On the first day same-sex weddings were held in the District, Dustin Rhodes could barely stomach the outpouring of matrimonial enthusiasm: the joyful couples exchanging vows in front of family, friends and colleagues, with all the flowers, cake and flash photography that come with the show.

"It's so personally revolting to me," said Rhodes, 36, who has been in a committed relationship with a man for 13 years.

"I'd rather see marriage abolished than see me married," he said as he ate lunch in a Columbia Heights cafe with his partner, Bray Creech. "The materialism of it, what I perceive as kind of a narcissism. Like all the money and decoration. . . . I have no interest in having a performance, which to me is what weddings are."

Creech, 33, got a faraway look on his face. "I would do it," he said, with a little smile of resignation that comes with years of losing the same argument. "You get all those gifts; that would be so nice. I have no problem with the performance part of it."

Many same-sex couples who rushed to make history this week by marrying in the District cited reasons such as spousal benefits, inheritance and hospital visitation rights, and greater societal legitimacy. But for some couples, the option to legally marry has raised a thorny issue -- to wed or not -- that had long remained safely in the realm of the hypothetical. For those who can't agree on whether to tie the knot, the new horizons have stirred up old conflicts. ...

As with heterosexual couples, the reasons for one same-sex partner balking are myriad. Some simply aren't ready to commit; others refuse to consider marrying until the right is extended nationwide and includes federal benefits. Some say that although they committed to their partners long ago in their hearts, they oppose the idea of marriage as an institution -- especially because it is one that so often collapses. ...

"There's a whole segment of the [gay] community for whom the marriage equality bit seems way too heteronormative," mimicking conventional heterosexual practices, said Suzanne Scott, director of women and gender studies at George Mason University. "Some would even argue that marriage is an outdated norm based on archaic rules."

Like immigrants who once sought to become Americanized and now embrace their ethnic roots, Scott said, many gays and lesbians embrace their differentness but also feel torn because they value the benefits that come with marriage. ...

"Marriage for me presents an opportunity for approval, social approval," said the Frederick woman, who has never married but whose 54-year-old partner lost faith in the institution after a heterosexual marriage. "And I shouldn't care after all I've been through, but I do, I do care. I'm tired of being marginalized."

Labels: culture, DC, gay couples, gay marriage, gay/straight differences, heteronormativity, Marriage

posted by Eve at 2:37 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Employees at Catholic Charities were told Monday that the social services organization is changing its health coverage to avoid offering benefits to same-sex partners of its workers -- the latest fallout from a bitter debate between District officials trying to legalize same-sex marriage and the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington. ...

The church faced two options with the approval of the new law, said Robert Tuttle, a George Washington University professor who studies the relationship between church and state. One choice was to expand the definition of domestic partner, as the Archdiocese in San Francisco did years ago, to include a parent, sibling or someone else in the household.

The second choice was to do what the Washington Archdiocese has done: eliminate benefits for all spouses.

"For decades, the church has been at the forefront of worker benefits, so this move cuts against their understanding of social justice and health benefits to all possible," Tuttle said. "But obviously, you can see they felt there was a real conflict between those values. They feel they weren't left with much of a choice."

Labels: Catholic Church, DC, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Imapp Staff at 2:52 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The Archdiocese of Washington has been battling the D.C. government for the right to discriminate against gays and lesbians since D.C.’s same-sex marriage legislation got rolling last year.

One major point of contention: Once gays and lesbians are allowed to marry, the Archdiocese—which employs plenty of locals through Catholic Charities—will be required to provide health benefits to same-sex spouses, an act which it says would fly in the face of the Catholic church’s teachings on homosexuality.

The solution? No spousal benefits for anybody.

Labels: Catholic Church, DC, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 2:01 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington has ended its 80-year-old foster-care program in the District rather than license same-sex couples, the first fallout from a bitter debate over the city's move to legalize same-sex marriage.

Catholic Charities, which runs more than 20 social service programs for the District, transferred its entire foster-care program -- 43 children, 35 families and seven staff members -- to another provider, the National Center for Children and Families. Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6), the D.C. Council member who chairs the Committee on Human Services, said he didn't know of any problems with the transfer, which happened Feb. 1. ...

Catholic Charities, which receives $20 million from the city, had sounded alarms in the run-up to the council vote, saying programs serving tens of thousands of people were in danger. Being forced to recognize same-sex marriage, church officials said, could make it impossible for the church to be a city contractor because Catholic teaching opposes same-sex marriage.

The church and some experts said the city's measure has narrower exemptions for religious groups than other same-sex marriage laws across the country, particularly when it comes to requiring benefits for the same-sex partners of employees.

City officials knew of no other faith-based groups that said their city contracts were in jeopardy.

Labels: adoption, Catholic Church, DC, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 10:21 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Adoption is arguably one of the Christian social ministries most central to evangelical theology. It has—to a greater extent than church positions on issues such as abortion and marriage—avoided becoming entangled in politics. Until now.

A foster dad's court challenge to a Florida law banning adoption by gays and lesbians has made headlines in recent months. So has a proposed same-sex marriage law in the District of Columbia that the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington warned could force it to cancel its social service programs, including adoption.

At the federal level, U.S. Rep. Pete Stark introduced a bill in October dubbed the "Every Child Deserves a Family Act." The California Democrat's proposal immediately drew the ire of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance (IRF). IRF claims the proposed law could run "roughshod over the convictions of many faith-based adoption agencies" and "require every state to forbid every agency that it licenses from preferring mother-father families over gay families or single parents." ...

On the other hand, voters in Arkansas last year passed a referendum banning unmarried couples from adopting or fostering children—a direct attack on gay parenting. Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat and active member of an Episcopal Church, voiced concern in November that the law hinders the state's ability to recruit qualified parents.

Labels: adoption, Arkansas, Catholic Church, Christianity Today, DC, Florida, gay parenting, Marriage, religious liberty, single parenting

posted by Eve at 5:33 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

In a matter of seconds 27 years ago in a crowded New York City hotel ballroom, David Moffitt's parents went from total strangers to an engaged couple after being divinely matched by Unification Church founder the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. It was the 1980s, when thousands of young people like them ditched their educations, careers and families to live out of vans, sell flowers at airports and follow a Korean who calls himself a messiah.

Flash-forward to a Bowie living room on a recent weeknight, when Moffitt and a few dozen other "blessed children" of Moon-arranged mass weddings were discussing something perhaps as revolutionary: going mainstream.

"Our parents' generation were much more all-out. . . . You could say they were fighting a war," said Moffitt, a 24-year-old University of Maryland junior who works part time as a personal trainer. "Our generation is more focused on happiness and prosperity, going to college, getting jobs. It's important to be part of the culture. If you're above the culture, you can't change the world."

Their quest for a less-radical version of their faith comes during great uncertainty and change within the Unification Church. With Moon turning 90 in February, how the movement will survive beyond him is unclear. Moon's children are at odds over how to run the church's business empire, including the money-losing Washington Times, which laid off 40 percent of its staff this past week.

For church members, figuring out how to stabilize the movement has a feeling of urgency, particularly for Moffitt and others his age. Church officials estimate there are 21,000 active Unificationists in this country, including 7,500 blessed children, who members believe were born free of original sin and have a special spiritual status. A significant number of blessed children live in the Washington area, long a hub for Moon businesses and church lobbyists.

The church's future lies with this second generation, who were born into a religion some view as a bizarre cult. Their own beliefs run the gamut from those eager to follow in their parents' footsteps to those who haven't attended a Unification worship service for years.

Labels: arranged marriage, culture, DC, Marriage, religion, Unification Church

posted by Eve at 12:21 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

"What is freedom of expression?" Salman Rushdie once asked. "Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." Ride a Metrobus in this city, and you'll see an example of what Rushdie is talking about.

Some Metrobuses are carrying advertisements paid for by Stand for Marriage DC, a group that opposes civil marriage for same-sex couples. The group wants to subject the District's recently passed law permitting same-sex marriage to a public referendum.

Offended by the ads, an opposing group, Full Equality Now DC, has demanded that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) remove the ads from Metrobuses on the grounds that they disrespect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) city residents. Full Equality Now asserts that the ads force GLBT people to "stare down discrimination as they board the bus to go somewhere or are even passed by an advertisement on the street." That, says Full Equality Now, targets D.C. residents on the basis of sexual orientation, in opposition to both common decency and the standards of nondiscrimination in WMATA's own policies.

Labels: DC, discrimination law, freedom of speech, gay marriage, offensive

posted by Eve at 11:39 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The D.C. Council voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to legalize same-sex marriage in the District, a key step in a process that could enable gay couples to marry in the nation's capital by the spring.

After months of debate, the council passed the legislation 11 to 2 after a lively discussion that elicited passionate statements from members about the historical significance of their action. ...

Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), a key sponsor of the bill, said he may still "tweak" the bill to try to accommodate the [Catholic] Church before the final vote, scheduled for Dec. 15. But Mendelson and other members indicated Tuesday that they are not likely to make new broad exemptions.

"Marriage is just not about two individuals who want to marry. It requires that . . . every third party recognize that couple being married," Mendelson said. "Exemptions are a very troublesome slope because it undoes what we are trying to do here."

Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said that if a compromise is not reached, the Church will continue to provide services but with fewer resources, because it will no longer be able to bid on city contracts.

"We are just asking for a bill that would balance the city's interest in legalizing same-sex marriage and religious groups' interest in following their faith teachings," Gibbs said.

Other religious leaders are turning their attention to a potential court battle over whether the city should allow a public vote on whether to ban same-sex marriage.

Two weeks ago, the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics ruled that city laws prohibit a public vote because it would discriminate against gay men and lesbians. Jackson and several other opponents have filed suit in D.C. Superior Court seeking to reverse the election board's decision. Jackson noted that last month voters in Maine overturned a same-sex marriage law that had been approved by that state's legislature.

Labels: Catholic Church, DC, discrimination law, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 7:58 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...Catholic Charities and the Archdiocese of Washington are committed to continuing to serve the people of the District as we have for many decades. That includes partnerships such as St. Martin's. Unfortunately, the D.C. Council is considering legislation that could end these kinds of partnerships.

It doesn't need to be that way. While we do not agree with the council on redefining marriage, we recognize that it is firmly committed to opening marriage to homosexual couples. We are asking that new language be developed that more fairly balances different interests -- those of the city to redefine marriage and those of faith groups so that they can continue to provide services without compromising their deeply held religious teachings and beliefs. The archdiocese has not been alone in requesting broader language. Other groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the InterFaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington and nationally recognized legal scholars all called for stronger protections for religious freedom in their testimony on the original bill. ...

The archdiocese and Catholic Charities are committed to continuing to provide services in the District. Despite the headlines, there has been no threat or ultimatum to end services, just a simple recognition that the new requirements by the city for religious organizations to recognize same-sex marriages in their policies could restrict our ability to provide the same level of services as we do now. This is so because the District requires Catholic Charities to certify its compliance with city laws when applying for contracts and grants. This includes contracts for homeless services, mental health services, foster care and more. Since Catholic Charities cannot comply with city mandates to recognize and promote same-sex marriages, the city would withhold contracts and licenses.

Each year, 68,000 people in the District rely on Catholic Charities for shelter, nutrition, medical and legal care, job training, immigration assistance and more. This assistance is offered to whoever needs it, regardless of race, religion, gender, nationality or sexual orientation. Many of the programs are offered in partnership with the city, which turns to Catholic Charities and other ministries when it cannot provide social services on its own. Catholic Charities has a proven track record of high-quality service, supported through caring, qualified staff, thousands of dedicated volunteers and millions of dollars in financial support from parishioners all over the region. This legislation won't end Catholic Charities' services, but it would reduce unnecessarily the resources available for outreach.

Labels: Catholic Church, DC, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 3:22 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

There's a bit of a hubbub going on in the District of Columbia of late. The City Council is weighing a sweeping gay rights move, bundling together gay marriage, gay adoption, partners' rights, and whatnot, and the Catholic Church -- as is to be expected -- is resistant.

Resistant to the point where they say they will simply pull the plug on their entire charitable works in the city should it pass.

Critics are denouncing the Church (as is their wont), saying that the Church must be bluffing, that the Church is overreacting, that the Church is being hypocritical because it hasn't made the same threats in other places where gay marriage has passed, and it's all a big to-do about nothing, because the law explicitly says the Church doesn't have to perform gay marriages if it doesn't want to.

They're right on that last point. They're wrong on every single other one. ...

One doesn't have to be Catholic to see the value of the Church's charitable works. One doesn't have to subscribe to Church teachings to respect their right to abide by them as they see fit. And one doesn't even have to be a believer to see the threat to the common good being posed by this move by the DC City Council.

And that's coming from an agnostic gay marriage supporter who is still uncertain as to whether the Catholic Church has been a net boon or bane to modern civilization.

Labels: Catholic Church, DC, gay marriage, religion, religious liberty

posted by Imapp Staff at 11:50 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it would be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city won't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

"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."

Several D.C. Council members said the Catholic Church is trying to erode the city's long-standing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination.

The clash escalates the dispute over the same-sex marriage proposal between the council and the archdiocese, which has generally stayed out of city politics.

Catholic Charities, the church's social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington's homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

"All of those services will be adversely impacted if the exemption language remains so narrow," Jane G. Belford, chancellor of the Washington Archdiocese, wrote to the council this week.

The church's influence seems limited. In separate interviews Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as "somewhat childish." Another council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city's relationship with the church than give in to its demands.

Labels: Catholic Church, DC, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 12:05 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Living alone is on its way to becoming the new norm in parts of the Washington area, as the proportion of households headed by married couples has declined and one-person households have jumped.

Population statistics released by the Census Bureau on Tuesday, based on samples taken from 2006 to 2008, reflect national trends that have accelerated since the 2000 census. The Washington area figures were particularly stark.

Every jurisdiction in the region showed a leap in single households. In most places, they now make up 20 to 30 percent of all households. In the District and Alexandria, almost half of all households have just one person. ...

Lisa Neidert, a researcher with the Population Studies Center at the University of Michigan, said young people going through that stage are less likely to live with roommates than they were two decades ago. And people who divorce are less likely to remarry.

"It's the idea that if you're not in a married relationship, that's okay," she said. "You definitely have young people feeling more independent. On the other hand, strong family ties have faded a bit. In 1940, a 70-year-old was going to live with a 40-year-old son. Now, they're not even living in the same community." ...

The Census Bureau survey also showed an increase in the number of households headed by single parents. In Prince William County, 11 percent of households are headed by single parents, up from 7 percent in 1990. Fairfax and Loudoun counties stayed the same, about 6 percent. The District also stayed roughly the same, about 10 percent.

Labels: culture, DC, demographics, single parenting

posted by Eve at 3:43 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

The hearings are beginning on a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the District, and the D.C. Council is on track to vote on a final bill by December. Will it take the steps necessary to protect religious people and groups from any unintended consequences from this act?

As it stands, the same-sex marriage bill before the council contains three clauses purporting to protect religious liberty. But a careful analysis makes clear that these clauses are woefully inadequate and provide protection that is more illusory than real.

Under the bill, clergy who refuse to perform same-sex marriages receive ersatz protection because they are already protected by the U.S. Constitution. Religious organizations retain "exclusive control over [their] own religious doctrine," as "guaranteed by the First Amendment."

What new protection the bill gives with one hand (exemption for "religious" and "nonprofit organizations" from antidiscrimination laws relating to the provision of "services, accommodations, facilities or goods"), it takes away with the other (by withdrawing this exemption for services, accommodations, facilities or goods made available to "the general public").

Here's what the bill leaves out:

-- It provides no meaningful protection against a loss of government benefits for refusing to recognize same-sex marriages.

-- It provides no meaningful protection for individual dissenters (other than authorized celebrants) who have a religious objection to facilitating same-sex marriage ceremonies, such as caterers, musicians and photographers.

-- It provides no meaningful protection to religious organizations from private lawsuits under the city's anti-discrimination laws. ...

Some charge that religious accommodations are nothing more than government-authorized gay animus. In this view, any objection to assisting with same-sex marriages must reflect anti-gay sentiment. Yet many people have no objection generally to providing services to gays but would object to directly facilitating same-sex marriages. For them, marriage ceremonies have religious significance because marriage is a religious institution, and weddings are sacraments. Without explicit protection, these individuals and groups will face a cruel choice: their consciences or their livelihoods.

Labels: DC, gay marriage, religious liberty, Robin F. Wilson

posted by Eve at 9:00 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

BARRING any intervention by the Congress, it appears the District soon will join a handful of states that allow homosexual couples to marry.

D.C. Council member David Catania, one of two openly gay legislators, is poised to introduce next week legislation that will permit same-sex marriages while allowing religious organizations to decline to solemnize such unions. There already are 10 co-introducers or sponsors. ...

Further, the bill would permit religious organizations to discriminate against homosexual couples regarding use of those groups’ goods, services and facilities—unless the organizations make those “available for purchase, rental or use to members of the general public.” So, if a church only permits its members to use its hall, for example, then it wouldn’t be required to rent to a gay or lesbian couple.

Robert King, an advisory neighborhood commissioner in Ward 5 and a member of the Stand for Marriage Coalition, told TBR that the “war is on.” The coalition is trying to secure a ballot initiative that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The group filed its request last month. But the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics seems deliberately to have delayed the process, scheduling a hearing for late October.

If the council enacts its legislation before the ballot initiative is resolved, the Stand for Marriage Coalition will suffer a defeat even before it could get started. It would be forced to revise its request to a referendum. (An initiative creates law, while a referendum repeals existing law.)

A referendum cannot violate the city’s human rights laws. A D.C. Superior Court judge earlier this year ruled in a separate matter that permitting a referendum that would repeal the newly passed law mandating the city recognized same-sex marriages legally performed in other states would be a violation of the Human Rights Act. Marriage equality proponents believe that the elections board and the courts will make the same ruling regarding a ballot initiative.

Opponents’ only ace is Congress. They already have allies in the House and Senate. But that may be insufficient to overcome support for same-sex marriage among Democrats. It doesn’t look good for opponents.

Labels: DC, gay marriage, religious liberty

posted by Eve at 9:36 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

At first glance, the forum didn’t seem to belong among the weighty discussions of the day, which included surviving the recession, increasing minority businesses, caring for homeless veterans, and decreasing deaths from cancer.

But examining the state of Black marriages and families was as integral to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s 39th Annual Legislative Conference as the other workshops, said its sponsor, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.

“I’m not having a forum on the kinds of things that as a policy wonk you might expect me to have,” the Washington, D.C. Democrat told the overflow crowd gathered for a discussion titled “Single Women, Unmarried Men – What Has Happened to Marriage in the Black Community.” “[But] the kind of policies I’m dealing with in Congress... are at least significantly tied to what is happening to the African-American family.”

Having a substantive conversation on the matter has been difficult, the longtime lawmaker said.

“Ever since the Moynihan Report, people didn’t want to talk about single-parent households,” Norton said. “That’s because, first of all, the Moynihan Report didn’t come out of us. And it came out just after the civil rights bills had passed and it made people angry because White America hadn’t taken responsibility for its huge part of what had torn the African-American community apart. So nobody wanted to hear it.”

The Moynihan Report, officially called, “The Negro Family: The Case For National Action” was a paper published in 1965 by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who would go on to become a U.S. senator.

“At the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro society is the deterioration of the Negro family,” Moynihan said in the report.

According to Moynihan, an increasing number of single-mother, welfare-dependent homes and the matriarchal design of Black families diminished the male’s authority, one sign of a crumbling family structure. He predicted that “so long as this situation persists, the cycle of poverty and disadvantage will continue to repeat itself.”

Despite criticism of the report as racist and unfounded, Norton said Moynihan was “prescient.”

Rates of incarceration, drug use and trade, high school dropouts, teenage pregnancy, poor health outcomes and other social ills have increased, it seems, with the breakdown of Black families.

Statistics show that in 2008 only 34 percent of Black children lived in homes with two married parents and 3.7 million Black children live in single-mother homes with mothers who have never been married, more than any other demographic.

“If you think the Black nation can survive whole if only Black women are raising their children, I want you to show me how ,” Norton said. ...

The proliferation of incarcerated and unemployed Black men are among the reasons for the paucity of partners. ...

District resident Alphonso Coles said young people have to be counseled and prepared for marriage and parenthood. “Crucial conversations are needed before sex, before marriage and after marriage,” he said.

Girls must be trained to assess their partners wisely and to look beyond the outer trappings of wealth, beauty and possessions in choosing a mate.

“Is he kind to you, does he make you smile—those are far better questions,” Perrault said, adding that like first lady Michelle Obama, women must be willing to nurture the potential in their partner. “Ten years this woman was the [main] breadwinner…I was touched by Michelle’s ability to look at his [Barack’s] trajectory rather than his current circumstances.”

Labels: Barack Obama, culture, DC, Marriage, men, motherhood, poverty, race

posted by Eve at 11:44 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton had to "sweet talk" the fire marshal because so many people packed her Congressional Black Caucus forum, "Single Women, Unmarried Men: What has happen to Marriage in the Black Community?"

"In order to stay married you have to be willing to be committed to each other," said Alice Carter, a resident of Northeast, during the forum that featured relationshp author and radio host Audrey Chapman and psychologist Shane Perrault.

"Sometimes nothing is better than too little," said Perrault, who added that some women are better off alone than in a bad relationship.

Labels: culture, DC, Marriage, race

posted by Eve at 5:25 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...The event was a demonstration of the political heft of the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, which held the reception to honor local politicos who "Stand Up for Equality," and it came at a pivotal time for gay political activists: Some 30 years of campaigning, in the open and behind the scenes, has the District on the cusp of becoming one of the first jurisdictions in the country to legalize gay marriage through legislation.

Those politicians have pursued that course in recent months in spite of the widespread view that Washington, very much still a majority black town, would reveal its conservative streak and respond hellaciously to any attempts to recognize gay marriage. Thus far, the organized opposition to the 12–1 council vote to recognize out-of-state marriages has been vocal but ineffective; anti-same-sex-marriage forces have thus far been consistently stymied—outmaneuvered to the point that their chances to overturn that vote by referendum are virtually nonexistent. On Monday, the city's elections board ruled that the council's vote wasn't referendumable, leaving a dubious court challenge as the opposition's only way to force a wider vote on the matter.

To glimpse what the organized opposition to gay marriage in D.C. looks like, head down to Trinidad Baptist Church around noontime any given Monday. That's when and where the Missionary Baptist Ministers Conference has met for as long as anyone can quite remember. There you'll find 50 or so black men dressed in neat, dark suits. A dozen or so sit in the basement, chomping on fish platters; the rest sit upstairs, attending to group business and listening to a guest preacher or two.

Together, the men in that church every Monday pastor to tens of thousands of D.C. residents—the Missionary Baptist Ministers Conference is the closest thing to an umbrella conservative religious organization this city has. But they aren't much in the habit of organizing; if an issue concerns them, they'll usually draft a letter or perhaps testify before the council.

But now, on gay marriage, "We've stepped it up," says the Rev. Dr. Henry A. Gaston, the group's president.

That includes, in recent weeks, a "Monday Messages to the Council" campaign, with preachers urging their flocks to inundate Wilson Building offices with next-day phone calls. (Gray's office reports more than 500 total since the marriage-recognition vote.) And the ministers have appointed a young, charismatic point man—Patrick J. Walker, senior pastor of New Macedonia Baptist in Fort Dupont—to focus exclusively on fighting gay marriage. "We understand we have to impact public policy; we have to be involved," Walker says. "There are issues that are so important to us in terms of the moral fiber of the city that we have to speak out."

Labels: DC, gay marriage, race, religion

posted by Eve at 11:43 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Late Monday afternoon, the District of Columbia's Board of Elections and Ethics determined that a proposed referendum to repeal the city council's decision to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions violated the city's Human Rights Act. The District's Democratic establishment has scrambled to squelch the possibility of a popular vote on same-sex marriage in this majority-black jurisdiction, with the two members of the election board following the advice of the District's attorney general, the general counsel of the city council, and at least two councilmen who submitted public testimony. ...

Even today, the city council has yet to authorize the city government to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. If it's not a violation of the Human Rights Act for the city council to deny marriage equality to still unmarried couples in its own jurisdiction, it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to argue that it wouldn't violate the Human Rights Act for the District's voters to deny marriage equality to same-sex couples that were validly married in other states. Since the D.C. Court of Appeals has in the past decided that the people's right of referendum should be "liberally construed," it would have been appropriate for the board of elections to defer to the people on this matter.

Labels: DC, gay marriage

posted by Eve at 5:03 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles issued a legal opinion Thursday saying a voter referendum seeking to overturn a city law recognizing same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions would violate the city's human rights law and should not be allowed.

Nickles submitted his four-page opinion to the D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics, which is deliberating whether to approve or deny a request by the pastor of a Maryland church and six other District residents that the board allow voters to decide on the same-sex marriage law in a referendum.

"As expressed in the [Human Rights Act], the established public policy of the District of Columbia is to treat individuals as equals, whatever their gender, sexual orientation, or marital status my be," Nickles said in his opinion. ...

The law says that initiatives, which propose laws, and referenda, which seek to block or overturn laws, can only be held if the proposed ballot measure doesn't violate eight specific criteria. One of the eight criteria holds that a ballot measure cannot seek changes that would be contrary to the Human Rights Act, which, among other things, bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender.

Labels: DC, discrimination law, gay marriage

posted by Eve at 9:44 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Statements by local ministers that they planned to work for the election defeat of Council members who supported the D.C. marriage bill prompted a church-state watchdog group to warn that it would monitor the ministers’ actions.

Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, said churches could lose their tax-exempt status under federal tax law if they become involved in partisan politics.

“Religious leaders have the right to speak out for or against same-sex marriage, but they cannot use the resources of their churches to elect or defeat candidates,” Lynn said. “Uniting houses of worship with partisan politics makes a bad marriage — and an unlawful one to boot,” he said.

Lynn said his group “will not hesitate to report churches to the Internal Revenue Service if they use their tax-exempt resources to intervene in any election by endorsing or opposing candidates.”

Labels: DC, gay marriage, religion

posted by Eve at 6:24 PM EMAIL SHARE PRINT