Same-Sex Marriage bill introduced in D.C.

[bradl]

Opening the same can of worms from before (read: Prop. 8), but in this case, DC already recognizes marriages from elsewhere. This time, the bill is so they can perform them themselves. One twist: Congress gets to review the bill before it takes effect.

Read, and discuss (and I reckon there will be plenty of the latter).

STORY (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113547512)


Bill To Allow Same-Sex Marriage Introduced In D.C.
by The Associated Press
October 6, 2009

Same-sex couples would be allowed to marry in the nation's capital under a bill introduced Tuesday by a District of Columbia councilman.

The bill was almost certain to pass and had been expected for some time. But whether it becomes law is more complicated because Congress gets to review D.C. legislation before it takes effect.

At least one Republican congressman has said he will work to have the bill defeated if it passes the D.C. council.

"Some fights are worth fighting for," said U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, who thinks Democrats in Congress would likely block any vote on D.C.'s measure. "This is one of them."

The city began in July recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Congress had a chance to act on that legislation, but it quietly passed earlier this year.

D.C. Councilman David Catania introduced the new bill at a standing-room only council meeting. The independent and one of two openly gay council members said he hopes for a vote in December.

"There is no question that we are about to embark on an exciting journey here in the district," he said.

His bill specifically said religious leaders and institutions are not required to perform the marriages or rent their space for same-sex ceremonies.

If the bill becomes law, the city will follow Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, which issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. New Hampshire will begin issuing them in January.

The Legislature in Maine has also passed a same-sex marriage bill, but voters will decide in November whether to reverse it. California briefly issued licenses before voters passed a law stopping the practice.

In the District of Columbia, the bill was co-introduced by 10 of the city council's 13 members and has the support of the mayor.

If Congress blocked the bill, it would be rare. In the past 25 years, Congress has rejected only three pieces of legislation. According to Brian Flowers, the city's general counsel, the last time was in 1991, when Congress rejected a law that would have permitted taller buildings in the city.

In 1999, Congress amended a bill so that medical marijuana would not be legalized in the city. Congress also repealed a law that would have required D.C. government employees to be city residents.

Same-sex marriage supporters cheered the bill's introduction. D.C. residents Juan Rondon and Edward Grandis came to the meeting wearing T-shirts that displayed copies of their California marriage license.

"I feel a sensation of relief," Grandis said.

According the U.S. Census Bureau, there were about 3,500 same-sex couples living together in the city in 2008, though the number has a wide margin of error. D.C. has 600,000 residents.

Rick Rosendall, vice president for political affairs for the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, said he was proud of the city but acknowledged: "We have a long way to go, of course."

The Catholic Church and Washington's archbishop, Donald Wuerl, have been vocal in opposing the legislation. And a group led by Bishop Harry Jackson, the pastor of a Maryland church, had previously asked D.C.'s board of elections to authorize a ballot initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The board will consider the request later this month.

"We are prepared to go to court," Jackson said.


BL.

[Sky Blue]

"Some fights are worth fighting for," said U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah. "This is one of them."

Yes, don't let people marry who they want. It's definitely worth your time to fight that.

[AP_piano295]

I like the sound of the capital allowing same sex marriage.

[No1451]

Yes, don't let people marry who they want. It's definitely worth your time to fight that.

Of course, fighting against human rights is a great thing:o

[leekohler]

Equal marriage rights are going to become reality. These fools can fight it all they want. They're going to lose.

[NT1440]

Equal marriage rights are going to become reality. These fools can fight it all they want. They're going to lose.

The only thing is its going to take time, unfortunatly. Only 5 posts in this thread...:(

Given that this will debated in DC however, I fully expect this to finally stir up the debate on a national level, seeing as the press is going to LOVE sinking their teeth into this one. Can't wait to see what happens (and to be supremely disappointed by some of our politicians) and hopefully the right thing will be done.

[leekohler]

The only thing is its going to take time, unfortunatly. Only 5 posts in this thread...:(

Given that this will debated in DC however, I fully expect this to finally stir up the debate on a national level, seeing as the press is going to LOVE sinking their teeth into this one. Can't wait to see what happens (and to be supremely disappointed by some of our politicians) and hopefully the right thing will be done.

If it's going to happen, it has to happen in this administration. We won't get another chance for a very long time.

[NT1440]

If it's going to happen, it has to happen in this administration. We won't get another chance for a very long time.

Sad, but completely true.

[Zombie Acorn]

The only thing is its going to take time, unfortunatly. Only 5 posts in this thread...:(


I haven't really heard a lot of argument against gay marriage on these boards so I assume everyone doesn't mind it (or isn't going to say anything about it).

Personally I don't see what the religious people are trying to protect here. Presently marriage is that old shambled building that is half blown over, luckily you get some tax incentives and lower insurance rates out of it or it wouldn't be worth a ****.

[leekohler]

Sad, but completely true.

And I still may have to retire to Canada. I have no intentions of spending my golden years in a place that considers me a second class citizen. Twenty years ago, I thought this fight would be over by now. Ya know, now that "my generation" has taken over. Here I am in my forties feeling like not much has changed, even though I know a lot has. We have made great strides in some ways, but stood still, if not gone backward in others.

[No1451]

And I still may have to retire to Canada. I have no intentions of spending my golden years in a place that considers me a second class citizen. Twenty years ago, I thought this fight would be over by now. Ya know, now that "my generation" has taken over. Here I am in my forties feeling like not much has changed, even though I know a lot has. We have made great strides in some ways, but stood still, if not gone backward in others.

Do it! You won't have any regrets, we've got moose, hockey and snow, though we do have our fair share of people who will still hate you.

I really wish that I could sit down and get someone to explain to me WHY they oppose gay marriage as marriage is in no way linked to Christianity the way they seem to think it is.

[PcBgone]

I haven't really heard a lot of argument against gay marriage on these boards so I assume everyone doesn't mind it (or isn't going to say anything about it).

Personally I don't see what the religious people are trying to protect here. Presently marriage is that old shambled building that is half blown over, luckily you get some tax incentives and lower insurance rates out of it or it wouldn't be worth a ****.

Dont go lumping us all into this. I have spoken out quite a bit about this and am whole heartedly against this.

I will gladly give up any "tax incentives or lower insurance rates" if that meant we would keep marriage defined as is. Its not about the benefits of marriage, its about the meaning of marriage. Which most people have no clue about the meaning of marriage(thus the high divorce rate).

[yg17]

Dont go lumping us all into this. I have spoken out quite a bit about this and am whole heartedly against this.

I will gladly give up any "tax incentives or lower insurance rates" if that meant we would keep marriage defined as is. Its not about the benefits of marriage, its about the meaning of marriage. Which most people have no clue about the meaning of marriage(thus the high divorce rate).

It's pretty pathetic that you would give up tax and insurance breaks to continue imposing your hate and bigotry on a minority.

[Zombie Acorn]

Dont go lumping us all into this. I have spoken out quite a bit about this and am whole heartedly against this.

I will gladly give up any "tax incentives or lower insurance rates" if that meant we would keep marriage defined as is. Its not about the benefits of marriage, its about the meaning of marriage. Which most people have no clue about the meaning of marriage(thus the high divorce rate).

Do tell the meaning of marriage so we can all be enlightened.

[PcBgone]

It's pretty pathetic that you would give up tax and insurance breaks to continue imposing your hate and bigotry on a minority.

All I hear is yada yada yada, blah blah blah....you type but you never actually say anything...

[yg17]

All I hear is yada yada yada, blah blah blah....you type but you never actually say anything...

I said plenty, you just don't want to read it because you don't want to hear someone point out that you are a bigot. Don't worry, if I was a bigot, I'd be ashamed of it and not want anyone to mention it either.

[leekohler]

Dont go lumping us all into this. I have spoken out quite a bit about this and am whole heartedly against this.

I will gladly give up any "tax incentives or lower insurance rates" if that meant we would keep marriage defined as is. Its not about the benefits of marriage, its about the meaning of marriage. Which most people have no clue about the meaning of marriage(thus the high divorce rate).

I can assure you, we know what marriage means. It's you who have twisted it into something ugly to use against and deny others. You use it as a weapon, and it's disgusting.

[FreeState]

...Its not about the benefits of marriage, its about the meaning of marriage. Which most people have no clue about the meaning of marriage(thus the high divorce rate).

Which is why the state thats had marriage available to gay couples the longest has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, right?

http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html

and: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/politics/142154/after_5_years_of_legal_gay_marriage,_massachusetts_still_has_the_lowest_state_divorce_rate_and_weste rn_civilization_is_intact/

Provisional data from 2008 indicates that the Massachusetts divorce rate has dropped from 2.3 per thousand in 2007 down to about 2.0 per thousand for 2008. What does that mean ? To get a sense of perspective consider that the last time the US national divorce rate was 2.0 per thousand (people) was 1940. You read that correctly. The Massachusetts divorce rate is now at about where the US divorce rate was the year before the United States entered World War Two.

[bobber205]

I can assure you, we know what marriage means. It's you who have twisted it into something ugly to use against and deny others. You use it as a weapon, and it's disgusting.

Lee do you agree that government should get out of the definition of marriage completely? I believe it's a violation of church and state. All marriages should be declared as Civil Unions with the same rights marriages have now and "marriages" no longer have special recognition by the "state". This would open up other religions and courthouses to perform civil marriages on any two human beings, regardless of their sexual orientation.

[FreeState]

Lee do you agree that government should get out of the definition of marriage completely? I believe it's a violation of church and state. All marriages should be declared as Civil Unions with the same rights marriages have now and "marriages" no longer have special recognition by the "state". This would open up other religions and courthouses to perform civil marriages on any two human beings, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Im not Lee, but this is already the case. The state issues a Civil Marriage certificate - note the word Civil. The state will not recognize any marriage contract that is not a Civil Marriage (meaning the government will not recognize any purely religious contracts).

[PcBgone]

Do tell the meaning of marriage so we can all be enlightened.

Marriage is between a Man, A Woman, and God. ALways have has been, always will be. People have distorted this view the further they have gotten away from God. Its a combining of two people in a spiritual way. One that homosexuals nor divorced people will have ever experienced. Marriage is not about Sex, Money, Property or any other so called "rights". It is about a unity of the couple with God Himself.

I said plenty, you just don't want to read it because you don't want to hear someone point out that you are a bigot. Don't worry, if I was a bigot, I'd be ashamed of it and not want anyone to mention it either.

I love how you resort to name calling. And you call me the bigot? I think you need a review of what the word means. Im sure you have a dictionary somewhere. Come back after you review the word.


I can assure you, we know what marriage means. It's you who have twisted it into something ugly to use against and deny others. You use it as a weapon, and it's disgusting.

Sorry Lee, your wrong. Im not the one trying to pervert it into something twisted and ugly. Im not the one who is trying to take thousands of years of tradition and spit all over it and call it bigotry. It is your kind that is doing this.

Which is why the state thats had marriage available to gay couples the longest has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, right?

http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html

and: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/politics/142154/after_5_years_of_legal_gay_marriage,_massachusetts_still_has_the_lowest_state_divorce_rate_and_weste rn_civilization_is_intact/

Provisional data from 2008 indicates that the Massachusetts divorce rate has dropped from 2.3 per thousand in 2007 down to about 2.0 per thousand for 2008. What does that mean ? To get a sense of perspective consider that the last time the US national divorce rate was 2.0 per thousand (people) was 1940. You read that correctly. The Massachusetts divorce rate is now at about where the US divorce rate was the year before the United States entered World War Two.

You know, Id be very interested in a study regarding religious beliefs/tendencies for the same time period. I suspect that as the divorce rates climbed, religious beliefs/tendencies went down for the same time period. Thus would prove my point that people dont know the reason why they get married.


Let the Right Wing Nut Job bashing begin....please dont hold back! You wont hurt my feelings. You will show your true colors though.

[electroshock]

Marriage is between a Man, A Woman, and God.

The nice thing is, this bill does NOT propose making it mandatory that one marries a member of the same sex.

You would still have the option of marrying someone of the opposite gender. So I guess I don't see why the fuss over the bill. :confused:

[miloblithe]

Marriage is between a Man, A Woman, and God. ALways have has been, always will be. People have distorted this view the further they have gotten away from God. Its a combining of two people in a spiritual way. One that homosexuals nor divorced people will have ever experienced. Marriage is not about Sex, Money, Property or any other so called "rights". It is about a unity of the couple with God Himself.

Are you saying that marriage only only exists in monotheistic cultures? Does it exist under Islam and Judaism? Are all those married people in non-monotheistic cultures not really married because god wasn't invited to their wedding?

[Zombie Acorn]

Marriage is between a Man, A Woman, and God. ALways have has been, always will be. People have distorted this view the further they have gotten away from God. Its a combining of two people in a spiritual way. One that homosexuals nor divorced people will have ever experienced. Marriage is not about Sex, Money, Property or any other so called "rights". It is about a unity of the couple with God Himself.


What about before man invented God? Was it then a marriage between a man, a woman, and the sun (or pick whatever deity you want that was worshiped before God was made)?

[.Andy]

Marriage is between a Man, A Woman, and God. ALways have has been, always will be.
Isn't this polygamy?

[Zombie Acorn]

Isn't this polygamy?

lol

I almost posted a joke about god being bi but figured I would get nailed for trolling again :p

[PcBgone]

Are you saying that marriage only only exists in monotheistic cultures? Does it exist under Islam and Judaism? Are all those married people in non-monotheistic cultures not really married because god wasn't invited to their wedding?

Try a dictionary. You just listed monotheistic religions. They both pray to one God. The word your looking for you polytheistic. But to answer your question, no, polytheistic religions still have marriage, as they still want/allow their gods at their weddings as they believe it is a blessing.

What about before man invented God? Was it then a marriage between a man, a woman, and the sun (or pick whatever deity you want that was worshiped before God was made)?

Man didnt invent God. God Invented Man.

Isn't this polygamy?

*sigh* I guess I need to buy a round of dictionaries for a few of you.

polygamy |pəˈligəmē|
noun
1 the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time.

Considering you only have one wife, and one husband in a marriage, then not its not polygamy.

[.Andy]

Oh I see you're not actually married to god. Just your opposite-sex partner. Marriage is unification with god in a spiritual threesome.

[miloblithe]

Try a dictionary. You just listed monotheistic religions. They both pray to one God. The word your looking for you polytheistic. But to answer your question, no, polytheistic religions still have marriage, as they still want/allow their gods at their weddings as they believe it is a blessing.

I apologize if my phrasing led you to misunderstand what I was asking. Those were two separate questions about whether marriage exists in polytheism and whether it exists under Islam and Judaism. Not the same question.

So, are you saying that marriage must exist within a religious tradition, but that as long as it does, it's still marriage? And any religious tradition is OK? In that case, if I can identify a religious tradition that sanctions marriage between same-sex partners, it's marriage? Or do only certain religious traditions qualify for the definition of marriage?

[yg17]

I love how you resort to name calling. And you call me the bigot? I think you need a review of what the word means. Im sure you have a dictionary somewhere. Come back after you review the word.


bigoted |ˈbigətid|
adjective
• expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance : a thoughtless and bigoted article.

Please explain how that doesn't describe you again?

[DiamondMac]

God Invented Man.

Through Adam and Eve, right?

But he made a talking snake first...or wait....how does the great story go?

[AP_piano295]

[QUOTE=
Man didnt invent God. God Invented Man.
[/QUOTE]

Proof?

[costabunny]

Yep - same old comments - nothing new here (bit like the whole marriage is tied to any one religious belief (see point from whichever person is objecting at the time) - As far as I am concerned whats the big deal?

two people love each other, want to live their lives together and share a level of commitment that reflects this. I don't see a problem there at all after all thats the essence of a good marriage.

Who cares if its two men, two women or a man and a woman - the feeling and commitment is the same.

I must state that I was once very religious until my local pastor showed the true meaning of his status: using wording in a book written by men a long time ago and translated over the years by yet more men with their own agendas: to belittle and ostracize those who (the men writing) chose to be different enough to be evil. (I was accused of being an abomination before god - I was 12years old FFS). So don't go preaching the love of god (any god). because many who follow these distorted doctrines have been misled.

(my opinions btw so don't get all 'she's attacking our religion' on me - I see no religion as real other than a now outmoded method of control for growing populations and society).

[leekohler]

Sorry Lee, your wrong. Im not the one trying to pervert it into something twisted and ugly. Im not the one who is trying to take thousands of years of tradition and spit all over it and call it bigotry. It is your kind that is doing this.

No- we aren't. You all have been spitting all over it for a long time. Given how it's OK for people to get quickie marriages and quickie divorces in Vegas and elsewhere, I'd say that we aren't the ones ruining anything. We have a hell of lot more respect for it than you do.

It is not your right to deny us the right to legally marry. There is nothing wrong with two unrelated, consenting adults tying themselves together legally. You don't like us, and I don't care. BUT YOU WILL NOT treat us as second class citizens within the rule of law. YOU WILL NOT.

And since when did love become ugly? You people are truly unbelievable.


Man didnt invent God. God Invented Man.


Prove it.

[yg17]

Marriage is between a Man, A Woman, and God.

So are you going to be pushing for legislation to prevent Atheists from getting married next? :rolleyes:

[bigandy]

with god in a spiritual threesome

I believe god would be awful in a threesome. ;)

So are you going to be pushing for legislation to prevent Atheists from getting married next? :rolleyes:

Obviously - atheists aren't real people :D

[yg17]

I believe god would be awful in a threesome. ;)


And being the all powerful god, he probably made himself well endowed and you don't want your wife leaving you for him ;)

[jmann]

Marriage is between a Man, A Woman, and God. ALways have has been, always will be. People have distorted this view the further they have gotten away from God.

Sorry Lee, your wrong. Im not the one trying to pervert it into something twisted and ugly. Im not the one who is trying to take thousands of years of tradition and spit all over it and call it bigotry. It is your kind that is doing this.

God? Why do people always bring god into this? I'm sorry, but "god" is no where in my mind when I decide to marry someone. People should stop using god as an argument for everything that they can't properly justify in their own views. The definition of Marriage in my opinion, is two unrelated consenting adults deciding to spend their lives together because they love each other. I believe that if two people care about each other they should have the rights to express it legally and receive the same benefits as anyone else that is allowed to marry.

And I would really really really love to know one thing. Why do you care? How does this affect you in ANY WAY? If we can get married then does that mean you can't? No, it just means that more people can commit to each other.

It would also lead to people having less sexual partners, and thus lessen the risk of spreading STIs, because they could legally commit to each other. I'm sure that straight people would be more promiscuous if they couldn't legally be tied together. But of course this last statement is pure speculation, and whether it would be true or not is left of to the persons themselves, but it's a nice thought. :)

[FreeState]

You know, Id be very interested in a study regarding religious beliefs/tendencies for the same time period. I suspect that as the divorce rates climbed, religious beliefs/tendencies went down for the same time period. Thus would prove my point that people dont know the reason why they get married.

Nothing supports your point at all.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Variation in divorce rates by religion:

Religion % have been divorced
Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists, Agnostics 21%


Also gay marriage has not effected marriage rates or divorce rates in Europe (which has had a religious decline for many years now):

http://www.nordicreach.com/its_about/lifestyle/135/

“Overall, the number of marriages in the Nordic countries has increased since 1990 but with very individual patterns and fluctuations among the different countries” This statistical bible goes on to say that “the total number of divorces in the Nordic countries has been quite stable from 1990 to 2004.”

[Counterfit]

Marriage is between a Man, A Woman, and God. ALways have has been, always will be.

Well stop the ****ing presses and get historians on the phone. We have a new source to base all textbooks on!




Seriously, you're wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History).

[CorvusCamenarum]

Marriage is between a Man, A Woman, and The State.

Fixed that for you.

[PcBgone]

Fixed that for you.

Well at least we agree on the basic fundamental principle that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman..

[NT1440]

Well at least we agree on the basic fundamental principle that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman..

According to........

If its the bible or any other religious reason, it has no place in government matters.

[Queso]

Marriage can also be between two men. I have evidence to prove that in the form of my marriage certificate.

So, for those with the opposing view, what do you have for backing up your opinion?

**waits for quoting of Bronze Age fable crap**