BREAKING NEWS: DC Superior Court Rejects Anti-LGBT Forces Bid for Marriage Equality Referendum

Anti-marriage equality forces appealed DC's Board of Elections and Ethics decision in November, rejecting a public referendum on the District's new marriage equality law. They cited the jurisdiction's Human Rights Act.

Led by Harry Bishop Jackson and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), opponents of same-sex marriage appealed. Today, DC's Superior Court ruled against them. From the Washington Post:

A D.C. Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that same-sex marriage opponents do not have a right to hold a public referendum on whether those marriages should be legal in the District.

The ruling, a major victory for gay rights activists, makes it more likely that the District will start allowing same-sex couples to marry in March.

--------

Opponents probably will appeal Thursday's ruling to an appellate court. Still, they are running out of options to block same-sex marriages in the District. Congress has begun the required 30-legislative-day review of the same-sex marriage bill signed into law last month by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty.

The last One remaining hurdle, for the new marriage law is Congressional review, a 30-day period for Congress to intervene. However, it doesn't look like there will be any action from Congress, and representatives who oppose marriage equality don't have the momentum to interfere. The other hurdle facing the law is the Court of Appeals.

City officials expect the law to go into effect the first week of March.

D.C. Marriage Equality Rally Monday; Bishop Jackson Says There Will Be "Bloodletting" For Bill Passage

Maryland pastor Bishop Harry Jackson, who has crossed his state's line into Washington D.C. (to the chagrin of many) and has meddled in the capital's affairs to fight marriage equality, warned the D.C. Council of consequences for passing same-sex marriage resolution.

We're going to have to start earlier and take straw polls earlier. Our opposition had been working with these [council members] for five years. They'd invested time and money, and, to their credit, my opposition applied extreme political pressure on 30 or 40 people in the city, in the mayor's office and the city council.

But they have not changed ordinary people's opinions. It's a faux change. For instance, they created a gay organization of clergy. Our side has done the opposite, mobilizing a grass-roots effort with 1,200 churches in D.C.

In future races, religious people are going to start going after people's political careers. In D.C., some very vulnerable black councilmen went along with the city council, and some of these guys will not be sitting in those chairs in 2010 elections. Many in our coalition are wising up, looking for candidates. Political action committees are going to be formed. You're going to see a bloodletting that is going to mark a new style of engagement for people who are against same-sex marriage.

Bloodletting? What is this, the Crusades? On top of that, Jackson had been investigated into whether or not he changed his home address to avoid the criticisms of him not even being a D.C. resident.

I read a comment that he and his congregants cross into D.C. on Sunday for church services, their cars with their Maryland license plates crowding residential streets. These are the people who don't want marriage equality, not necessarily the D.C. residents, the people he's "fighting for" to vote on the issue.

Council member Marion Barry, one of two who voted against marriage equality, also has an interesting fact about his ward.

So far in D.C., 36 hate crimes have been reported in 2009, about the same rate as 2007 and 2008; however, a far majority of these have been based on sexual orientation - 31 as of September, 35 as of December.

Numbers can be debated. But one number can not: the rise in sexual orientation hate crimes in Wards 7 and 8 [police districts 6 and 7].

In 2008, 13 percent of sexual orientation hate crimes took place in these wards. So far in 2009, the number jumped to 32 percent.

On a side note, only two councilmembers---Yvette Alexander and Marion Barry---voted against the gay marriage bill. Who do they represent? Wards 7 and 8.

Interesting. You can make your own conclusions - don't want to jump for anyone else.

The first council vote on marriage equality was a success - another is scheduled for December 15 and is expected to pass. A rally is scheduled for Monday to show support.

WHAT: Rally for DC Marriage Equality
WHO: Campaign for All DC Families, DC Clergy United, co-hosted by the Human Rights Campaign
WHEN: Monday, December 14 starting at 7:00 p.m. ET.
WHERE: Kennedy Recreation Center at 1401 7th Street, Washington D.C. 20001

Catholic Charities Will Continue Work in D.C. Despite Marriage Equality Advancement

Well, I guess it was an empty threat, and the D.C. Council called their bluff.

Catholic News Agency reports:

The Archdiocese of Washington D.C. and Catholic Charities are still “committed to continuing to serve the people of the District of Columbia as we have done for more than 80 years,” despite D.C. Council members voting in favor of same-sex “marriage” in the nation's capital yesterday.

Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese said in a statement yesterday that they will move forward “with the resources available to us,” though the current legislation could threaten to cut government funding of faith-based organizations, such as Catholic Charities, if they do not compromise their religious beliefs.

On Nov. 17, Archbishop Wuerl stated that the same-sex “marriage” bill would cause the city itself to withhold contracts and licenses since Catholic Charities and other religious institutions cannot comply with city mandates to “recognize and promote” it.

Gibbs continued to say in her statement that “as the legislation moves forward, the Archdiocese of Washington will continue its dialogue with the Council to seek a balance of interests in the legislation – that of the city council to legalize same sex marriage and that of religious organizations to protect religious liberties.”

Brian Brown Says D.C. Residents Have 'God-Given' Right to Vote on Marriage Equality

I DID say I wanted to see the look on the faces of Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) when they heard that the D.C. Council passed marriage equality on the first of two scheduled votes. But I DIDN'T say I wanted to hear from them.

Of course, that didn't stop them from yakkin'. Brian Brown issued this response to the vote:

This battle is not over. DC politicians are blocking the right of people to vote on marriage. Voters in 31 other states have already exercised their right to vote on this issue. It is ironic that some politicians actively campaign demanding DC voting rights and yet they are conspiring to deny those same citizens the right to vote on the definition of marriage. We will not give up on D.C. The people of D.C. have the right to vote for marriage; we will fight for their rights and we will win. NOM will be proud to fight alongside Bishop Harry Jackson to make sure politicians hear the people's voice loud and clear: don't mess with marriage. We will fight in Congress. We will fight through the courts to get this to the people of D.C. who have a God-given right to vote for marriage and Charter-given right to overturn the council's decision. We are confident marriage will win in the end in D.C. as it has in Maine and 30 other states.

Yes, it's Americans God-given right (because the Bible says so, right?) to vote away minority rights, just like they did on interracial marriage.

Wait.

No they didn't. Because if they did, interracial would still be illegal today! When the Supreme Court ruled on Loving vs. Virginia, a large majority of Americans thought it was immoral.

(We need to do a better job of teaching history - we have a lot of people today who don't realize that they're committing the damning error of repeating it.)

Just because 31 states have voted on this doesn't make it right. Herd mentality doesn't indicate intelligence.

NOM and Harry Bishop Jackson have appealed the D.C. Board of Elections ruling that no initiative will take place because it would violate the District's Human Rights Act.

Our Families Count reports that D.C. has the largest percentage of same-sex couples in the country with 1.5%, doubling any other state. This is roughly equivalent to 3,600 couples. Opposition would face a stiff challenge at the ballot box, however unconstitutional the vote may be.

Bring it on.

D.C. Council Approves Marriage Equality; Second Vote to Come

In a vote 11-2, the D.C. Council approved the marriage equality bill. A standard second vote is scheduled in two weeks and then the bill must get past a 30-day Congressional review period; however, Congress is not expected to intervene, just as they didn't when the council voted to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed outside their jurisdiction.

“Republicans say it is unlikely they could attract enough Democrats to overturn the law,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

“What a splendid moment this is for all of us,” said Council member Jim Graham (D – Ward 1). “When one of us is denied a right, we are all denied the right.”

This is the good news I've been needing to hear.

Now I just want to see the look on Bishop Harry Jackson, Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown's faces.

As late as yesterday, the Catholic Church leadership in D.C. were still trying to negotiate compromises in the bill. It remains to be seen if they will follow up on their threat to end their charities in the capital.

According to Bob Summersgill on Twitter, lead sponsor David Catania said the bill is still open to amendments, but as of right now, unless they change their policy on not granting their public gay employees spousal benefits, Catholic Charities will be in violation of the law.

Summersgill also reports that council member Marion Barry, who voted against marriage equality, wants a public vote and said that anyone who opposes him on this vote opposes democracy. Bishop Harry Jackson and the National Organization for Marriage has appealed the D.C. Board of Elections ruling against their request for a ballot initiative.

Our Families Count reports that D.C. has the largest percentage of same-sex couples in the country with 1.5%, doubling any other state. This is roughly equivalent to 3,600 couples. Opposition would face a stiff challenge at the ballot box.

Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry said in response, "Today, the District of Columbia’s City Council listened to their constituents and overwhelmingly voted in support of protecting families throughout the District, the first of two votes needed by the council to end the exclusion of gay couples from marriage. A majority of voters, and families, from across New York and New Jersey now look to their representatives in the state legislature to do the right thing and vote in support of the freedom to marry. As research has shown, by voting for the freedom to marry for gay couples, legislators in these states will continue to be re-elected just as every other state legislator who has voted in support of marriage equality and ran for re-election."

Possible Marriage Equality Votes in New York and D.C. Today; New Jersey Dems Sign Letter Urging For Vote

New York

According to the Times Union report yesterday, "The Senate is prepared to hold the long-delayed vote on gay marriage if the deficit reduction package can be put to bed in time tomorrow. Since the bill would pass in extraordinary session, the Assembly would have to debate and vote on the measure despite the fact that it passed marriage equality legislation months ago."

But Elizabeth Benjamin of the New York Daily News says that the deal on the budget may be falling apart, resulting in the marriage vote to be put on hold yet again. Shock.

(H/T Towleroad)


Washington D.C.

D.C. Council is poised to take the first of two scheduled votes on Council member Catania's marriage bill today. 10 of the 13 council members are co-sponsors, so it is expected to pass.

The bill has faced stiff opposition from the Archdiocese of Washington who threatened to end their charitable work in the district if it passed. Since the church receives public funds due to contracts with the city, they said they would be forced to give benefits to gay employees' spouses and objected. The Council has tried to find a common ground with the church but has not given any indication that a lack of resolution would keep them from passing marriage equality.


Read Richard Cohen's Washington Post article, "A Right to Say 'I Do.'"


New Jersey

It's been looking bleak for marriage equality in what was once a big possibility in the Garden State. However, the AP reports today:

Some 200 prominent New Jersey Democrats are urging the Legislature to vote on a gay marriage bill.

The Democrats , including members of Congress, fundraisers and lobbyists , released a letter to leaders in the Senate and Assembly Tuesday demanding the bill be voted up or down before the lame-duck session ends in January.

The letter reads:

We believe that equality and fairness are fundamental principles of New Jersey's Democratic Party, and that is why we call on the state legislature to vote immediately on, and pass, the marriage equality bill.

New Jersey has a proud history of supporting civil rights. It was this legacy that encouraged many of us to become involved in politics. We believe that allowing committed gay and lesbian couples to marry is, at its core, about treating our family members, friends, coworkers, and neighbors with dignity and respect.

We appreciate that this is a difficult issue for some state legislators. But marriage equality is an idea whose time has come. We are confident that the voters will stand by those elected officials who do the right thing.

When our children and grandchildren look back on this moment, we want to be able to tell them that we, too, did the right thing.

As Martin Luther King poignantly reminded us, "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice." That is why we're proud to lend our names and our voices to this important cause. We do so in our capacity as private citizens and Democratic voters, and not on behalf of any particular office or organization.

"The letter to Democratic legislators was signed by a combination of veteran party leaders, young staffers, major fundraisers, political consultants and operatives, and local elected officials," reports the PolitickerNJ, who has a full list of signers, which include Newark Mayor Cory Booker and U.S. Reps. Rush Holt, Frank Pallone and Steven Rothman.

ACTION: Garden State Equality has called for a major lobby day on December 3.

In a related story, the AP has written about the unusual involvement of conservative Orthodox Jewish rabbis who have decided to get involved in the New Jersey marriage equality debate, voicing strong opposition to the same-sex marriage bill.

D.C. Officials Seek Faulty Compromise With Catholic Charities Over Marriage Equality

The Washington Post reports that some of the D.C. Council members and Del. Eleanor Homes Norton are looking for a compromise with the Archdiocese of Washington to find a way to avoid ending the Catholic Charities in the District while at the same time have legal same-sex marriage. Archbishop Wuerl threatened to close the public services if marriage equality was legalized in the capital.

D.C. officials believe a way can be found for Catholic Charities to continue operating under their current contracts with the District while at the same time have their gay employees be treated equally as their straight counterparts if they were to get married.

"The rights of [gay] partners cannot be any different from similar situated couples, but with that said, if other jurisdictions have found a way to accommodate Catholic Charities, that would be very much be desired," said Norton, who wants to avoid Congressional intervention.

While Norton has been doing her best to avoid Congress from intervening (and we really don't want that - lately, it doesn't appear many in Congress has a spine to stand up to the Catholic Church - Stupack Amendment anyone?), marriage equality champions Council members David Catania and Phil Mendelson have written directly to the Archbishop of Washington. I obtained a copy of the letter and will post below.

D.C. Council Members Letter to Archbishop

Susan Gibbs, spokesperson for the Catholic Church, told the Washington Post that the church was pleased to see the council members "finally responding" to their concerns, but that it may not be enough to alleviate the Church's fears of having to end their contracts and shut down public services.

I myself would be sad if the Church felt the need to close these services because they do in fact help many homeless and poor people get by day-to-day. However, I am not satisfied with the proposal given by council members because the solution they offer has to do with domestic partnerships and not necessarily with marriage (though I applaud the effort). And in this case particularly, you will be yet again relegating same-sex couples to a lesser status, but you would also have to do this to employed straight couples. Not very good.

On top of this, the fact that's really itching at the back of my brain is that the Catholic Church has declared full on war with marriage equality throughout the nation.

Back in August I reported on the Church's plan to put aside $2 million to fight marriage equality nationwide, even letting several parishes in Maine close rather than to give up this fight.

Yet this same Church cries foul when they're held to the same standards as any other business receiving public funds. They say they shouldn't be forced to follow discrimination laws because of their beliefs, and if they choose not to receive public funds anymore so they can continue to discriminate, then they'll be forced to close because they won't have enough money to function.

I say, Why not dip into the marriage war chest? Function as a private institution. Instead of using the $2 million to fight fellow citizens' rights, why not use it to do the good work you're already doing and let people live their lives as they see fit?

I'd have more respect for the Church if they did this than if they acknowledged my relationship in a compromised form. Don't want to acknowledge a gay employees' marriage? Don't hire gay employees! As a religious institution, they're exempt (in many circumstances) and able to do so.

As long as they're not receiving government funds.

Ah, but there's the rub. It's about the money.

Gibbs, the church spokesperson, seems to agree with me about the domestic partnership angle of the council members' proposal. She said that Archbishop Wuerl was reviewing the council members' letter, but church staffers wonder how the council can equate domestic partnership in San Francisco with same-sex marriage. See, even the church knows the two categories are not equal. She noted that the District has a domestic partnership law but that the Church is not covered by it.

And the dance continues.

D.C. Marriage Equality Opponents File Lawsuit in an Attempt to Force Prop-8 Style Ballot Measure

Marriage equality opponents Bishop Harry Jackson and conservative group Alliance Defense Fund have filed a lawsuit against the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics who ruled Tuesday that a Prop 8-style initiative called the "Marriage Initiative of 2009", which would have defined marriage as between one man and one women for the District, could not proceed.

“The people of D.C. have a right to vote on the definition of marriage,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks in their press release. “The D.C. Charter guarantees the people the right to vote, and the council cannot amend the charter for any reason, much less to deny citizens the right to vote. ADF will defend the right of the residents of our nation’s capitol to participate in a legitimate democratic process in the district.”

They're claiming that they are defending the rights of voters. Hmm . . . defending the rights of some to take away the rights of others. Brilliant logic!

In July, Bishop Jackson attempted to get an initiative started to thwart the District's bill to recognize legal same-sex marriage performed outside its borders. Both the board and DC Superior Court Judge Retchin ruled against them, basing their decision on the District's Human Rights Act which bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Today the Washington Post released a profile on Bishop Jackson, in which he admits that he always knew that the battle of the new bill to legalize marriage equality within D.C. itself would head to the Superior Court. "The Lord is in all this," the bishop claims. "All over the country, it's evident that the strategy of the radical gay movement is to work the courts and legislatures. It's gonna be a knock-down, drag-out legal situation."

This should raise some red flags. Back in July, when the bishop and fellow opponents lost their case in D.C.'s Superior Court, they opted out of appealing to the D.C. Court of Appeals. Yet it seems clear that they intend to this time and this could be biggest hurdle facing the District's marriage bill.

Back in 1995, it was this court that ruled in Dean vs. the District of Columbia against granting a gay couple a marriage license. Yet Superior Court Judge Retchin stated in her July ruling, "The Court in Dean did not consider whether the government could refuse to recognize the legal right of persons to remain married solely because of their sexual orientation. In fact, the Court in Dean could not have addressed this issue because when Dean was decided in 1995, no state had legalized same-sex marriage."

Hopefully the D.C. Court of Appeals agrees.

Further into the Washington Post piece, Bishop Jackson reiterates the illogical conclusions that the high crime and divorce rates in the African American community, which he claims undermines traditional family values, is due largely in part by abortions and gay marriages.

"I don't know of anybody black who says, 'I hate gay people.' We're more accepting generally. But you overlap that -- homosexuality and gay marriage -- with broken families, and we don't know how to put it back together."

OK. So my desire to marry my fiance is going to destroy family after family? My desire to have a family of my own is going to rip apart other families in D.C. and other parts of the country because . . . well, he doesn't really say. I understand that many men in the African American community are on the down-low, which sadly has caused many problems, including broken families and the spread of HIV. But this problem is completely separate from out gay couples wanting to make a lifetime, legally recognized commitment to their relationship. The bishop continues with some shoddy spinning by quipping that redefining marriage redefines family, which will send the black culture into a free fall.

But what the bishop ignores is the fact that same-sex couples have existed for thousands of years, and they have had families this entire time. Where's the destruction of society? Just because the LGBT civil rights movement has made the country more aware of their existence, doesn't mean they suddenly appeared out of nowhere and are a new, impending threat to what he calls "traditional values."

And if I remember correctly, we're not the ones that redefined marriage in the law books of 31 states as "between one man and one woman." Before, this distinction wasn't made, which is why same-sex couples demanded marriage certificates and why the courts ordered they be given. It took anti-LGBT forces to redefine the legal, civil definition of marriage, to actively bar LGBT citizens from marrying.

Just saying.

VIDEO: CNN Reports on Dispute Between Catholic Church and DC Over Marriage Equality

Recently, the Archdiocese of Washington threatened to end all of its charitable work in the District of Columbia if marriage equality is passed. Father David O'Connell, President of the Catholic University America, appeared on CNN to address the issue.



A few choice quotes from Father O'Connell:

"The archbishop of Washington and the staff of the office of the archdiocese of Washington has indicated as late as yesterday that it has no intention to stop serving the needs of the people of the archdiocese of Washington, especially the poorest of the poor."

"[Marriage equality in D.C.] will force us or put us into a situation where we may be at legal risk because of our own teachings and the beliefs that we experience and express that do not allow us to engage in some of the activities that are supported or promoted in the legislation."

"[The Church] will do its best to continue as usual. The legislation puts our relationship with the District of Columbia at risk, and that's the issue. It's not that we want to do this, that we need to do this, that we have to do this. We can't represent something that goes against our core beliefs, and this is an issue that is part of our core beliefs."

The last sentence is a head scratcher. It sounds like a bit of subtle backtracking but not really. In other words, he says they don't want or have to do this. So why do it?

D.C. Board of Elections Rules Against Public Vote on Marriage Rights

Just as they did back in June, D.C. Board of Elections ruled against marriage equality opponents and denied their request for a Proposition 8-style ballot initiative that would have restricted marriage between one man and one woman in an attempt to undo the D.C. City Council's marriage equality bill.

In June Bishop Harry Jackson and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) went to the board to request an initiative on the bill that allowed the District to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed outside its borders. This was their attempt to thwart the bill by having a public vote. They were ruled against. They appealed to DC Superior Court but the judge also ruled against them, saying such an initiative would violate the District's Human Rights Act which bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.

D.C.'s marriage equality recognition bill passed.

The same day public testimony was heard by the D.C. City Council on the marriage bill on October 26, Jackson and NOM again testified in front of the board, requesting an initiative on the bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in the capital, again hoping that the public would vote against it.

The Human Rights Act was also the reasoning behind the board's decision today, saying that denying same-sex couples the rights and benefits afforded to married couples simply because of their orientation is discrimination.

The District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics today released a memorandum opinion on the “Marriage Initiative of 2009”, which would establish that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in the District of Columbia.” A public hearing on the proposed initiative was held on October 26, 2009.

Under current law, the District recognizes as valid same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The Board concludes that that Marriage Initiative of 2009 would, if passed, strip same-sex couples who have entered into such marriages of rights afforded to them by that recognition. Accordingly, the Board orders in its memorandum that the Initiative be received but not accepted under D.C. Code section 1-1001.16(b)(2), which prohibits the Board from accepting an initiative that authorizes discrimination prohibited under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.

“We have considered all of the testimony presented to the Board and understand the desire to place this question on the ballot,” said Board Chairman Errol R. Arthur. “However, the laws of the District of Columbia preclude us from allowing this initiative to move forward.”

It's a shame that this stripping of rights by a tyrannical majority rule continues throughout the rest of the country.

D.C. City Council will hold a preliminary vote on the marriage bill on December 1 with a final vote before the end of the year. It is expected to pass as 10 out of the 13 council members are co-sponsors.

The last hurdle before final passage is the U.S. Congress, which will have 30 Congressional days to intervene. Though they did not interfere with the recognition bill, it may not be so easy this time with the Democrats experiencing more and more pressure from the Catholic Church (health care anyone?) who has threatened to end all charitable work in the District if marriage equality passes.

Rev. Cedric Harmon, a D.C. resident and a representative of D.C. Clergy United for Marriage Equality, said in response to today's decision, "It is shameful when religious leaders fail to uphold the Christian teachings of our faith by trying to institutionalize a second-class citizenship on our neighbors. People of faith have worked for generations to achieve social justice for all people — regardless of race, creed, class, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. We serve our entire flock, and there is no justification under God that we should discriminate against any of God’s children."

Catholic Church Threatens to End All Its Public Services if D.C. Passes Marriage Equality

This comes as no surprise to me.

The Catholic Church in Washington D.C. has threatened to pull out of all social services in the District if the City Council moves forward with the currently proposed marriage bill. Their concerns stem from the fact that though they will be exempt from having to provide wedding day services, they will be forced to recognize the relationships afterward through employee spousal benefits and other consequences of marriage equality.

Such a threat if followed through could affect tens of thousands of residents, reports the Washington Post, because of the assistance the church provides for adoption, homelessness and health care.

"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

However, it appears to me that the Church's biggest problem is with existing legislation, the Human Rights Act, which demands that discrimination against gays and lesbians not be tolerated.

The church is not the dominant provider in the district for its charitable services, though if they pull out, it will have an impact. But WaPo is saying that the church's influence is limited, with the marriage bill's sponsor, councilmember David Catania, who claims to have been a big supporter of their charitable work, says he'd rather part ways with the Church than to give into their threats.

"If they find living under our laws so oppressive that they can no longer take city resources, the city will have to find an alternative partner to step in to fill the shoes," Catania said. He also told WaPo that the Catholic Charities was involved in only six of the 102 city-sponsored adoptions last year.

Marriage equality advocates are telling the paper that this is the first that such a heated falling out has occurred over a marriage bill and public services.

But this has been a long-time coming. Who doesn't remember the Yes on 1 campaign crying foul that a Catholic adoption agency in Massachusetts, which was receiving government funds, chose to shut down instead helping same-sex couples adopt?

It's the same thing here. What the church is really objecting to is LGBT citizens receiving equality and as a result, more standing in society. This forces the church to deal with them publicly instead of keeping the status quo, which is acting like the LGBT population doesn't exist (unless of course to use us as a scapegoat for pedophile priests).

The crux of the problem is that the existing Human Rights Act, which is separate from the marriage bill, already demands that the church offer its public services to all residents if these public services are receiving public money. I've already objected to the fact that the current religious exemptions in the marriage bill violate the Human Rights Act, but now that the church is demanding even more coddling and special treatment, they're beyond reproach.

Let's face it. The Catholic Church will soon argue itself into non-relevance, exposing its hypocrisy to the point where society will have no interest in any of the actual good that it performs. Which is a shame because Jesus ordered that they feed the hungry and shelter the poor, something that the Church is good at doing. Jesus didn't say anything about gays or lesbians. Unfortunately, the Church has interpreted that as persecute and then ignore them.

So much for charity.

RELATED:

• WaPo - D.C. marriage bill draws eyes across the region
• Catholic Church Ready to Throw Homeless Under Bus in Order to Stop Gay Marriage

The Status of LGBT Rights Bills in Congress

The Washington Blade has done an extensive report, interviewing Rep. Barney Frank and more, on the status of several different LGBT rights bills making their way through Congress and when they may actually hit the chambers' floors for voting.

DON'T ASK DON'T TELL

The effort to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will likely come next year as an amendment to the Defense Department spending bill, rather than through a standalone bill, according to gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

Frank said in an interview with the Blade that repealing the 1993 law barring gays from serving openly in the military would happen as part of the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill.

“The House will take up and the Senate will take up ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal,” he said. “That will again, like hate crimes, even more so, will have to be done, I believe, in the context of the defense authorization. You can’t do the standalone bill. It belongs in the defense authorization.”

Currently, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) sponsors the standalone version of legislation in the House, but there is no equivalent for the Senate.

David Stacy, HRC’s senior public policy advocate, noted that Congress enacted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 1993 as part of a defense authorization bill, so repealing the law via the same vehicle would mirror the process.

So look for Congress to take on DADT in the summer of 2010.


EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT

"Action on other pro-LGBT legislation seems more imminent," reports the Blade. "Frank said Congress could advance the Employment Non-Discrimination Act . . . in the near future."

Frank, sponsor the the House version of ENDA, says the bill is in good shaped and headed to the House Education & Labor Committee would mark up ENDA before year’s end and then will hit the floor for a vote in February and then to Senate voting in Spring.

Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, is more optimistic and believes it could all happen before the end of the year.

Frank has concerns though on obtaining the necessary 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster for ENDA and DADT.


DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS & OBLIGATIONS ACT

This bill would provide partner benefits to LGBT federal employees.

“That one I’m the most confident is going to become law because I think you have Senate support for it — enough to get to the 60” votes needed to overcome a filibuster, Frank said.

Lieberman is sponsor of the Senate version of the legislation while Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the only out lesbian in Congress, is sponsoring the House version of the bill. Baldwin was recently quoted in The Hill as saying she “absolutely” believes there are enough votes to pass the bill in the House.

Herwitt believes this bill can be taken up along with ENDA.

“The critical question is, given the Republicans getting worse and worse on LGBT issues, whether we’ll get any Republicans voting,” Frank said. “I assume we would have safe senators — [Sen. Olympia] Snowe and [Sen. Susan] Collins, maybe [Sen. George] Voinovich or one or two others — but that’s the key.”


UNITING AMERICAN FAMILIES ACT/IMMIGRATION REFORM

This standalone bill, if passed, would allow LGBT citizens to sponsor a foreign partner for residency.

Immigration advocates hope provisions can be added as part of comprehensive immigration reform that are equal to UAFA.

Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, said his organization is pushing for inclusion of the provision in immigration reform legislation that Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) are expected to introduce later this year.

“They are still operating on a timeline of introduction around the end of the year,” Ralls said. “All indications that we have so far is that it’s probably late December, early January in terms of introduction of an actual bill.”

RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT

The full-DOMA repeal, which has 104 sponsors, was introduced by Rep. Jerrold, Nadler. There is no Senate equivalent, though Sen. Russ Feingold has been approached. No hearings or markups have been scheduled.

“I think there’s three or four gay rights bills that are cued up,” said John Doty, a Nadler spokesperson. “The Respect for Marriage Act is a little bit further down that list. It hasn’t been talked about as long or debated as long … as the other bills.”

Frank is not a co-sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act and said he’s not optimistic about the bill’s chances because “marriage is the toughest of these issues.”

“That’s why I do not see any chance of any success on marriage in the Congress this year,” he said. “Neither does anyone else, by the way, no matter what people pretend to make people feel better. But that’s why we’re focusing on these other issues.”

EVERY CHILD DESERVES A FAMILY ACT/ADOPTION BILL

This bill, introduced by Rep. Pete Stark, would restrict federal funding to states that have adoption restrictions, including those that bar same-sex couples from adopting. Frank intends to sign on as co-sponsor, but right now the bill has none.

Frank's optimistic, but - “Even people from certain states who don’t agree with that policy will be reluctant to vote to deny money to their states. Plus, you have Republican opposition in general. Remember, the Republicans are now almost monolithically against us.”

“I think this bill needs to be seen and viewed positively, most importantly, by the child welfare professionals and have the support of the leading child welfare and children’s rights organizations,” Herwitt said.

D.C. Committee to Make Major Changes to Marriage Equality Bill For Stronger Religious Exemptions

UPDATE: HRC Backstory reports that the bill has passed the committee with added religious exemptions and is now going to the full council for an initial vote on December 1. The final vote will happen before the end of the year.

The Washington Post is reporting that a D.C. Council Committee is bowing to the pressure of the Archdiocese of Washington and other religious organizations because they don't like the language of the original marriage equality bill.

The current language states that religious officials who offer services to the public would have to offer those same wedding-related services to same-sex couples as well. This will restrict charitable services argue the religious institutions.

The proposed revisions mean, for example, that church officials do not have to rent reception space to a same-sex couple for a wedding, even if heterosexual couples can access that space. But churches would still have to abide by other aspects of the city's Human Rights Act, including not discriminating against gay employees who choose to get married.

"It was just clear, as a result of the testimony and as a result of the result of the public process, there were some fixes that needed to be made," said Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At large), chairman of the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary.

Proposition 8 and the Right to Marry breaks it down.

D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) released Monday a revised draft of the same-sex marriage bill ... [The] original bill noted that “a religious organization, association or society, or a nonprofit organization which is operated, supervised, or controlled by” a church or religious group “shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, facilities or goods” for the purpose of performing any marriage “unless the entity makes such services, accommodations, or goods available … to members of the general public.” The revised bill removes the “unless the entity makes such services, accommodations, or goods available … to members of the general public” language. In a 22-page report that accompanies the bill’s new version, Mendelson’s committee says it “removed this language … after considerable comment from both secular and non-secular organizations ... Including this language would have had the undesirable impact of religious institutions closing their spaces to community groups and organizations, as there would otherwise be civil [liability] stemming from any refusal to solemnize or celebrate a same-sex marriage.

The changes will be revealed Tuesday afternoon after the committee votes on the proposed amendments, then it will be sent to full council.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Though I understand the need to protect religious liberty and adamantly support it, I don't know of any legislation exempting religious institutions who offer public services to anyone from discrimination laws protecting African American couples, interracial couples, old couples, couples who have divorced and are remarrying. Why is it necessary to write legalized discrimination against same-sex couples into the legislation? Why single us out?

I hope that this is just a way to get the bill passed with less controversy and the plan is to go back and revise. But again, why is this necessary since 10 out of the 13 coucilmembers are co-sponsors and intend to vote for it?

Another major change will allow domestic partnership in the District to continue alongside same-sex marriage, making the capital the first jurisdiction in the country to offer both institutions. Many LGBT advocacy groups argued to keep marriage separate from domestic partnerships, and that one should not supersede the other.

The bill is expected to be approved before Christmas.

NOM's Maggie Gallagher Shows Up at D.C. Marriage Equality Rally

Uhm, Maggie, did you really think they wouldn't notice that you were there, gloating all the while? At least when we have a rally, we don't shut people out like you do. You're always welcome. But don't say I didn't warn you . . .



Speaking of Maggie - she recently appeared in a public debate facing off with Marriage Equality New York's Board President, Cathy Marino-Thomas at Hofstra University recently. In the debate, she had the gall to say to Cathy:

[Your lesbian relationship] may be better, but it’s not a marriage. It may be better than a marriage. It’s probably better than my marriage, to hear you talk about it. I wouldn’t talk about my marriage in such glowing terms.

Speaking of Maggie's marriage - she actually married outside her Christian religion to a Hindu. I have no problem with that. Actually, I think it's rather cool and shows she may be a little more open-minded than I thought (or she's just a hypocritical oxymoron). But I wonder what the fundamentalists who donate tons of money to her National Organization for Marriage would think of that.

(H/T Mike Tidmus)

Oh, and one other thing. Do you think Maggie while fire Ex-Miss California Carrie Prejean now that the former beauty queen has a sex tape floating around?

VIDEO: NOM's Brian Brown Faces D.C. Councilman and Marriage Equality Bill Sponsor David Catania

At yesterday's public hearing on D.C.'s marriage equality bill, Councilman and lead sponsor of the bill David Catania faced down the National Organization for Marriage Executive Director Brian Brown.


(video via NGBlog)

VIDEO: Second Half of D.C.'s Marriage Equality Hearing Happening Today

So many signed up for D.C.'s City Council public hearing on the proposed marriage equality bill, they had to split it in two. Last Monday over 100 people spoke. Today, 169 are scheduled to speak.



Watch the proceedings live.

VIDEO: 100 Clergy in Support of Marriage Equality Gather in Washington D.C.

The Washington Post reports:

About 200, representing nearly every faith, have formed D.C. Clergy United for Marriage Equality. On Thursday night, more than 100 of them gathered at Asbury United Methodist Church in Northwest Washington to support a bill that D.C. Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large) introduced this month that would allow same-sex couples to marry.

"There is this myth out there that you can't be pro-God and pro-gay," said the Rev. Robert M. Hardies, senior minister of All Souls Church, Unitarian, in the Columbia Heights area. "We are doing the best we can to share the message that there is strong support from within D.C.'s religious community for equality."

Two hearings were held this past Monday. Opponents of marriage equality went before the District's Elections and Ethics committee urging them to allow a Prop 8 style referendum so that D.C. residents could vote on the issue.

The other hearing was open to the public to voice their views on the bill to the City Council. 269 people signed up to testify, making it the largest hearing ever. The Council decided to break it into two hearings. Monday, 100 people testified.

This upcoming Monday, November 2, the second half will begin at 9:30am EST. It will be held at the same location, the the City Council chambers on the fifth floor of the John Wilson City Hall Building at 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. You can watch it live here.

News Roundup: Sen. Schumer Calls for Nationwide Marriage Equality; Maine AG Challenges NOM; Kalamazoo Update; Yes on 1 Claims Hate Crime Victimhood

Sen. Schumer Calls for Full, Nationwide Marriage Equality

Sen. Chuck Schumer spoke at a Empire State Pride Agenda dinner, the largest LGBT advocacy group in New York. In his speech, Schumer made a call to his colleagues to full marriage equality in all fifty states.

"If Dick Cheney can support marriage, so can every Senator. So can every Democrat, Republican, Liberal Conservative. Equality should know no bounds, and we must not rest until we have marriage in all fifty of these United States."



Maine's Attorney General Challenges NOM

Attorney General Janet Mills says now that a federal judge has ruled against their request to suspend Maine's law that they disclose donor identities, they should hand over the information now and not wait until after elections.

"We are not going to give them legal advice. We trust that their legal counsel will advise them to comply fully," she said. "The court has ruled that it is in the public interest to do so, and the law couldn't be clearer.

"I would hope that they would file before the election," Mills said. "Why not? What is there to hide?"

Kalamazoo In the Middle of a LGBT Rights Battle

Kalamazoo, MI residents will have to decide whether or not to reject the city commission's non-discrimination ordinance which would outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in work, housing and public accommodations.

From WoodTV:

Mary Balkema, the Kalamazoo County Treasurer, heads the opposition group Kalamazoo Citizens Voting No.

Balkema was instrumental in gathering thousands of signatures two different times to get the measure rescinded by the city commission and placed on the ballot.

Their main argument is that an ordinance protecting the rights of gays and lesbians in hiring, housing and public accommodation isn't necessary. They say discrimination against gays and lesbians simply doesn't happen in Kalamazoo.

"The opposite side cannot site one example of discrimination in housing, employment or public accommodation," Balkema said. "So this discriminatory ordinance is looking for a non-existent problem."

But David Garcia, the Executive Director of the Kalamazoo Gay and Lesbian Resource Center, says the ordinance is not only necessary, it's past due.

"When we hear the opposition say that Kalamazoo doesn't need an ordinance because it just doesn't happen here in Kalamazoo, gay people aren't being fired, I'm quick to say come on down here to the Resource Center and volunteer with us for a month, answer the phone calls and you'll see that's' simply not true," Garcia told 24 Hour News 8.

Balkema was responsible for passing an offensive flyer that has scared residents into voting against the ordinance. The flyer shows pictures of men in women's clothing and stating that they will infiltrate women's bathrooms and commit assault, adding that children will have to share bathrooms with sexual predators.



Help the campaign One Kalamazoo! Find even more info here.

Washington Post Columnist Debunks D.C. Anti-Marriage Testimonies

Metro columnist for the Washington Post, Robert McCartney has written a great editorial debunking the testimonies of D.C. residents who spoke out against the District's marriage equality bill, one of whom said "Once you became a homosexual, you gave up your rights."

The Rev. Walter E. Fauntroy, the District's first delegate to Congress, was probably the most prestigious person who testified against same-sex marriage. He spoke at the election board hearing about what he sees as the importance of allowing a vote; afterward I asked him about the substance of the issue.

Fauntroy said that same-sex marriage threatens children. "Every child needs to be bonded to a man and a woman," he said. That ignores research showing that same-sex couples do a perfectly good job of raising children. Also, same-sex couples can already adopt in the District.

Fauntroy also said the "survival of the species" is at stake. "I have some brilliant friends who are gay, and it bothers me that they're not going to pass those genes on," he said.

I've got news for Fauntroy. His friends are more likely to pass on their genes, such as by artificial insemination, if they are permitted to marry. He and the other opponents should get out of the way and let them do so.

Yes on 1 in Maine Claims Their Defaced Signs Is A Hate Crime

. . . but did they do it themselves?

VIDEO: Watch DC's Public Hearing on Their Marriage Equality Bill

With much thanks to NGBlog, I have some video to post for your viewing pleasure of some of the amazing and admittedly crazy testimony given yesterday by those against the marriage equality bill.

However, don't let these videos give the wrong impression. Michael Crawford of D.C. for Marriage says that out of the 100 testimonies yesterday, 79 were for marriage, 13 against equality, 8 no shows.

The #1 crazy testimony floating around the internet today is this woman. Who saw demons everywhere. She was the last to speak. What a way to end with a bang!



This woman talked about kids watching zoo animal sex and icky condoms. She never really got around to talking about marriage equality.



Here's the infamous Bishop Harry Jackson.



But thankfully, these types of speeches were few and far between. (You can see more here.)

Many were supportive and gave moving testimony. I'm looking for video of these, but in the meantime, you can view the opening of the hearing with the D.C. City Council expressing support.

Here's MyFoxDC's newsreport:



169 more people are expected to give testimony next Monday, November 2nd. It will be held at the same location, the the City Council chambers on the fifth floor of the John Wilson City Hall Building at 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.starting at 9:30am EST. You can watch it live here.

The Washington Post reports on the other hearing that day. Marriage equality opponents spoke before the Districts Board of Elections and Ethics urging for a Prop 8 style initiative. If board doesn't decide in their favor, they threaten to go to the courts. Again. But when they tried that last time, didn't they lose? YES.

Image: Marriage equality opponent Bishop Harry Jackson by MyFoxDC

VIDEO: Pastors Rant Against D.C.'s Marriage Equality Bill at Sunday Protest

On Sunday, a day before two scheduled hearings on D.C.'s proposed marriage equality bill, anti-LGBT forces protested its possible passage. (Watch the City Council's hearing live taking place today until 9pm EST)

Maryland's Bishop Harry Jackson, long-time opponent to any progress in D.C., and pastor Matt Anderson made appearances.



So, I would like to ask these pastors - I took care of my flu-ridden partner this weekend, making sure he felt as comfortable as he could, doting on him while taking care of the chores.

Is this an abomination?