D.C. Marriage Equality Bill to be Introduced Tuesday
A bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia will be introduced Tuesday, the bill's sponsor, council member David Catania, said on Wednesday night:
"Catania made his announcement before 150 gay rights activists gathered in Shaw for a rally featuring the Rev. Eric P. Lee, president of the Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. 'We are going to do it now,' Catania told the crowd. 'We are going to do it now, not for ourselves, but for the young people who are 20 years-old, 16-years-old, 13-years-old.' According to a copy of the bill, the city code would be changed to state 'marriage is the legally recognized union of two people' and 'any person ... may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender.' Catania's bill, which states religious organizations and officials have the right not to participate in same-sex marriages, is expected to pass the council easily when it comes up for a vote around Thanksgiving. Ten of 13 council members will co-introduce Catania's bill Tuesday, and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) has pledged to sign it. But the measure still would have to get past Congress, which can overturn District legislation under Home Rule. "
D.C. began recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere on July 7 folowing passage of a bill earlier this year.
Wow, he's beautiful. I love it when hot men are good guys.
Posted by: Mark | Oct 1, 2009 11:18:34 AM
No way congress gets involved.
The whole healthcare delay is a blessing in disguise for this. If Repub's had time on their hands to organize against it, then it might become a problem. They clearly don't have the time or infrastructure to mount a serious opposition and force Pelosi's hand in bringing up a vote.
Barring serious complications, looks like DC will gay marriage equality in no time.
Posted by: Aaron Rowland | Oct 1, 2009 11:55:48 AM
The Democratic Congress is not going to overrule DC. There's just no way. They're happy to ignore us, but they know the hell that would follow if they affirmatively hurt us like that. Worst case scenario, they let a handful of their caucus in the most embattled seats representing the most conservative states vote with the Republicans or abstain entirely and make sure they have at least 51 votes against overturning.
Posted by: Pender | Oct 1, 2009 12:15:16 PM
The real question is will Pelosi cave into right-wing pressure and schedule a vote. The House of Representatives isn't a democracy. If she doesn't put it in the order paper, Boehner and Cantor can rant about the "sanctity of marriage" until the cows come home. And the Senate can pass a ban ten times. It wouldn't matter one bit.
Posted by: John | Oct 1, 2009 12:42:35 PM
Exactly John.
And while I'm sure many would disagree (michael@leonard and ilk), I truly believe that the majority of congressmen and congresswomen personally support marriage equality. As a whole, they're an educated, affluent, cultured, minimally-religious group of people that has no problem hiring openly gay staffers and working closely with members of the LGBT community on non-controversial issues.
Except for the lunatic fringe (Southern/Plains States Repubs), I would count even a good chunk of the Republicans among those who likely are secretly supportive of LGBT issues. As much as I loathe his policy positions, McCain clearly isn't a raging homophobe. No way a raging homophobe married Cindy and gave birth to Meghan, both of whom are strongly pro-equality.
Don't read this as a ringing endorsement for congress, it's quite the opposite. They may not be overt homophobes, but these men and women are the worst kind of panderers and opportunists. If polling suddenly revealed that 70% of the country supported gay marriage, you better believe that not a single democratic senator (or blue-state moderate republican) would dare cast a vote against equality.
Congress needs to grow a pair and actually vote their conscious. Call me crazy, but I would love to see states vote to convene a constitutional convention, proposing an amendment to add federal term limits on congressmen and congresswomen. It's never been used to create an amendment, but we all know congress isn't going to pass it. They're all way too comfortable on the hill.
Posted by: Aaron Rowland | Oct 1, 2009 1:04:30 PM
Why the hell does the U.S. Congress have to approve D.C. CITY legislation?? I understand its not its own state, but that is just stupid and insulting.
Also, they need to give the representative from D.C. voting rights! (They passed a bill in the senate, but the house hasn't taken it up yet)
Posted by: Brian in Texas | Oct 1, 2009 1:20:55 PM
The problem Republicans have with giving DC voting rights, is that Democrats would essentially be gaining an additional 1-seat advantage in votes, ad infinitum. A Republican could never win DC's seat.
A proposal was suggested that gained some heat, which would have awarded Utah an additional delegate as well (because they were statistically the most underrepresented state in the 2000 census.) That seat would certainly go to a Republican, supposedly balancing things out.
The problem was, DC's seat gain would be permanent, while Utah's additional seat would only come into play until redistricting in 2012 from the 2010 census. Republican's figured that out and sunk the plan.
However they would vote, I agree with Brian and find it offensive to democracy that the American citizens of DC, American Samoa, The Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico have no voting representatives in congress. But it's yet another issue that congress simply won't support.
Posted by: Aaron Rowland | Oct 1, 2009 1:42:56 PM
@ Brian in Texas
Congress has oversight over DC's laws and its budget. Congress has 30 legislative days to review laws passed by the DC Council. Because its legislative days and not calender days, the review period usually lasts about two months.
Those of us who live in DC are pushing for Congressional representation and legislative and budget autonomy.
Posted by: Michael Crawford | Oct 1, 2009 2:32:51 PM
Actually Aaron, its' even worse for DC, because the other territories you mention do not pay full federal taxes. They are still being taxed without representation, but at least they are being taxed about 50% of what those of us in DC pay to a federal government that treats us as a plantation.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | Oct 1, 2009 2:57:17 PM
It's sad gotta be like that, it's sadder people need a bill passed just so they can do a simple thing like get married, but whatever needs to be done, do it, D.C., hope it passes!
Posted by: Jamaal | Oct 3, 2009 5:12:19 AM