Visit the new site for marriage equality in the District of Columbia: www.dcformarriage.org.

May 17th, 2004 will go down in history as the day marriage licenses were first issued to couples in the state of Massachusetts. What you might not know, however, is that it is also a historical day for the District of Columbia. On that day, for the first time ever, six brave couples went to the DC Courthouse to request marriage licenses asking two very simple questions. Why not us? Why not now?

They were a diverse group of individuals. The oldest couple was in their sixties, and the youngest couple was in their twenties. Both male and female couples; African American, Latino, and White; wealthy couples and not-so-wealthy.

We had a rally on the steps of the courhouse that day. And then we had a celebration to mark the occasion (complete with a wedding cake) at Cobalt.

Groups like the GLAA weren't supportive of this effort. They were focused on (and have done good work on) domestic partnership legislation in DC. But on that particular day, the day Marriage Licenses were issued in Massachusetts, I'm proud that some of us stood up right here and said we want nothing less than full equality in the District.

These couples were denied the right to marry in the District of Columbia. They are still waiting.

Visit the new site for marriage equality in the District of Columbia: www.dcformarriage.org.

Matt Raymond has a great letter in this week's Washington Blade:

To the Editors: Re: “Thousands turn out for Capital Pride” (news, June 15)

Though you might have missed it, there was a watershed event last week for gay rights in America when the Massachusetts Legislature plunged a dagger into the heart of efforts to overturn same-sex marriage. For the first time anywhere in our nation, true marriage equality is now on rock-solid legal footing.

Just a day later, the Washington Blade published its lead story on the Capital Pride parade. Out of all the “proud” images the Blade could have chosen to accompany the article, however, it ran a picture of Mayor Adrian Fenty, who “walked the entire route of the parade” throwing out strands of plastic beads. Fair enough.

What went unwritten, however, was the fact that marriage equality in the District of Columbia still remains stubbornly in neutral and that Mayor Fenty himself can help shift the car into drive.

In 2004, D.C.’s attorney general at the time, Robert Spagnoletti, drafted a memo that reportedly opined that the District of Columbia must recognize same-sex marriages that had been legally performed in Massachusetts (and any other state), under the Constitution’s full-faith-and-credit clause. Unfortunately, then-Mayor Anthony Williams sat on the opinion for the remainder of his term and its contents since then have been only grist for rumor.

Fast forward to 2006: When Fenty was running for his current post, according to the Blade, he promised to release the Spagnoletti memo “immediately” after becoming mayor. So far his promise remains unfulfilled.

So why the delay? If Fenty is reversing course, voters deserve to know why.

Some have suggested that such pro-gay moves in the District would incur the wrath of congressional overseers. But that tired argument has even less salience than it used to, when set against the backdrop of the new Democratic-controlled Congress.

The D.C. City Council has already begun asserting itself on other issues, such as needle-exchange programs, at which Congress previously balked. How nice for the drug addicts. But it irks me that gays, once again, have to dine on table scraps after being promised prime rib.

Maybe the answer is as simple as the apathy that tends to accompany landslide electoral victories, or maybe it’s the seemingly intractable cycle of pro-gay rhetoric from candidates before elections and the stiff-arm after.

And if you’re expecting some of your national gay rights groups to hold Fenty’s feet to the fire, don’t hold your breath. The bipartisan-in-name-only Human Rights Campaign, under President Joe Solomonese, has stated baldly that it now wants to function as an adjunct of the Democratic Party, like a labor union. How nice for the Democrats.

Same-sex marriage in the District is in a confusing state of limbo at a time when other states are legalizing gay unions or moving to recognize those conferred by other jurisdictions.

My partner and I were legally married two years ago in Massachusetts. Later this year we will return to live in the District after a brief exile in Northern Virginia. It would be nice for us and many other couples if we knew before relocating whether our marriages will ever be valid in the District’s eyes, just as they already are in our own.

Gays and lesbians in Washington, D.C., are tired of lip service and timidity. It’s time for marriage equality in the District of Columbia.

And it’s time for the mayor to throw us a little respect, not just beads.

MATT RAYMOND
Arlington, Va.

Visit the new site for marriage equality in the District of Columbia: www.dcformarriage.org.

Adrian Fenty got an important reminder this week from The Hill. The Mayor pledged to release a legal opinion on whether or not DC can legally recognize same-sex marriages from other states under current law. The opinion was written by Attorney General Robert Spagnoletti during the Williams administration. Mayor Williams, unwilling to take the issue on, kept the legal opinion top secret. The Hill reports:

"The memo has remained secret presumably because it says something Congress does not want to hear — that the District would recognize a gay marriage from Massachusetts. Attorneys General from other jurisdictions, such as Rhode Island, have not generated backlash by advising their states to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. But, as in all things, D.C. is different."

But with Democrats now in control of Congress, at least one city council member, Jim Graham, says it's time to release the memo.

Visit the new site for marriage equality in the District of Columbia: www.dcformarriage.org.

DC City Council member Jim Graham stated at a recent town hall that he will introduce marriage equality or civil unions legislation in DC "in the next two years". The Washington Post gives more details:

"But first, Graham said, he wants Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) to release a legal opinion on whether the District recognizes same-sex marriages officiated in other states. Former D.C. attorney general Robert Spagnoletti, who served in the Anthony A. Williams administration, prepared an opinion, but it was never made public."

Civil union legislation would not be a significant step forward for the District. We already have a "separate but equal" domestic partnership program for same-sex couples. Same-sex couples can currently register as domestic partners and share many of the same rights and responsibilities as same sex couples.

A "separate but equal" system, however, is never truly equal. One would hope that Jim Graham would introduce legislation for full marriage equality in the District of Columbia.

But as the DCist comments, many still fear a Congressional backlash:

"And really, who can forget the lovely message Sen. Sam Brownback sent our fair city (R-Kan.) the last time this came up in 2005? If we remember correctly, it was something like "try to legalize gay marriage and I'll personally sodomize each and every one of you." But could this, like the ban on District spending for needle exchange programs ... be one more issue the District could theoretically make up its own mind about now that Democrats control Congress?"

Let us hope so.

Visit the new site for marriage equality in the District of Columbia: www.dcformarriage.org.

from the Washington Blade, Friday Jun 1st, 2007

Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty last month reaffirmed his campaign promise to sign a same-sex marriage bill if City Council approves it, saying he’s “always stood in full support for full marriage rights” for gays.

But the mayor, speaking May 14 before the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, said he remains aware that many in the gay community believe it would be counterproductive to move ahead with a D.C. same-sex marriage bill until it became certain that Congress would not overturn it, or worse, pass a law banning same-sex unions in the city.

Under the city’s limited home rule charter, Congress has final authority to overturn or pass any laws it deems appropriate for the District.

“I have not heard as much since the Congress changed hands about whether that now alters some of the people’s views who weren’t in favor of the Council and the mayor going forward,” Fenty told members of the Stein Club, a gay partisan group. “So maybe it’s time to start the dialogue again.”

Most activists associated with the Stein Club and the Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance, the city’s two most influential gay political groups, say they believe the time is not right to move ahead with a same-sex marriage bill for D.C.

Officials with both groups say that while leaders of the new Democratic-controlled Congress tend to be supportive of gay rights, the newly elected Democrats — who enabled their party to win a narrow majority over Republicans — come from moderate to conservative states and districts.

Most of these new members have expressed opposition to same-sex marriage and many would likely vote to overturn a D.C. “gay marriage” bill, GLAA and Stein Club members have said.

Activists favoring a cautious approach point to Congress’ decision in the early 1980s to overturn the District’s decision to repeal its sodomy law, delaying the repeal effort for more than a decade. They also point to Congress’ decision to block the city from implementing its domestic partners law for nine years and its continued ban on a clean needle exchange program for addicts and a medical marijuana bill.

“It’s a real threat, not a remote or theoretical abstraction,” said GLAA Vice President Rick Rosendall, in discussing how Congress would react to a D.C. same-sex marriage bill.

Local gay Democratic activist Lane Hudson has emerged as the most vocal supporter of moving ahead with an equal marriage rights bill in the District. Hudson has said he believes Democratic leaders in Congress would block efforts to overturn such a bill. Earlier this year, he told a gay town meeting sponsored by the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association that Council should pass such a bill before the 2008 congressional elections.

This week, Hudson said he and other local activists recently discussed strategy for a D.C. marriage rights bill for gays and determined such a bill should move forward “within the next few years.”

“Folks I spoke with want to pursue full marriage equality, but there is no consensus yet on a timeline,” he said. “That timeline is going to be sooner than what GLAA is calling for. But it’s not going to be right away.”

Hudson did not identify the other activists he said are working with him.

GLAA has said it is committed to bringing about same-sex marriage as soon as its members and its gay activist allies determine Congress would not intervene.

In public statements, GLAA has said it believes these developments would be necessary before the city should move ahead with a same-sex marriage bill:

• Passage by Congress of a bill introduced by D.C. Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) granting the city a full vote in the House of Representatives.

• Passage by Congress of full budget autonomy for the District.

• Passage by Congress of full legislative autonomy so the District’s local laws are no longer subject to congressional review.

• Passage of same-sex marriage by at least six states, which would likely “temper” Congress’s impulse to meddle with D.C. affairs on the gay marriage question.

Political observers believe the Norton bill has a reasonable chance of passing, but most experts don’t believe Congress is likely to grant the city full budget and legislative autonomy any time soon, perhaps not for another decade.

“The point is not to wait until there is no risk, but until we have a fighting chance,” said GLAA Vice President Rick Rosendall, in a recent commentary.

Leaders of the two largest national gay political groups had differing views on how Congress likely would respond to a D.C. marriage bill.

“We have a friendly leadership in place but we still have a very conservative Congress,” said David Smith, vice president of Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay civil rights group. “I don’t believe that would be a smart, strategic move at this juncture,” Smith said, in discussing a D.C. same-sex marriage bill.

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, said his “gut” feeling is that gays and their political allies “would have a strong shot at either blocking or defeating” an attempt in Congress to overturn a D.C. same-sex marriage bill.

According to Foreman, a large number of senators and House members who voted last year against a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage said that while they personally opposed same-sex marriage they also opposed “federal intervention” in an issue that traditionally has been relegated to the states.

“Even with the history of Congress treating the District contemptuously, I still think this can be framed as a state’s rights issue,” Foreman said.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of the national same-sex marriage advocacy group Freedom to Marry, called on supporters of a D.C. same-sex marriage bill to conduct a methodical survey on such a bill with all members of Congress, something he said has yet to be done.

“This is not a question of conjecture or speculation,” he said. “It’s a matter of calling members of Congress and getting a vote count to see where we are.”

If a careful vote count shows supporters of self-determination for D.C. have the votes to block an attempt to overturn a same-sex marriage bill in the District, City Council and mayor should move ahead on the issue, Wolfson said. If there aren’t enough votes to block an overturn effort, the city should delay passing such a bill, he said.

“This should not be decided one way or the other on impressions,” he said.

Meanwhile, three other local D.C. political groups representing gay blacks, Latinos and Asian-Pacific Islanders have yet to speak out in favor of moving ahead with a D.C. same-sex marriage bill.

Brian Watson, president of the D.C. Coalition of Black Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Men & Women, said the coalition doesn’t consider a same-sex marriage bill high on its list of priorities.

“We do support same-sex marriage in D.C., but we feel there are other, more pressing issues for African-American gays,” he said, including AIDS-related health care and non-discrimination policies.

The local group Latinos En Accion, which represents gay and transgender Latinos and Latinas, also supports same-sex marriage but remains uncertain whether Congress would step in to block it in D.C., according to Ruby Corado, the group’s president.

“We have discussed this,” Corado said. “People are not sure yet that right now is the right time.”

Spokespersons for the local group Asian/Pacific Islander Queers United for Action, or AQUA, did not respond to a request for comment on the same-sex marriage issue. There is no mention of the issue on the group’s web site.

Barack Obama has responded to a presidential candidate survey from the Human Rights Campaign.

click here to see Barack Obama's responses (pdf file)

From rhrealitycheck.org: Today, the House Democrats will waltz into the mark-up of the Labor HHS Subcommittee and proudly present a bill that puts their stamp of approval on domestic abstinence-only-until-marriage programs—an ideological boondoggle that threatens the health and well-being of America's youth.

The most appalling aspect of this sell-out is that that the Democrats will not only fully fund the worst of the failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs—they'll give them a $27 million increase—the first in three years!

Shame on Congressman David Obey for brokering this "deal;" shame on Congresswoman Nita Lowey for agreeing to it; and shame on the other Democrats on the Appropriations Committee who have already promised not to offer any amendment that would cut funding for abstinence-only programs and thus "upset" the deal.

In one inglorious motion, the Democrats have sold the health and well-being of young people down the proverbial drain, delivered a public slap in the face to evidence-based public health, and made a mockery of their "prevention first" message.

Consider this irony. The first domestic policy the Democrats will endorse on the prevention front will be to fund abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for young people up to the age of 29! Good work, gang. You make me proud to be a Democrat—NOT!

And consider this second irony. The Democrats will now become one of the largest funders of an ultra-conservative network that is clearly hostile to its policies and candidates (See an in-depth article in The Nation.)

The funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs represents the worst of cynical, "inside-the-beltway" deal-making. Whose interests were protected at the expense of young people's health and lives? Whose politics were advanced by including this "sweetener" for conservatives in an appropriations bill threatened with a Presidential veto? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Now is the time for advocates to hold these Democrats accountable. It would be the height of hypocrisy to go mute when this kind of damage is done to young people because "our friends" are in power.

We cannot afford to play the "never mind" game.

Never mind the Society of Adolescent Medicine report that stated abstinence-only programs "threaten fundamental human rights to health, information and life"; never mind the congressionally-mandated Mathematica study released in April showing that abstinence-only programs simply do not work; never mind the research showing that young people who take "virginity pledges" are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior. Should we really ignore it all because these Democrats are "our friends" and we shouldn't publicly criticize our "friends?"

To hell with that! Over the next few weeks we need to mount a campaign to reverse this policy even if it means publicly dinging our "friends." After all, with friends like these, who needs conservative Republicans?

I urge everyone to take action. Tell the Democratic leadership that it is time to END funding for failed abstinence-only programs today!.

- James Wagoner

Hillary Clinton has responded to a presidential candidate survey from the Human Rights Campaign.

click here to see Hillary Clinton's responses (pdf file)