June 5, 2007
Could D.C. Get Gay Marriage?
In their coverage of the Capital Pride Festival, which kicked off yesterday and will culminate in a parade and street festival this weekend, the Post gives an account of a town hall meeting on GLBT issues last night at Studio Theatre where Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) said he plans to introduce a bill legalizing gay marriage in the District within the next two years. Graham appeared on the panel with several other openly gay elected officials, including Virginia Del. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria), Maryland Del. Heather R. Mizeur (D-Montgomery), and who we assume was Council member David Catania (I-At large), though the story doesn't mention him by name.
Planning to introduce legislation "within two years" is the kind of far-reaching promise that's easy to back away from later -- political climates or circumstances can always change. Graham is also couching his plans in a position that makes the gay marriage issue something on which Mayor Adrian Fenty would need to act first. From the Post:
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.
Efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in the District have been highly controversial. Some gay and lesbian activists have said they fear advocacy could bring a congressional backlash. Graham, who has expressed such concerns in the past, said that the majority-Democratic Congress has changed his outlook.
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 we mentioned in the roundup this morning, be one more issue the District could theoretically make up its own mind about now that Democrats control Congress?
|
Graham is so full of crap. Why is he waiting around for 2 years before he introduces such a bill (would it really take a whole two years to draft such a piece of legislation)? Easy. Because in about two years' time is when he'd be getting around to kicking off his campaign for an at-large Council seat.
"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."
Why does this matter? Can't Graham's bill just explicity recognize marriages from other states? Or is he looking for an easy out.. recognize Mass. marriages and tell people to just go there and marry.
Easy, it hasn't changed at all under the Democrats. There are still far too many socially conservative Democrats in Congress who are uncomfortable with same-sex couples to guarantee that gay marriage would pass through. And having an explicit repudiation of gay marriage, much like the DC Court of Appeals decision from the 80s (?) that explicitly said there was no right to gay marriage under DC law, would be more trouble than it's worth. Graham is grandstanding for Pride, pure and simple.
Marriage is a quasi-mystical religious title bestowed by the society upon a couple who commit in matrimony. The interest of society in the generation and care for new "bodies" is the source of the reverence for the marriage title. Same sex unions by definition don't bring "new" bodies in the world. Although their bond and commitment should be recognized with concommitant civil rights, respect and privileges the "marriage" title is inappropriate.
I really don't get folks who are in favor of civil unions but are opposed to gays using the word "marriage"; it just doesn't make any sense to me.
I think my post explains it. There is the "common sense" sentiment. And their is a logic to it. It's an aesthetic consideration held by a society not an objective thing.
Graham is a bumbling, ineffective fool. He wasn't even bright enough to condition his vote for the baseball stadium on legal changes necessary to allow the gay clubs in Southeast to move.
A two-year time limit is the stupidest of all positions on DC marriage. Either now is a safe time, or it isn't. I agree with Moose and GLAA that now is too risky. DC is one of the few places in the country without a law specifically banning same-sex marriage; we need to keep it that way until we can win. But no one can foresee whether there will be safe window of opportunity within the next two years, so an artificial deadline is sheer idiocy.
And yes, Politburo, you are completely correct. A provision of a D.C. marriage bill would supersede or override any view expressed in the AG's opinion. Whatever Graham's agenda is as to the AG opinion, it has nothing to do with his bill or the legal issues.
Moreover, I obviously don't know what's in the AG opinion, but the most recent decisions on (opposite-sex) marriage-recognition from DC courts suggest to me that DC law would recognize Mass. or Canadian same-sex marriages only if the spouses were bona fide residents of Mass. or Canada at the time of their marriage.
At any rate, perhaps never has there been a more useless gay "leader" than Graham.
chris, then what of opposite sex couples who can't have children, for whatever reason? They shouldn't be able to get married either, by that logic.
I'd also suggest that the VP's daughter might disagree with your assertion that same sex couples never bring "new bodies" into the world.
I suggest if you're going to toss out canards like this one that you review the standard arguments against gay marriage and the responses thereto first.
Graham's waiting for the Spagnoletti opinion because if current law allows for recognition of out of state marriages, then there's no need to pass additional legislation, at least on that particular issue. On the other hand, if it points out other issues in current DC law that might need to be changed, then to have that information would allow Graham to craft the bill to address any weaknesses in current law. It makes sense for him to have the executive's view of current law in this arena so he may react to that view one way or another.
We are not arguing "objective logic", we are haveing a discussion in the realm of culture and aesthetics. Obviously a man and woman are "symbols" within a "symbolic" rite and semiotic. They "represent" the regenerative wish of society. What they ACTUALLY do is another story. You wouldn't revoke a young couple's license if they didn't have children.
chris lee, your definition is fatally flawed. Marrage does not require people to have children, therefore should be given as a right to all people, no matter who they choose to marry.
"Obviously a man and woman are "symbols" within a "symbolic" rite and semiotic."
Chris, not being facetious, but could you define "semiotic" and its use in this sentence. Thats a cool word and im going to use it incorporate it in my conversation tonight on a blind date.
Well, thankfully the symbolic cultural meanings of marriage can and do change over time, just as the symbolic roles of individuals in society change. As more same sex couples marry in places where it's allowed, the cultural norms will adapt to take them into account, just as they've adapted when other changes were placed upon the 'institution' of civil marriage.
Moose, the executive's view of the recognition issue is not particularly relevant as a legal matter because it is only a non-binding opinion. It is the judicial branch, and ultimately the D.C. Court of Appeals, that has power to determine whether current law requires recognition of non-District same-sex marriages.
If Graham or activists want to know whether current District law requires recognition, it would be a very simple matter for a D.C. same-sex couple with a Canadian marriage to sue the city and seek recognition. Why everyone is sitting around whining about the AG opinion is beyond me. File a frickin lawsuit and get the definitive answer from the branch of government empowered (and required) to give it: the judiciary!
Far easier, of course, would be simply to legislate--create new law that requires the District to recognize non-District same-sex marriages. I see Graham's waiting for the AG opinion as either a pretextual delay tactic, some attempt to put the onus on Fenty to go forward with the bill, or simply more of Graham's bumbling incompetence, as exemplified by his 24 months of floundering on SE club relocation. If he needs an analysis of DC law with an eye toward anything that needs legislative correction, plenty of people besides the AG can do that, and the AG's view is no more definitive than theirs.
Chris: You are full of mystical crap on this one. Marriage is many things, to many people. To many it has no religious tie-in at all. To many, it's simply a legal status and/or recogniton of love, and Zeus nor Christ nor Isis have a damn thing to do with it.
In short it IS what we say it IS.Like all titles. Signifiers are not absolutely tied to "things", but at the same time you don't hand out the World Series trophy to people who play badminton. If the society comes together to re-define it on certain terms that's up to them.
So since I don't ask some mystical invisible being to bless my union it's not worthy of the term marriage?
That's a fairly elitist and selfish stance.
Relax, man. I am a godless, secular hedonist. I am just analyzing things as they appear under current conditions. Culture and the individual are often in conflict. This is a point of contention that has to be negotiated. We will see what happens.
On a lighter note, the thought of Senator Brownback having anything to do with sodomy is just too easy a joke to ignore....
Steve, if a couple sues, they risk us getting stuck with yet another opinion from the DC courts that bars same-sex marriage recognition. We've gone down that path before, and it wasn't helpful. Having the opinion is still useful as an exercise since the city, through the executive, would be defending any suit against it for recognition of same-sex marriage.