Dual downers for traditional values
By: Jonetta Rose Barras
Examiner Columnist
July 2, 2009
District residents attempting to retain some semblance of traditional values were given a double whammy this week: A congressional subcommittee removed a prohibition to the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Then, D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Retchin ruled against their push to get a referendum on the ballot that would overturn a recent law mandating the city recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states.
“It’s interesting that this [marijuana] measure, [with] its own controversy, is allowed to go on the ballot with the full support of the city. Yet, the controversial subject of same-sex marriage or definition of marriage cannot,” said Ward 5 civic leader Kathryn Pearson-West, adding that she still wanted a referendum on both. But, that probably won’t happen.
Judge Retchin’s ruling surprises no one. It echoed the earlier decision by the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics, which found the D.C. Council legislation was not a proper subject for a referendum; allowing such a vote would violate the city’s human rights act. But as Pearson-West’s comments indicate, opponents aren’t likely to give up their fight. After all, at-large Councilman David Catania has promised to introduce legislation later this year that would legalize same-sex marriages performed in this city.
Traditional values proponents also won’t get any relief from marijuana — even if they inhale.
Rep. Jose Serrano, head of the House subcommittee on financial services, in removing the congressional rider, said the city could now hold a referendum. That may not be necessary. A citywide vote already occurred in 1998 on Initiative 59 — Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment; it passed with 69 percent of the vote.
“We have not determined whether any further action is required,” Brian K. Flowers, general counsel to the D.C. Council, told me when I asked whether, in fact, a referendum is required.
In 1998, the council didn’t reject the voters’ decision. In fact, it passed Resolution 13-278 on Sept. 1, 1999, chastising Congress for interfering with local affairs and urging it to refrain from “imposing additional life-threatening hardship on patients already stricken with cancer, glaucoma, AIDS, and other serious illnesses.”
The council also demanded the financial control board permit the immediate implementation of the initiative. The control board refused, however, asserting that enforcement of the measure would adversely affect the city’s fragile fiscal health.
So, now comes Serrano, claiming that he wants to reduce “undue congressional interference in local affairs” and provide for greater legislative autonomy.
Whom is he fooling?
Serrano and his subcommittee offer crumbs to placate District residents, who rightly are dissatisfied with the treatment they have received. Legislative autonomy is nice. But it won’t absolve the failure of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and other Democrats to pass legislation that would have provided more than 500,000 citizens with voting representation in Congress. Even a drug-induced haze won’t camouflage that reality.
Jonetta Rose Barras, host of WPFW’s “D.C. Politics With Jonetta,” can be reached at rosebook1@aol.com.
Follow The Examiner
