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.

New Report Shows That Gay Priests Not More Likely to Molest Than Straight Counterparts

In September the Vatican tried to shift the blame of the pedophilia problem plaguing its priests on gays. The Guardian reported, "In a defiant and provocative statement, issued following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the Holy See said the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not paedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males."

However, the AP reports that a preliminary study commissioned by the the U.S. Roman Catholic Bishops has found this statement to be false and that gay priests are no more likely to molest children than their straight counterparts.

"What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse," said Margaret Smith of John Jay College, in a speech to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "At this point, we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse from the data that we have right now."

-------

At the meeting Tuesday, Bishop Edward Braxton, of the Diocese of Belleville, Ill., asked the researchers whether their study indicated that homosexuality should be considered when evaluating a candidate for the priesthood. In 2005, the Vatican issued a policy statement that men with "deep-seated" attraction to other men should be barred from the priesthood.

Smith said: "If that exclusion were based on the fact that that person would be more probable than any other candidate to abuse, we do not find that at this time."

The AP also reports that experts on sex offenders reject any link between sexual orientation and committing abuse and that one should approached incidents by examining the offender and the victims they had available to them.

The final report won't be finished until the end of next year. But so far, it does indicate that the rate of abuse has declined steadily since the 1980s and that the peak was in the 1960s and 1970s. Cases arising today usually deal with incidents that occurred decades ago. Nearly 14,000 molestation claims have been filed against Catholic clergy since 1950 and abuse-related costs paid out by the church have reached a minimum $2.3 billion in the same period.

Though I do have a lot of issues with the Catholic leadership, it is a positive sign that they're looking into this problem within their ranks. However, the study is obviously not giving them the results they were hoping for. The true test comes after the report is finished and how the Vatican reacts to continue to address this serious problem. Maybe now they can stop trying to shift the blame and address the issue.

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?

VIDEO: Dolly Parton Declares Her Support for Marriage Equality

Joy Behar refers to Parton's religious background and asks whether or not she supports marriage equality.



The singer joked: “I always say, ‘Sure, why can’t they get married? They should suffer like the rest of us do."

Recently, mega-pastor from Texas, Joel Osteen, recently appeared on The View, another show Behar co-hosts. The evangelical declared that gays were "not God's best work."

Behar asked Parton her thoughts on what Osteen said to which she replied she did not usually discuss the issue in that much depth but added: "I think God made us who we are and how we are and I don't think that if he was a religious person, that he would be judging people."

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."

GLAD Requests Summary Judgment On Lawsuit Against DOMA, Countering DOJ's Motion to Dismiss Case

Back in March, GLAD filed a lawsuit against Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which restricts the federal government from recognizing any marriages other than heterosexual. Section 2 of DOMA, not at issue in this lawsuit, allows states to establish public policies about what marriages they will and will not respect. The GLAD case was filed as Gil vs. the Office of Personnel Management.

On September 18, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit asking the courts to throw the case out arguing that DOMA must stand using "rational basis review," or the lowest level of judiciary scrutiny on the case.

America Blog reported, "All the government must do is prove a 'rational basis' for the legislation meaning 'a legislative policy must be upheld so long as there is any reason- ably conceivable set of facts that could provide a rational basis for it, including ones that Congress itself did not advance or consider. DOMA satisfies this standard.'"

I wrote at the time:

I find it striking that the Department of Justice (DOJ) used the rational basis argument given that recently, the proponents of Proposition 8 just filed a motion for summary judgment to avoid going to trial on the federal case against the initiative. One of their arguments rest on the rational basis argument (which relies heavily on past rulings and tradition), stating that gays and lesbians are not warranted heightened scrutiny (which requires evaluation of found facts and witness testimony to determine if a law harms or helps state interest) - a stark disagreement with the California Supreme Court ruling in the marriage cases which classified gays and lesbians as suspect, putting us in the same category as race and gender among others.

Today, GLAD has responded to the DOJ by filing for a summary judgment itself. This is the same tactic used by the defendants of Prop 8 to avoid going to trial. However, on this case, this works for us.

GLAD wants the judge to issue a ruling in its favor based on law without trial. However, unlike the defendants of Prop 8 and the DOJ who do not want heightened scrutiny, GLAD does because it reveals more of the discriminatory motivations behind DOMA, thus proving there is no rational basis for it and the government should not uphold it.

No federal court has reviewed sexual orientation with heightened scrutiny. If the court agrees and reviews before the Prop 8 trial in January, it will be the first to do so.

Following is GLAD's press release (PDF):

GLAD Forcefully Responds to U.S. Motion to Dismiss DOMA Lawsuit; Seeks Final Ruling in Favor of Plaintiff Couples

Stepping up its litigation challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) today filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts both an opposition to the federal government's motion to dismiss Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, and a motion for summary judgment seeking a final ruling on the law in favor of the plaintiffs.

"Both sides agree that our plaintiffs have taken on the commitments of marriage, played by the rules, paid into the system, and been denied benefits because of DOMA," says GLAD Legal Director Gary Buseck.

"Now we're asking the court to say once and for all that the federal government must end its blatant double standard of providing rights and protections to all married couples except gay and lesbian married couples."

"While the government has rightly abandoned the reasons Congress relied on in passing DOMA in 1996, it now seeks to dismiss our case by arguing that DOMA "maintains the status quo," says Mary L. Bonauto, GLAD Civil Rights Project Director.

"The reality is that DOMA itself radically changed the status quo by which the federal government recognized and accepted state determinations of who is married. There is no valid excuse for the federal discrimination imposed by DOMA and this can be resolved now and without a trial."

GLAD argues that under Equal Protection guarantees, there is no justification for splitting married people into two classes: those who are "married" under federal law and those whose marriages do not exist for any federal purposes. "We believe that DOMA should receive 'heightened scrutiny' from the District Court for many reasons, including because it deliberately targets gay men and lesbians," said Bonauto.

More specifically, GLAD argues that

• DOMA represents an unprecedented intrusion of the federal government into the states’ traditional roles in determining the marital status of its citizens.
• By prohibiting married same-sex couples from accessing the safety net, the federal government provides for all other married couples, DOMA Section 3 unfairly burdens their ability to protect and care for their families.
• By targeting gay men and lesbians, DOMA discriminates explicitly on the basis of sexual orientation. GLAD argues that any discrimination based upon a person’s sexual orientation should be viewed with suspicion by the court.
  

America Blog was available for a press conference call with GLAD that I was unable to make. They report, "Several reporters asked whether this case could ultimately end up in the Supreme Court. If it does, according to the GLAD lawyers, the ruling would impact only those states that allow same-sex marriage and would determine whether the federal government would have to respect those marriages. If the judge does find DOMA unconstitutional, it's expected that the Obama administration would appeal that ruling."

The following are PDF downloads:

• Motion
• Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment
• Statement of Non-Adjudicative Facts
• Statement of Undisputed Facts

Here you will find plaintiff and expert affidavits supporting GLAD's arguments. The submission of these testimonies will be permissible under heightened scrutiny.

MUST SEE VIDEO: Colbert Skewers Catholic Church on Marriage Equality and Funeral . . . Rights

Remember how the Catholic Church decided to throw the poor and homeless under the bus in an attempt to stop marriage equality from happening in D.C.? And how Rhode Island's Catholic Governor vetoed a bill that would allow domestic partners to make funeral arrangements for each other?

Well, Catholic-raised Colbert has a few choice . . . words on the matter.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Skeletons in the Closet
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor U.S. Speedskating