Go Home Already: Shouts and Murmurs
Man Stops Traffic at 17th and K to Demand $200 Million
Compromise Uncertain on Same-Sex Marriage Law
Morning Roundup: Second Helpings Edition
Fire at 17th and L NW Forces Evacuations
If you've got a whole lot of free time on Monday, think about heading down to the John A. Wilson Building. On that day, the D.C. Council's Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety is holding a hearing to record public testimony on legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage in the District. The hearing is shaping up to be one of those marathon sessions where Council members struggle to stay awake as they participate in a ritual of representative democracy: letting everyone have their say.
No matter what ends up being said though, the legislation looks set for passage. All but two members of the Council – Yvette Alexander (D-Ward 7) and Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) – have pledged their support for the bill, and even the District's usual congressional foes seem to be at a loss over whether they can put a stop to this. As far as Council member and committee chair Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) is concerned, the session will at least allow District residents, both those in favor and those opposed, to lay out their arguments for why or why not same-sex marriage should be allowed in the city.
In an interview with DCist, Mendelson pointed out that while there may be discussion about whether to do away with domestic partnerships in 2011, as the legislation calls for, the overall structure of the proposal isn't likely to change.
"It's going to be less about a give and take on what's the best way to do this ... we know pretty much where we are on marriage equality. I'm looking at it more as a public forum," he said.
And while Mendelson conceded that Congress could find a number of ways to stop the legislation from taking effect, he seemed to think that their window of opportunity was fast closing. "Public sentiment is changing," he stated. "I think the dynamics are working against the conservatives."
The majority of the public testimony will take place starting on Monday at 3:30 p.m., but a continuation has been scheduled for November 2 in case more time is needed. The Council will vote on the legislation on December 1.
Also on Monday, the Board of Election and Ethics will be holding a hearing of its own at 10 a.m. on the legality of a referendum on whether to legalize same-sex marriage. This is the same effort that Bishop Harry Jackson is behind, but the Board is largely expected to stick with the same reasoning it laid out in its earlier ruling.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
If it came down to a referendum, isn't there a pretty good chance that it would pass anyway? I know there is a crapload of bigoted old-timers in this city, but it's also a city that despite its backward southern roots, has elected a surprising number of openly gay council members and ANC commissioners.
I gotta agree with you on this, but in the parlance of the Marriage Equality movement, folks shouldn't have their civil rights be a subject of a simple majority vote. They should be inherent in person-hood. (or something)
We've already voted, when we voted for the Council. We live in a representative democracy where we elect these men and women to make laws on our behalf.
So why should this issue, of all the others on which the Council legislates, be subject to a referendum (assuming, for a moment, that it wasn't contrary to the District's law on referenda)?
Why should a minority group's rights be subject to the whim of the majority? Is that not what equal protection under the laws is supposed to protect against?
Let's ask Hillrat how he feels about the rights of a minority being voted on by the majority, as he's been on the WP comments getting all up about how he tolerates the gays but thinks denying them marriage is fine.
Maybe he can shed some light on this idea, being a longtime DC resident.
Guns!