Gay Marriage Vote Passes in DC City Council

> specifically this phrase: "...a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage...", and try to grasp by how many orders of magnitude the importance of the one-man-one-woman rule exceeds that of any right to privacy.

Thomas - given the vast extent of legal ignorance displayed on this thread, you may wish to add that Amendments must be ratified. That's means the people must vote - duh!

Amendments are extremely infrequent and certainly do not represent the same process as law-making. You are trying to shift arguments in the middle.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Amendments are extremely infrequent and certainly do not represent the same process as law-making. You are trying to shift arguments in the middle.

However infrequent in general, amendments were the remedy of the particular discriminations Diest had brought up. Not High Seas, not me, but him. Please read back a page or two, and then reconsider whom you are accusing of "weak ****".

Nobody is 'dismantling' the democratic process. Courts and legislatures deciding upon laws is the democratic process. I submit that those who don't think it is have very little understanding of what the democratic process is.

If she had been responding to Diest, you would have a point. However, she was responding to a different post entirely, so you do not.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If she had been responding to Diest, you would have a point. However, she was responding to a different post entirely, so you do not.

Fair enough -- my mistake.

The next step is to have children. After all, they are married, why cant they have children ?

Sorry, I believe in democracy. I think that the citizens have the right to determine their own government,

Death panels.

This abberation shall pass as well.

Hearing Set for Initiative Limiting Marriage in D.C.

Today the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics set a hearing date for an initiative proposed by a Ward 8 resident that would limit marriage in the District to heterosexual couples.

The initiative simply reads, "Marriage is the legally recognized union between one man and one woman. No person may enter into a marriage in the District of Columbia with another person unless it is a man and a woman." The board will hear arguments for and against the initiative on Feb. 16.

This is the second initiative filed so far; there have also been two referenda petitions filed. This initiative was proposed by Joyce Little in late December. This isn't Little's first attempt to stop same-sex marriage from becoming legal in the District, either. According to the D.C. Agenda, Little filed a motion in December that would have stopped the D.C. Council from voting on the same-sex marriage legislation. Her motion was turned down. (click on link below to get to original article and PDF)

Little, who has identified herself as a Christian who sees homosexuality as an "abomination," has also argued that same-sex marriage will have a negative impact on the city's poor.

"[W]hat about low-income and working-class African Americans who have grown up in this city and are struggling to eke out a living the best way they can amidst 20 percent underemployment and unemployment[?] They will be the big losers. Once this bill is passed homosexuals from all over the country and world will flock to DC like pigeons on a piece of bread. They will overwhelm the city, buying up expensive condominiums and accelerating gentrification. The council will continue to enact laws to allow real estate companies to increase rents and convert rental property to condominiums. Low income and working class people will not be able to afford to live in these properties and will have to leave the city, amounting to a mass exodus. What this bill economically amounts to is a legalized land grab, something the establishment has been trying to accomplish for years but have been unable to do until now," she wrote in a posting to themail, a bi-weekly email newsletter on D.C. politics.

As we wrote yesterday, the same-sex marriage battle has intensified this week. Bishop Harry Jackson and his congressional supporters argued in court that the city's election authority should allow same-sex marriage to be voted on, while filing a request for another vote overturning the same-sex marriage law passed by the D.C. Council and signed by Mayor Adrian Fenty. They told the D.C. Agenda that their strategy involves filing as many requests for votes and responding with consequent lawsuits until a court agrees with them.

Same-Sex Marriage Battle Kicks into High Gear

Ahhhh. With D.C.'s same-sex marriage law now before Congress for a cursory 30-day review, we can all sit back and wait for the happy couples to exchange vows, right? Maybe not so much.

This week has seen a flurry of activity in the ongoing battle for marriage equality in the District. On Wednesday, Bishop Harry Jackson and his ilk appeared in D.C. Superior Court to request that the city be forced to hold a vote on whether or not to permit same-sex marriage. The D.C. Board of Elections twice ruled last year that such votes would violate the city's Human Rights Act, a charge Jackson and his supporters are contesting.

For yesterday's court battle, Jackson showed up with a little muscle -- a Friend of the Court brief signed by 39 congressional Republicans, including Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio), Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.), and senators James Inhofe (Ok.) and Roger Wicker (Miss.). Their arguments -- which can be read in full here (.PDF) -- boil down to this: since the District wrongfully amended its referendum law in 1977, prohibiting any referenda based on the provisions of the Human Rights Act is a non-starter. The brief also argued that a vote on same-sex marriage simply wouldn't violate the provisions of the Human Rights Act because gay couples would not be discriminated against since they would still be free to marry people of the opposite sex. (Just stop being gay, folks, and you can marry!)

More broadly, though, the GOP brief implies that the District just can't do anything Congress doesn't explicitly give the go-ahead for. From the brief: "As members of the District's ultimate legislative body, amici are concerned about the extent of the District's delegated legislative authority, the preservation of Congress's constitutional authority, and the interpretation of home rule." So since they didn't give the OK for the D.C. Council to proceed on this, the council simply shouldn't have.

The GLAA Forum has word on a counter-brief filed by the Campaign for All D.C. Families, which can be read here in .PDF format.

But there's more. On top of waging their legal battles, opponents of marriage equality are again pushing to have the issue put before the District's voters, in one form or another. Opponents of marriage equality have again filed a request for a referendum (.PDF), this time on whether the same-sex law passed by the council and signed by Mayor Adrian Fenty should be implemented or not. Those requesting this referendum include Jackson, Rev. Anthony Evans, ANC Commissioner Bob King and former D.C. delegate Walter Fauntroy. At the same time, another group of opponents have filed a request -- improperly, we're told -- for a vote on defining marriage in the District as being only between a man and a woman.

So as they fight in court to get one question on the ballot, same-sex marriage opponents are at the same time pushing to get two different, yet similar, referenda before voters. If the Board of Elections and Ethics sticks to the same reasoning they've used twice before, those will also likely get shot down. And Jackson and company will sue. Again. And probably file a request for yet another referendum or initiative. (Referenda are votes to prohibit existing legislation from taking effect, while initiatives are votes to create a law. So far, one referendum has been shot down and one more has been filed. One initiative is before the courts, and one more has been filed.) This could go on for a while.

Of course, this is just the local angle. While Congress isn't likely to step in and derail the legislation during its 30-day review period, we've been surprised before. And even if it does survive the review, we still naturally expect there could be an attempt to attach a rider banning spending on gay marriage to next year's D.C. appropriations bill.

Back to topic: anyone not in New York wants to have New York magazine January 4-11 issue I'll mail it to him/her if this article isn't available online: "4,000 Pages and Counting".

It's about Larry Kramer's (AIDS activist now campaigning for homosexual marriage) new book. Very interesting - the man can write!

Critics have accused Judge Walker of judicial bias, pointing to an earlier ruling against Proposition 8. Attorneys for the plaintiffs had asked to see internal Proposition 8 campaign communications, arguing that they might reveal attempts to create a "discriminatory animus" against gays. Judge Walker ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, but a federal appeals court panel in December reversed his decision.

"Judge Walker has not shown himself to be an impartial judge in this case," said Mr. Brown. "He has attempted to make this entire process a circus, and he wants to be the ringleader by putting it on television."

"Judge Walker has not shown himself to be an impartial judge in this case," said Mr. Brown. "He has attempted to make this entire process a circus, and he wants to be the ringleader by putting it on television."