The D.C. Council shouldn’t praise itself for passing a bill that recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states. Its action, taken without benefit of a public hearing, bordered on cowardly. It also may have injured eventual passage of a true gay-marriage law.
“I think this is going to be a much bigger issue than they think. Right-wing conservatives are going to crank up. I would be shocked if they don’t,” said Philip Pannell, who is a gay and supports “marriage equality.”
But, those “conservatives” may be local residents. On the surface, the District appears liberal and cosmopolitan. At heart it’s old-fashioned. A same-sex marriage bill was introduced in the late 1970s. It was roundly rejected.
“[Homosexual activists] are political terrorists. This is a finger in the eye of straight people,” said one resident, who requested anonymity, fearing retaliation. “We didn’t know they were voting on this. We should have been heard,” said another resident.
“I don’t have a problem with what people do in their personal lives. But I don’t think this is a good time to do this,” said Tony DePasse. “Also, I think there should be a hearing and proper notice is sent out. More people should have a voice.” At-large Councilman Phil Mendelson said there was public input. He said the issue had been before the council in “three different bills.”
But those bills dealt with domestic partnerships, which are unmarried, cohabiting couples who might be heterosexual or homosexual. The intent was to provide recognition for partnerships legalized in other states.
“I don’t agree this is a marriage bill,” added Mendelson.
But consider this: If the bill becomes final, gay couples could go to Massachusetts, Vermont or Iowa, get married, and come back to the District. The city ultimately could have thousands of legally married gay couples without ever passing a specific law that legalizes same-sex unions in the nation’s capital.
At-large Councilman David Catania, who is gay, said the “franchise is expanding” and has indicated he intends to formally introduce an official marriage bill later this year. He said the recent council action was mainly to fix a problem in the current law.
The city honors marriages celebrated in other states, but the law is “gender neutral.” In other words, it doesn’t deal with same-sex unions. That needed to be clarified to mean “all marriages. We can’t have the prospect of marriages being undone,” Catania added.
That explanation doesn’t justify the council’s stealthy action, and it’s not likely to persuade opponents.
“The black faith community is against this,” said Pannell. “You saw what happened with Proposition 8 in California. Black people went out to support Barack Obama,
and they voted against Prop 8.”
Mendelson and Catania said they aren’t against holding a public hearing. Good. They should set a date immediately. An open debate well serves both opponents and proponents of same-sex marriages.
Jonetta Rose Barras, an author and political analyst, can be reached at [email protected].
