It's turning out to be a banner day for gay marriage. The city council in Washington, D.C. has just voted 12-0 to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. The city previously recognized domestic partnerships, but the status of out-of-state SSMs had been unclear.
There's no doubt where this is headed. According to the Washington Post:
Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), who is also gay, predicted it was only a matter of time before the Council also takes up a bill to legalize gay marriage in the District. "It's no secret that I have been working on legislation that would take us further," he said. "This is the march toward human rights and equality. This is not the march toward special rights. This is the equal march and that march is coming here."
There are a couple of important things to keep in mind, however. First, D.C. council law is subject to override by Congress, which could place the Democrats in an awkward position. Second, recognition of gay marriages in D.C. would be subject to a ballot override.
Related Posts (on one page):
- And now, D.C.:
- Gay marriage in D.C. next year?
Let's see who really believes in federalism and who just pays lip service to it.
This surely doesn't represent the attitudes of actual voters in DC.
On the other hand, the framers knew damn well that States refusing to accept the official business of other States was a huge hamper on both interstate commerce and the orderly administration of justice in general. Hence the full faith and credit clause.
Of course, the FF&C clause is basically dead in the water (I've been accosted multiple times trying to buy beer in MA with an IL license -- apparently full faith and credit doesn't apply to basic documents of identity).
Well, as an actual voter in DC, it represents my attitude. Also, like most local politicians, the DC Council has a pretty good feel for how their constituents feel about the big issues, so a 12-0 vote should give you some idea how a ballot initiative would play out.
And for all the political clout that various congregations have in DC, much of their membership has long since moved to the suburbs, and are not actually eligible to vote in DC (of course, they have actual congressmen to complain to, who can piss all over DC if they choose, but the suburban DC congressional delegation is generally pretty deferential to the District).
SFJD - The Supreme Court of Conn. issued its opinion, but the voters have not yet spoken. We'll see. In any event, my point is that allowing states to experiment over long periods of time with radical social programs is fine, so long as they can't force other states to go along with thenm.
If I'm wrong, and the Council is wrong, then I'd expect to see a ballot initiative pass by about 90-10, followed by the people who were so exercised about Prop 8 searching out the 2 or 3 white Republicans in DC to picket.
A generation or two? Haha, that's a good one. What rock do you live under? Can you not see that we are already on the cusp of the tipping point on gay marriage? It will be the law of the land, from Montgomery to Helena to Provo to Charleston, within 5 years. Get used to it.
And this one post proves exactly how far gay rights advocates have to go with some people. What on earth does marriage equality have to do with sex? Did freeing the slaves or letting women vote mean that we were advocating more sex?
You know what? Never mind. I don't actually want to know what went through your brain. I always shudder at how gay rights makes some people thing directly about gay sex.
Well, the question of a Constitutional Convention was on the ballot this past November, and the voters roundly rejected it. Aside from that, how exactly do you foresee things changing? I'm not aware of any process to move forward with a CT constitutional amendment to overturn the state supreme court decision, and I don't think even the Republican governor supports such an amendment.
A generation or two? Ha. Nate Silver projects that even Mississippi will be on board with equality by 2024. You wish this would take generations.
D.C. is a state?
That would result in people traveling to Washington, D.C. to get married, rather than leaving it to get married and then returning to take advantage of it recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere.
The reaction of the CT legislature was to accept the ruling of the CT Supreme Court, and get on with business.
http://tinyurl.com/ccuxeu
I agree with the comments that acceptance will come quickly with time. People without married gay friends, acquaintances or family members won't notice a thing. Those that do will be happy for them.
28 U.S.C. 1738C says:
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."
DC falls under the "territory or possession of the U.S." The other effects of DOMA relate to the treatment of same-sex marriages under federal law, so it applies to DC residents just at it applies to residents of the 50 states.
David would investigate city services himself. One time, he got a report from the DC General Hospital that said that average waiting time in the emergeny room was 20 minutes. So he went to the emergency room of DC General Hospital and asked people how long they were waiting for a doctor to look at them, and found that most of them had been waiting hours. He really let them have it.
David would not introduce such a bill unless he knew there was strong support for it, both on the council and in the city. He doesn't like to play to lose, so I believe that he is confident such a bill will survive a ballot initiative.
Wouldn't that be great -- a DC wide ballot iniative that actually *supports* SSM? What will the anti-gay crowd argue if that comes to pass?
The blame lies with two groups: well-funded and well-organized proponents, and well-funded but feckless opponents.
As a married straight guy who lives in the SF Bay Area and knows a lot of gay people, let me be the first to tell everyone who doesn't now know gay people that IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHICH CONSENTING ADULTS A CONSENTING ADULT CHOOSES TO HAVE SEX WITH. Men, women, both alone or in pairs or more, it literally affects my life in NO WAY WHATSOEVER. Literally. I enjoy the full range of freedoms, rights and privileges that I always did when two guys next door have sex with each other. If the concept bothers you that is entirely your problem to deal with, just like it would be your problem to deal with if they played music you don't like. If they play it too loud and it disturbs your slumber, that's an issue separate from the kind of music it is.
So when you say something like "the advocates of sexual freedom and liberation" you are being redundant. You can take the word "sexual" completely out of the equation, and thus understand that when you seek to restrict the relationships and sexuality of two (or more) consenting adults, all you are doing is restricting freedom. You are not protecting or defending anything.
As a married straight guy who lives in the SF Bay Area and knows a lot of gay people, let me be the first to tell everyone who doesn't now know gay people that IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHICH CONSENTING ADULTS A CONSENTING ADULT CHOOSES TO HAVE SEX WITH. Men, women, both alone or in pairs or more, it literally affects my life in NO WAY WHATSOEVER. Literally. I enjoy the full range of freedoms, rights and privileges that I always did when two guys next door have sex with each other. If the concept bothers you that is entirely your problem to deal with, just like it would be your problem to deal with if they played music you don't like. If they play it too loud and it disturbs your slumber, that's an issue separate from the kind of music it is.
So when you say something like "the advocates of sexual freedom and liberation" you are being redundant. You can take the word "sexual" completely out of the equation, and thus understand that when you seek to restrict the relationships and sexuality of two (or more) consenting adults, all you are doing is restricting freedom. You are not protecting or defending anything.
Pretty sure sodomy laws are no longer considered constitutional. Are those the sexual freedom and liberation rights you're talking about because I'm pretty sure the rest of us are talking about tax breaks, hospital visitation rights, rights to make funerary decisions, and all those other good things that come with federal marriage. Did the removal of sodomy laws negatively effect you somehow? Your sex grosses me out just as much as mine grosses you out, but I think if we stay out of one another's bedrooms, we'll all be fine.
If my private, gay, butt sex has no, effect on your life, or at least no more or less effect than all the heterosexual couples who also perform private, butt sex, then I'm pretty sure you won't notice anything negative when I'm allowed to have the same advantages as other young, childless married couples.
Sorry if that was graphic for anyone, but I find a bunch of heterosexuals across the nation half-heartedly discussing whether or not my rights should be sacrificed to be even more graphic.
You know what I think? I think that left-handed people are an abomination. Let's--and I mean us unquestionably superior right-handers--discuss the merits of left-handers marriage rights. Maybe in a couple of generations we'll figure out whether or not they're legitimate citizens also.
Don't worry about all that talk about butt sex! We have to listen to straight talk about the joys of "natural" sex all the time.
(Um, whatcha doin' Saturday night?)
This surely doesn't represent the attitudes of actual voters in DC.
And now we see the fallback position. When a court rules in favor of same sex marriage, that's not legitimate because a legislature didn't do it. Now that a legislature has done it, that's not legitimate either because the voters didn't approve it.
I screwed the punctuation up.
I bet that's not legally recognized in many states.
Prediction: When a citizens initiative passes somewhere legalizing same-sex marriage, it won't be legitimate because "It's just plain wrong....."
I bet they have horribly sinister motivations too.... How many times on these forums is the word "leftie" thrown around as a way to insult political opponents?
I bet the leftie agenda is even more sinister than the gay agenda!
I say this with full knowledge of the etymology of every word. Sorry for the cross-language puns.
I think that is the key point. So much so, it is worth quoting just for the sake of restating.
My prediction is that they will simply attack that state as being extremist and out of touch with the rest of the country. For example, if Prop 8 is voted out they will say it doesn't matter because its just "left-coast commie-fornia" and how it wouldn't happen in "real america."
If only DC were a state, they could experiment to their little hearts' desire!
My husband and I are in an opposite-handedness marriage. Some people may call them perverse, but we have made it work.
Quite true. Sometimes they don't care, but when they give the voters an upraised finger, they're usually well aware they're doing it. I give the inevitable initiative to reverse this a pretty good chance of passing.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.