket generalization rubbing my thigh or is it mine?
*chuckle* All I'm saying is that the creepy priest jokes are completely tired out.
Jeebus, is Harry Jackson still pretending to live in a one-bedroom apartment in DC?
If the proposed referendum doesn't violate the D.C. Human Rights Act, it goes forward. If it does, it won't. Period. End of story. This simple equation is getting lost in the PR machine that screams "OH NOES, WE CAN NOZ HAZ TEH VOTZ!" This isn't about disenfrachisement, but rather about the law.
What will HAVE to happen in order for any of this to work is for the papists and the baptists et al. to seek amendment of the Act to remove the prohibition against discriminating against teh gayz. THEN you won't have a bar to the referendum on gay marriage, then you can proceed. But since that's politically unpallatable (because this isn't about discrimination, but about the sanctity of marriage - shah) it will never happen. Alternatively, they could argue that the amendment doesn't discriminate against teh gayz, but good fricking luck with that.
Teh gayz can marry whichever consenting adult over the age of 18 of the opposite sex they want.
Let freedom ring.
I, for one, am all for so-called 'Marriage Panels'.
Who cares what these clowns think?
Oh, Jesus. Why is the Catholic Church making it harder and harder to ignore the things I don't like about it? At some point I'm going to have to give up and just convert to Episcopalian.
I'm particularly disappointed in Donnie Wuerl. You're not exactly doing Mt. Washington proud, sir!
I knew Donald Wuerl personally at the North American
College in Rome in the summer of 1985. I went out to dinner with a few times in a group and sat next to him one night at an outdoor restaurant terrace as I recall. Gosh, I can really understand having spent some time with him why he is opposing gay rights, though of course I disagree with him. He struck me as a such a strong, virile guy. You would never think of him. "what a complete nancy boy!" His mode of expression was was so masculine. Not for him the the flouncy wispy milquetoast behavior of others. I remember his probing looks, if I didn't know he was such guy's- guy I would have thought them rather come-hither. "Are you staying on the top floor of the college, it's really lovely views up there." His cadence, and bending wrists no doubt had to do with the very long linguini we had all ordered. Though I think it is too bad he has to oppose gay rights, clearly a solid straight guy like Wuerl deserves an attempt at understanding. Surely if you had cultivated such a manly gestalt all your life it would be hard to imagine gay people as deserving of their own rights. If you looked at Mr. Wuerl's very sporty style of presentation wouldn't you think he would be perfect on that Catholic he-man show on EWTN Crossing the Goal? There you can hear about Jesus scoring salvation touch-downs, and "having some guns on him," meaning of course great biceps. Maybe Mr. Wuerl doesn't have great guns on him, but he's got the same jock spirit. What a he- man. We forgive you Donald because you are such a straight, studly guy. You can't identify with sissy gay guys at all. Clearly you would not anyone to think you are a conniving, sniveling elf of a crotch-watcher. Next time we go out to dinner, maybe you can spend the meal staring at the menu or or the fucking food, instead of glowering at my pants. Amen.