Same-Sex Marriage Passes D.C. Council, 11-2

Thanks a lot, Marion Barry. What, did you not know views of "the African-American community" (as if this were some undifferentiated group who all feel the same about the issue) last year when you said you'd vote for gay marriage? http://dcist.com/2009/04/anti-same-sex_marriage_protest_draw.php

Also, could someone tell CM Barry that he doesn't actually represent "the African-American community"? He represents Ward 8, which isn't all black, and isn't where all black DC residents live. He seems uncertain on this point.

There is sunshine in my soul today.

Gay.

Back to the flour mill, Barry! Tha' innarests can take care 'a theyselves!

I'm glad that the vote went so well! I'm not at all suprised Barry voted in the negative; I'm more surprised he was able to make it to the vote at all--I thought surely he'd be smacking nurses butts in the ER, afflicted by another "food allergy"... It is unfortunate that Alexander is still in the negative, I think she's probably being bullied by the Catholic Church and is not brave enough to step on the side of equality--hopefully she'll get there someday!

And it's unfortunate that Barry thinks he speaks for all the black residents of DC... what does he know about anything these days!? That man is so far out of touch with his the black community that I find it a joke he even calls himself black!

Well, Barry does have a point. It would've been better had they put it to a public referendum. The city could've put up a full slate of controversial referenda: whether gays should be allowed civil rights that go with marriage; whether Negroes should be allowed to hold property; whether Chinamen should be entitled to marry white women.

This is a Democracy, after all. We shouldn't be doling out special rights without a up-or-down vote.

In my email to the DC city council, I had this to say:

"First, homosexuality has never been proven genetic, as such cannot be categorized as a genuine minority. Otherwise more "minorities" will emerge as time goes on. One African American pastor put it so aptly when he said, and I quote, "I have seen a number of ex-gays, but I have never seen one single ex-black."

Secondly, people of thirty one states have already voiced their strong will that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized. Here I would like to remind you, if I may, common sense tells us that every right comes with certain conditions and requirements. For examples, the right to vote requires being a citizen of that country; the right to use a ladies room reserves only for women. It is obvious for all clear and logical minds that absolutely no civil right "taken away' in preserving the good and beautiful traditional marriage which stand the test of thousands of years."

Here I want to add that I fully agree with Dr. Jacobs when she retorted Mr. Catania in the second hearing by saying, "Anus is an exit, not an entrance."

When common sense fails, degradation must follow.

Please do better research before writing your articles. You were clearly not at the November 10 committee meeting and simply parroting a poorly researched Washington Post article when you characterize the Archdiocese as making a threat. The Catholic Archdiocese never threaten to withdraw the services of Catholic Charities and would never do such a thing.

At that meeting, one of two religious protection provisions was removed from the bill. 1) maintaining that the Church does not have to perform homosexual marriage - a protection that remains in the bill and 2) not condoning the practice institutionally through structural support - a protection removed from the bill.

The Archdiocese, backed by the ACLU at the meeting on this issue, stated that they could not force their employees to violate their conscience against Church teachings and as a result would not extend benefits to homosexual spouses because doing so would implicitly recognize the marriage. This would likely mean that the city would take legal action to shut down Catholic Charities. This is what has happened in other areas such as Boston where the government forced the adoption services of CC to shut down because it would not adopt to homosexual couples. It was not a threat to shut down services. The Archdiocese wants to continue these services and will do so until forced to stop by the city.

The Archdiocese has released a statement in reaction to the Washington Post article which you would have known about had you done better research.