Marriage Equality in D.C.

§ 32-702. Domestic partnership registration and termination procedures
(i) Legal relationships substantially similar to domestic partnerships defined in this chapter from other jurisdictions are recognized as domestic partnerships in the District.

“The language needs to be broad and somewhat vague because the terminology varies from state to state and country to country. Benefits also vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and the list of jurisdictions changes frequently. With the passage of this expanded bill, D.C. would have essentially the same rights and responsibilities for both domestic partnerships and marriage. That high standard is what we should use for evaluating recognition of other jurisdictions’ laws. This is similar to what other jurisdictions do, including New Jersey and the United Kingdom.

“The proposed language should cover civil unions from Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New Hampshire, and domestic partnerships from California and Oregon. I believe that it would exclude domestic partnerships from Maine and reciprocal beneficiaries from Hawaii, as those laws only cover a few areas, and are therefore not substantially similar.”

As a result of this testimony, Phil Memndelson rewrote the bill and it became the “Omnibus Domestic Partnership Equality Amendment Act of 2008.”

“We have in the District of Columbia one of the highest percentages of gay families to our total population that any other city in the nation. We have over 5% of couples households in the District that identify as gay or lesbian…. I am also supportive of recognizing the rights and responsibilities given to these relationships in other states when those couples move to the District of Columbia. This will make DC a more attractive place to move to and one of our goals is to increase our population and our tax base.”

“Authorizing discrimination against gay people is precisely the purpose of the proposed referendum, which is why the Board should refuse to accept it. We as gay citizens have not only justice but the law on our side when we say that our families are entitled to the same civil protections as everyone else, as expressed in the District’s motto, Justitia Omnibus.”

“We recognize that there are principled differences on this issue within the religious community. We affirm that the state should not require any religious group to officiate at, or bless, same-gender marriages. However, the state also should not favor the convictions of one religious group over another by denying individuals their fundamental civil right to marry whom they love.”

Our opponents have cited the Dean case from the 1990s. First, unlike 15 years ago, there are legal same-sex marriages in several states and in several countries. Second, the legislative intent has changed. References to “husband” and “wife” in various parts of the D.C. Code have been changed to the gender-neutral “spouse,” and references to “father” and “mother” to “parent.” This year the Council passed a law recognizing same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Finally, ten Council members on October 6 co-introduced the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, and an eleventh member has pledged to vote for it.

The city recognized the danger of subjecting minority protections to a plebiscite thirty years ago when, at our behest, it barred any referendum or initiative that “authorizes, or would have the effect of authorizing, discrimination prohibited under Chapter 14 of Title 2….” Authorizing discrimination against gay people is precisely the purpose of the proposed Initiative, which is why the Board should refuse to accept it.

Our opponents believe that you, our elected legislators, are unfit to decide this matter. They demand a ballot initiative. It is improper to put human rights protections to a plebiscite; it is also against D.C. law. The Council routinely deals with controversies, and is capable of dealing with this one. People who disagree can protest, lobby, and support challengers in the next election. Polls, however, show that most Washingtonians agree with us.

Decades of advocacy have brought GLAA to this moment. We do our work so that those who come after us will face fewer obstacles than we did, and so that their loves will not mark them as second-class citizens.

Bishop Jackson talks as if gay people just arrived here from another planet. In fact, our roots in this city run deep. We have helped build our communities, and we will defend them from the ministers of fear and intolerance.

To our opponents: Our lives are as worthy as yours, our love is as strong as yours, and our resolve is as great as yours. Civil marriage equality will protect and strengthen thousands of actual families and make our city more faithful to its motto, Justitia Omnibus.

As several councilmembers noted before the vote, our work is not done. Indeed, as former GLAA President Bob Summersgill, who was our lead strategist in preparing the way for this moment, Mayor Fenty’s signature will complete the easy part of our work. Ahead of us is potential Congressional action, which is likelier to come in the form of an anti-gay rider to next year’s D.C. appropriations bill rather than a resolution of disapproval, and our adversaries’ efforts in court. After the vote, our opponents pledged another referendum effort, and their lawsuit in the proposed initiative is already pending in court. We urge everyone to support the Campaign for All D.C. Families, which will coordinate the fight whether in Congress or the courts.

The legislative text in this measure is the statement “To repeal the District of Columbia’s ‘Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Act of 2009,'” followed by the text of the “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Act of 2009” itself. Were the measure to be approved—and the initiative to become law—it would cause the existing law to be re-enacted. If the initiative failed, the same act would already be law. The outcome would be the same either way as the measure fails to propose new law.

Additionally, sections 5 and 6 are improper. Since the Council has no role in passing an initiative, section 5 is entirely void, inappropriate and improper. Likewise, section 6 discusses the role of the Mayor. The Mayor is not involved in the process, so the section is void, inappropriate and improper.

Since there isn’t proper legislative text, the Board should find the measure improper.

The summary statement presents an entirely different intention….

Testifying in favor of the measure were Joyce A. Little, the proposer; her friend Ann Miller of Bowie, Maryland; and perpetual witness Michael Sindram. Bob Summersgill and I were sitting in the front row taking it all in, with Bob twittering some amusingly snarky observations and I scribbling on a notepad. Sultan Shakir of HRC was also on hand, typing into his laptop.

Ms. Little said D.C. was “more like a fascist state” for denying people the right to vote on gay people’s right to marry. Beside her, Ms. Miller bounced in her seat and said “mm hm” and “yes” and finger-snapped and knocked on the table; Board Chairman Errol Arthur admonished her several times. Little cited the successful use of a ballot measure in Maine to overturn marriage equality there. She said that America was founded on two principles, religion and the right to vote. She referred to the “satanic agenda of legalizing homosexual marriage.” At this point, Ms. Miller’s cell phone went off and everything stopped while she searched for it in her bag. Little continued, “But God is real. Man in his arrogance is truly ignorant.” Her best line of the day was, “You are ushering in a Frankenstonian age” in which there would be creatures that were “half man and half dog.” She invoked Sodom and Gomorrah. She ended by saying to the Board members, “You too are going to hell. May God have mercy on your immortal soul.” Chairman Arthur responded simply, “Thank you, Ma’am.”
Ms. Miller said it was imperative “to stop the homosexual who is at war with God.” She read from a San Francisco Chronicle article from January 5, 2008, about a drug-resistant bacteria that caused MRSA infections. It was the old story of gay people as diseased pariahs who don’t deserve any rights. She quoted Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s notorious statement from the 1857 Dred Scott decision that blacks were “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” The logic here is that slavery was a great crime and therefore gay people should not be allowed to marry. If that makes no sense to you, join the club.

Jackson praised Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) and Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) for introducing a bill to force a ballot measure on the District. This stands about as much chance as a scientist at the Tea Party Convention, but even if it happened, it would be defeated by the liberal-leaning electorate that Jackson denies. Even if a majority, according to the Post poll, wants to vote on my rights, which I think is improper, I am glad that in the event a majority would uphold them.

D.C. voters are not Jackson’s true constituents. As my colleague Bob Summersgill reported at glaaforum.org on Feb. 2, all of Stand for Marriage DC’s reported funding came from outside groups including Focus on the Family, National Organization for Marriage, Family Research Council, and Jackson’s High Impact Leadership Coalition.

The suggested language from the Archdiocese included a “business necessity” exemption to the non-discrimination provisions of the D.C. Human Rights Act. I replied that for Catholic Charities to claim a business necessity in this case would require stretching and deforming the Human Rights Act so badly that it would make every statue of the Virgin Mary in town weep. The language from the Archdiocese amounted to a blanket license to discriminate that went far beyond the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause which allows them, for example, to deny the marriage sacrament in cases that violate their religious doctrine. Their amendment in effect would have dismantled the “wall of separation between church and state” described by Thomas Jefferson.

Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s.” The Archdiocese’s proposal rendered everything to their particular concept of God and nothing to the state or the secular sphere that people of every faith and no faith must share. The language in the bill already included protections for the core religious functions of religious organizations while preserving the right of the government to regulate the provision of public services. The Archdiocese has contracted with the city to provide social services for many years without demanding a blanket exemption to discriminate against divorced and remarried persons, even though divorce and remarriage are contrary to Catholic doctrine. Their selective invocation of doctrinal concerns in the present case, regarding not their church function but their function as a city contractor, was a hypocritical attempt to bully the city into letting them dictate public policy. Fortunately, the city refused to be bullied.

A revealing moment came when Mendelson asked the Archdiocese whether it would support the civil marriage equality bill if the Council accepted its proposed changes. The answer, of course, was no. This is Mother Church’s one-sided concept of negotiation. In this case, the Church badly overplayed its hand and brought it widespread cries of heartlessness.

I had agreed earlier in the morning to run over to the News Channel 8 studio for a 10 a.m. interview, so I hopped a cab from the courthouse to 1100 Wilson Boulevard in Rosslyn and back, but I enjoyed giving one of the commemorative pens to morning anchor Dave Lucas. When I got back to the courthouse, Craig Howell had shown up with a bunch of young folks who were there to counter-protest the Phelps clan, but the latter had left. Craig and I went up and checked out the line outside the marriage bureau, and I saw some who had been there an hour and a half earlier. So they are being patient! I spoke to one friend in line who’s been with his partner for 22 years, and they have a 6-year-old son. These are the real people and families for whom we do our work. God bless us all for reaching this day.

I witnessed one charming moment outside the courthouse that was not recorded by any video cameras: A group of police officers were leaving the courthouse around 11:00, and one of them playfully slipped his arm into that of another to pretend that they had just filed their marriage license application. They had big grins on their faces and I thought, oh how far we’ve come.