Jonetta Rose Barras

[Print]  [Email]        

Defense of marriage in D.C.

By: Jonetta Rose Barras
Examiner Columnist
June 18, 2009

Same-sex marriage proponents in the District may not want to celebrate just yet. The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics may have delivered them a victory, deciding earlier this week that the issue cannot go before the voters in a referendum  “because it would authorize discrimination prohibited under the Human Rights Act.”  But the war to preserve “traditional marriage” in the nation’s capital certainly isn’t over.

Opponents had sought to repeal D.C. Council legislation that compelled the government to recognize all gay marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions.  Stand4Marriage, the coalition of clergy and District residents who requested the referendum, knew that overturning council action wouldn’t be an easy feat. Not only was there the hurdle of the Human Rights Act, under which proponents claim same-sex marriage falls under, opponents would have had to collect more than 20,000 signatures from registered voters in less than four weeks.

But the battlefield ahead may not be riddled with such barriers.

A D.C. Defense of Marriage resolution has been introduced in Congress; it mirrors the federal statute, which asserts that marriage is between only a man and a woman. President Barack Obama’s Justice Department recently filed a brief defending that law.

The congressional resolution that would establish a Defense of Marriage Act in the District could be attached to almost any existing federal bill making its way through the legislative process. Gay-marriage opponents by law also are allowed to challenge in D.C.

Superior Court the elections board’s decision. Brian Raum, the group’s counsel, said the “decision will be immediately appealed.”

That case might probe the larger question: Are gay couples in the District truly discriminated against if same-sex marriages are prohibited?

An intense conversation I had last month with at-large Councilman David Catania, who is openly gay, provide some insight.
“[Gays] already have all the rights they need,” he told me in an interview weeks before the request for a referendum was filed. Catania said that advocates in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community see marriage as the “last frontier.”

That admission is what riles opponents. It also may weaken the position of so-called “marriage equality” proponents. After all, if gay couples registered as domestic partners already have a wide variety of rights, including visiting each other during hospital stays, participating in workplace health benefits programs, filing joint tax returns, adopting children and generally being as happy or as miserable as every other couple, where is the discrimination?




To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


Most Popular Headlines





 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

Harry Jackson

Jun 18, 2009

The tax dollars of gay couples are used to subsidize the legal marriages of heterosexuals. Either take their rights to marrige, or take their tax dollars, but you cannot take both. If sterile atheists can get 'legal' marriage without churches and without the ability to produce children by themselves...then whats the big deal about letting the gays have a reasonable part of the 'legal marriage' system that they pay for through taxes anyway? Since when does somebody's 'right to marry' ever get put to a public poll? Should interracial marriage have been put to the 'people' to decide? Can Jewish parents ban all Americans from eating pork...to 'protect' their kids from being taught that eating pork is OK in America?

 

Wrack

Jun 18, 2009

Ms. Barras, there's another phrase that you could have used in your last paragraph: "separate but equal." Even if black water fountains were as good as white water fountains in Georgia in 1950, isn't it inherently wrong to distinguish between any two people on a basis that just doesn't matter, whether it's sexual orientation or race? What you're asking is, effectively, why we don't have one water fountain for gays and one for straights. To borrow from the Supreme Court, "separate is inherently unequal."

 

Amanda

Jun 18, 2009

Traditional marriage is not threatened by allowing or recognizing same sex marraiges. It's time for discrimination against gays (and I am atraight) to be ended. How on earth would a traditional couple or family be harmed if a neighboring family was composed of two moms or two dads any more than if the neighbors were divorced and remarried to others?

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Your Name:

Comment:




Local

Another snowball fight planned for Dupont Circle

The Official Dupont Circle Snowball Fight facebook fanpage has over 6,000 fans now, and it looks as if snowed in DC'ers will return for another battle. Full story

Politics

GOP winning war over Miranda rights for terrorists

Even as the administration defends its decision to grant accused Detroit bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, the president himself is hinting that things might be done differently in the future. Full story

Local

D.C. region braces for up to 20 more inches of snow

The National Weather Service has the entire D.C. metro area, from Prince William County north, under a winter storm warning for 10 to 20 inches of snow. Forecasters have had their eyes on this storm for days, but the projected snow totals were bumped up late Monday. Full story