D.C. Insurance Dept. Denies Birth Control Coverage Meddling
Controversy Over Rhee Now to Include Sex, Congress
Overheard in D.C.: Careful What You Wish For
Report: CCDC Split From UDC Is "Critical To Success"
D.C. United Icon Ben Olsen To Retire
Legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in the District is going to pass, and no one is more aware of that fact than its opponents. Seeing that they've got little chance of swinging any votes on the D.C. Council, they've instead announced an offensive that will include pushing Congress to stop the legislation from taking effect and using the courts to enforce the federal Defense of Marriage Act on the city.
At yesterday's hearing before the D.C. Council's Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, opponents of the legislation made clear that they were angry and willing to take their fight to Capitol Hill. In a particularly heated moment of testimony early on, District resident Kathryn Pearson-West joined ANC Commissioner Bob King in threatening to ask Congress to overturn the legislation. The threat seemed alarming enough that Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) warned of the dangers of inviting congressional intervention, and DC Vote's Board of Directors took the time to send out a statement pledging to protect the city's right to decide its own laws.
"While DC Vote has not taken a position on the legislation, we are prepared to defend the District's right to enact laws on behalf of the almost 600,000 Washingtonians, via its own legislative processes," said board member John Klenert in a statement. "We call upon Congress to treat us as equal citizens and give us our due respect. We are only doing what others take for granted: exercising the right to govern ourselves."
In a hearing earlier in the day before the Board of Elections and Ethics, supporters of a referendum on same-sex marriage threatened to plead their case before the courts, both to argue that a 1995 D.C. court case defined marriage as between a man and a woman and to claim that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress applies to the District.
Idle threats? Not really. In any other jurisdiction, opponents of same-sex marriage would be pretty much out of options. But this being the District, there's always an additional layer of politicking above our elected officials. Having Congress intervene wouldn't be anything new, though with the existing Democratic majority it may be a stretch. Pursuing the case before the courts, especially with the resources and advice of well-monied national organizations, could well either delay the implementation of the legislation or derail it altogether.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Same-Sex Marriage Opponents Plan Their Offensive
I'd say they're already pretty offensive.
Nice to see DC Vote is finding some make work.
Yesterday, I saw a metro bus with a "Stand for Marriage DC" ad on the side.
Should / Can WMATA be accepting these types of advertisements?
As long as it's a paid ad, I see no problem. I think Metro should be willing to take paid ads from any side of any given political issue.
Running ads as a "public service" is a different matter...
Interesting question.
If WMATA started declining political ads, they'd have a huge drop in ad revenue. This is DC after all. Political ads are sort of the norm.
actually, I'm pretty sure they can deny some political ads and do so regularly (you never see any mayoral or presidential ads).
I could be wrong though.
No, I think you're right. I have read about it in the past. I meant more as a general policy if they stopped taking any political ads.
Actually according to GM Catoe WMATA does not do anything with ads in the system. They have an advertising contract where they get paid the same amount of money regardless of whether ad space is used or not. The contracted company provides and sells the advertising and WMATA just gets their money. Which is how "HOOTERS" ads end up in stations used by tourists and their small children... so naturally, ad space will go to the highest bidder, and in this case that would be all of those nice wealthy conservative facist groups... er, I mean, anti-marriage equality "family" groups.
So wait, the "stand for marriage" ad was anti-gay marriage? I think the - what did you call them Matthew - "wealthy conservative fascists" need to spend a bit more of their dough on getting a clearer advertising campaign. I mean, don't all we non-conservative non-fascists stand for marriage by not turning something that's about love into a fear/ignorance driven political issue?
Assuming that Congress won't intervene in preventing the gay marriage bill from going into effect, what happens in a few years' time when there's a Republican Congress and President? They could simply re-write DC's gay marriage law, right? Is there a plan against that possibility? Or is it just the hope that once rights are conferred, you can't take them back?
When I talked to CM Mendelson last week, he said that this was a big concern. Basically, any marriages that take place can't be annulled by Congress, just like those 18,000 same-sex marriages in California remained legal and binding even after Prop 8 won. But that doesn't mean Congress couldn't act in 2010 or 2012 to do away with legalized same-sex marriage in the District. Hopefully by then Republicans will have moved on to another issue with which to wage their cultural war.
Did you say hi to him for me? He is not returning my emails any more.
I think his exact words were, "Tell that f**ker NewHCE to kiss my ass."
Hey, my emails were respectful, it was just when I put "difficult" questions to the Council's firearms expert like "How is a 32 inch gun more dangerous than a 28 inch gun" and "How come you had no public comment period?" that he clammed up.
You do know I was kidding, right?
Of course.
The eventual repeal of a DC gay marriage law is, I think, a major concern. I don't see any way around it, other than trying to shame/browbeat Republicans from taking away personal rights several years after they had been granted to people. But, as we saw in California, public shaming doesn't have the same force as law. I don't see any way that Republicans wouldn't use gay marriage as a big wedge in the culture wars for years to come. And what better way to prove their Christian conservative street cred that by repealing the DC gay marriage law?
And what's the explanation on how the federal Defense of Marriage Act doesn't apply to DC?
The DOM would apply to DC ***IF*** DC were still a ward of the Federal Government as it was up until the 1960's/70's when self-governance was first being established. Now that DC Government employees are non-federal and everything is run by the local jurisdiction, I think it would be a HUGE stretch to say that a Federal ban on gay marriage would apply to DC... if those idiots do manage to pitch that case then that means DC would be subject to ALL federal rules and regulations and would have to be re-integrated as a ward of the country...
Basically those people are using Congressional intervention because it suits them--but I garauntee you that when Congress was destroying the voting rights bill with gun amendmants those same people were probably sreaming bloody murder! It's the same concept as those who use one verse in the Bible to justify anti-gay bigotry and yet ignore the verses that govern how a lowly woman should behave in public spaces and realize her submissive place in society... it's either ALL or nothing folks!
The opposition should keep the absurdity coming. Now is a fantastic time for the heavily Democratic Congress to take up this issue. Health care and the economy pale in comparison to this particular brand of bigotry.
There is a special place in hell for DC residents who give away our right to home rule in order to win a petty political battle.
And it's called "Herndon."
+5
Ha!
comment o' the day, right there.
I wouldn't worry too much about the courts. In both federal and local DC courts a plaintiff (the person bringing the lawsuit) must show standing before the court would even look at the merits of the case. Standing is a complex legal doctrine, but it boils down to this: is the plaintiff going to suffer any particular harm if his/her case was not heard by the court. It will be extremely difficult for a plaintiff challenging the adoption of gay marriage to show that he/she is somehow injured by the legislation authorizing such marriages. This is why legal challenges attacking constitutionality of gay marriage in other states have been unsuccessful.
Check out this footage from the anti-gay rally in DC the day before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHpvIK295TA&feature=player_embedded
Some winning lines include:
"Same sex marriage will lead to the extermination of the human race"
"How can we tell our kids not to some marijuana when we tell them sodomy is ok"
"We need to live in a civilized society with man and woman, no clones!"
"Same sex marriage discriminates against homosexuals"
"Don't turn DC into Sodom and Gomorrah"
Fun. Is this the same Kathryn Pearson-West who said years ago:
2. Will you oppose efforts by Congress or other parties to stop the District of Columbia from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in Hawaii or other places?
A. As an elected councilmember, I would oppose any effort by Congress to impose any law on the citizens of the District of Columbia by which the overwhelming majority of the population does not support. The will of the citizens of D.C. is what is important. Hopefully, that will would be based on some principles, values, and/or doctrines of fairness. I would recommend hearings to gauge the sentiment of D.C. residents.
http://www.glaa.org/archive/1996/west.shtml
mmkay.
Oh sure. NOW Evans is worried about Congressional intervention.
Hmmmm - I thought this was actually a strategic move on the part of the Council - when has it been a better time for this? There is a Democratic majority in Congress that hasn’t completely lost credibility yet, so it's one of the best opportunities in history to do this. I suspect Congress will not want to muss things up for us.
The problem is that Dems are spending all their capital fighting off the wingnut health care attacks. They don't want to touch ANY controversial issues right now, be it guns, gay marriage or legalized dope.
..and the Republicans know that.
I have to say, although I support this gay marriage move, I wish the Council could have waited until 2010 to push for this.
And if Congress will hear from DC citizens on the issue, I sincerely hope Ernistine Copeland will represent the opposition.
I'm sorry, but I enjoy the church-sanctioned sodomy with my wife far too much to let the gays in on that racket.
Indeed. A blow for same-sex marriage is a blow for heterosexual analingus. Though technically that would be sucking, not blowing. Or something. Anyway, I wont rest until all the tax-exempt churchies acknowledge and celebrate the love between Hillman and his live-in cabana boy, Spartacus.
i'd like to circulate a petition for a ballot initiative where we get to take bob king's house and use it as the new location for the "men's parties" place that just was shut down on 14th street.
he wouldn't want to keep the citizens from having the right to vote, right? if he's opposed to letting us exercise our god-given right to cast a ballot on anything and everything, i can see no reason why we shouldn't be able to eminent domain his property.
i mean, it follows from his logic, correct?
Either that or push for a referendum that changes existing marriage law to say that if you're married and don't produce children within the first two years of your union, you go to prison.
Wait, what?? Oh shit. I'm in trouble.
That discriminates exclusively against gay men. You are giving lesbians a free pass much to the chagrin of the bigots.
Maybe Dick Cheney could come to the aid of gay marriage advocates so that his grandchildren would not be considered "born out of wedlock".
The first grandchild is already around, so wouldn't he always be considered to have been born out of wedlock? She's still got a few more months on #2, though...
Ah, go fuck yourself. Leave me out of this. I already get so much shit down at the club because my daughter is a carpet muncher. I just want to sit quietly and enjoy my scotch on the rocks, and I get all these old guys holding up their hands and moving their tongue between their fingers. You think that's funny old man; bite me!
Why the hell do you think I shot Harry Whittington? Fucker couldn't keep his damn mouth shut!
I'm collecting signatures for referendum that would require Bob King to change his first name to "Fuh".
wouldnt it be easier to just ban ALL marriage between anyone?
Yes!!!
When marriage is outlawed, only outlaws will have inlaws.
to be completely serious, yes. i've always wanted the government contract between two people to be called a civil union, and leave the term "marriage" to religious groups. that way, fundies can keep their "marriage" away from those they don't want to allow to participate, and EVERYONE gets a civil union (and small american flags).
yes marriage should not exist haha
Princess