D.C. is urging Congress to eliminate congressional review. A relic from the old Control Board days, congressional review requires that the city’s budget and any new laws first be approved on Capitol Hill before they go into effect, an undemocratic process that often takes months.
But while District officials are rightly demanding more local autonomy for themselves, they are denying the same privilege to their own residents.
The D.C. Board of Elections recently ruled that Stand4MarriageDC’s grassroots initiative requiring the city to recognize “only marriage between a man and a woman” will not be on the ballot in 2010. Two elections officials decided that the initiative “authorizes discrimination” against gay couples and violates the city’s Human Rights Act, so they basically outlawed voting either for or against it.
Stand4MarriageDC’s Bishop Harry Jackson, who is also spearheading opposition to the same-sex marriage bill now before the D.C. Council, and all the other church leaders and private citizens who oppose this radical transformation of the basic unit of society, have been defined as civil rights violators — even though neither the federal government nor a majority of the states recognize gay marriage.
The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act denies same-sex couples marriage-based federal benefits. Voters rejected gay marriage in 31 states where it appeared on the ballot; the latest rebuff was in Maine, where a state law recognizing same-sex unions was repealed at the ballot box.
But District residents won’t get the same opportunity, which gives new meaning to “taxation without representation.”
The bill drafted by Councilman David Catania, which the council is expected to vote on Dec. 1, explicitly states that no religious institution can be forced to marry gay couples if it violates their religious beliefs. But churches will be nonetheless be forced to support gay marriages in every other way or risk charges of discrimination.
The Archdiocese of Washington’s warning that it will unable to continue its charitable work if the bill passes is no idle threat. Faced with a similar ultimatum when Massachusetts passed a state law in 2006 requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children, Boston Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley ordered Catholic Charities to halt its adoption-related work.
The just-released Manhattan Declaration signed by 148 Catholic, Orthodox and evangelical leaders representing millions of congregants reaffirmed their definition of marriage as “a covenantal union of husband and wife.”
Catholic Charities’ high-quality programs in Washington provide desperately needed housing, food and health care to 68,000 residents, including nearly a third of the city’s homeless population. But city residents don’t get to weigh in on whether it’s a good idea to throw this enormous safety net overboard during the worst recession since the 1930s.
The irony is that Catholic Charities offers assistance to anyone who needs it regardless of their religion or sexual orientation, so gay people will be among the thousands who will suffer if the charity is forced to close its doors. Who will replace the millions of dollars Catholic Charities raises to help the poor? Shouldn’t that question be answered before the council forces the archdiocese’s hand?
For a city that has used the lack of voting rights to define itself, the refusal to put this controversial issue before voters is incredibly hypocritical. If gay-marriage proponents really believe they have popular support, they should be among those insisting that the initiative be on the ballot to prove it once and for all.
Their silence speaks volumes.
Barbara F. Hollingsworth is The Examiner’s local opinion editor.
