DC City Council votes to legalize gay marriage

[abijnk]

Link (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gftV6RnfBC8iPPWGM0SGQeNLiC6QD9CJUBQO1)


WASHINGTON — Washington D.C.'s City Council has voted to legalize gay marriage in the nation's capital.

Mayor Adrian Fenty has promised to sign the bill, which was co-sponsored by 10 of the council's 13 members. The final vote Tuesday was 11-2.

This is the first step to legalizing same-sex marriage in the capital. Congress has final say, of course, but so far things there look good.

[Queso]

A minor victory after the disappointment in NY, but a victory nonetheless. Well done the council members for realising that love is more important than two-thousand year old bigotry :)

[colourfastt]

Link (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gftV6RnfBC8iPPWGM0SGQeNLiC6QD9CJUBQO1)



This is the first step to legalizing same-sex marriage in the capital. Congress has final say, of course, but so far things there look good.

I suspect Congreſs will overturn it .. as it should. (I'm gay and believe in same-sex marriage, however since the DC city council has no Constitutional authority for existing the ruling is vacuous.)

[leekohler]

I suspect Congreſs will overturn it .. as it should. (I'm gay and believe in same-sex marriage, however since the DC city council has no Constitutional authority for existing the ruling is vacuous.)

There is absolutely no reason at all that they should overturn it.

[Heilage]

I don't get why there's a fight. But hey, I'm from Europe. We're all drug addicts with cocain running out of our eyes and homeless children because the parents have gotten divorced over here.

[colourfastt]

There is absolutely no reason at all that they should overturn it.

What part of there is no Constitutional provision for the DC city council (and government) to exist did you not get?

[Counterfit]

Congress usually rubber stamps anything passed through the city council.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

There is absolutely no reason at all that they should overturn it.

Other than it's not their decision...

[aquajet]

What part of there is no Constitutional provision for the DC city council (and government) to exist did you not get?

The DC city council is legitimate as they're elected by the residents of DC. Nobody in Congress is elected by DC residents. But I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, right?

Screw Congress and constitutional provisions. People are being oppressed and forced to be unequal. That's not okay.

With that said, you're gay yet you do not applaud this action because you feel some legal abstraction merits greater weight than real people who must live with the real consequences of a system which oppresses them? And you're gay. What the ***** is wrong with you, exactly?

[leekohler]

The DC city council is legitimate as they're elected by the residents of DC. Nobody in Congress is elected by DC residents. But I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, right?

Screw Congress and constitutional provisions. People are being oppressed and forced to be unequal. That's not okay.

With that said, you're gay yet you do not applaud this action because you feel some legal abstraction merits greater weight than real people who must live with the real consequences of a system which oppresses them? And you're gay. What the ***** is wrong with you, exactly?

Thank you. I need add nothing more.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

The DC city council is legitimate as they're elected by the residents of DC. Nobody in Congress is elected by DC residents. But I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, right?

Screw Congress and constitutional provisions. People are being oppressed and forced to be unequal. That's not okay.

With that said, you're gay yet you do not applaud this action because you feel some legal abstraction merits greater weight than real people who must live with the real consequences of a system which oppresses them? And you're gay. What the ***** is wrong with you, exactly?

So? It's not their jurisdiction. This is like a city planner declaring gay marriage legal.

What's wrong with you? Or do you just not understand the situation at all?
--Same to you, Lee.

[Queso]

So? It's not their jurisdiction. This is like a city planner declaring gay marriage legal.

What's wrong with you? Or do you just not understand the situation at all?
--Same to you, Lee.
In the absence of an official state legislature for DC residents who else is going to pick this up exactly? Or do residents of DC deserve to fall into a big constitutional black hole thanks to location?

[aquajet]

So? It's not their jurisdiction. This is like a city planner declaring gay marriage legal.

What's wrong with you? Or do you just not understand the situation at all?
--Same to you, Lee.

I understand the situation, I just don't understand why any self-respecting gay individual would reject this measure from the DC city council because of some petty rambling concerning the legitimacy of the city council. I could care less about your "constitutional provisions". Do you wish to take your oppression seriously or not?

And maybe the question needs to be asked again: how exactly is congress setting policy for the people of DC actually legitimate if DC residents have absolutely no say over who gets to be in Congress?

[leekohler]

In the absence of an official state legislature for DC residents who else is going to pick this up exactly? Or do residents of DC deserve to fall into a big constitutional black hole thanks to location?

I understand the situation, I just don't understand why any self-respecting gay individual would reject this measure from the DC city council because of some petty rambling concerning the legitimacy of the city council. Do you wish to take your oppression seriously or not?

Thank you.

[yg17]

I understand the situation, I just don't understand why any self-respecting gay individual would reject this measure from the DC city council because of some petty rambling concerning the legitimacy of the city council. I could care less about your "constitutional provisions". Do you wish to take your oppression seriously or not?

And maybe the question needs to be asked again: how exactly is congress setting policy for the people of DC actually legitimate if DC residents have absolutely no say over who gets to be in Congress?

It's not, sadly. DC is a huge legislative mess. The District, when first created, was never meant to have any permanent residents. The idea was it would have the White House, Congress, other government buildings, etc. If anyone lived in DC besides the first family and the VP, it would be elected officials who still have permanent residence back home or foreign dignitaries who don't vote in our elections anyways. And anyone who worked in these places would commute in from MD and VA. Hence, no need for any representation. But later the shops were built, and the tourist attractions were built, and the schools were built, and the people who worked at those places or attended those schools wanted to be closer to work and people started living in DC.

Unfortunately, nothing has been done to remedy that situation. Obviously you can't kick all residents out of DC. That leaves two viable options. The first is statehood for DC. Give them 2 senators, a governor, a representative, just like every other state. The second option is to make DC a part of Maryland, at least for electoral purposes and give DC residents the ability to vote for MD senators and DC would probably become another Maryland congressional district. The land that makes up DC now was originally a part of Maryland, so it would go back to MD rather than VA.

The option I favor is full statehood. I've been to DC many times as my sister and brother in law live there, and I've noticed that many people in DC are, despite the fact thay have no representation, proud to say they live in the District and wouldn't want to become Marylanders. And I don't think Marylanders (at least not the conservative ones) suddenly want DC residents voting for their gov and senators and having an affect on their election, because DC is a very sizable voting block that will sway elections. But, the most practical option is the latter, give them MD voting rights, because DC is too small to be a state. Not in population (DC is more populated than Wyoming) or even physical size, but money. DC relies on the fed way too much for its budget and probably would quickly go broke if it was its own state. Wyoming can do it on their small population because things are cheap out there, that's not the case in DC. Also, there is no way in hell the republicans would ever allow DC statehood, since it would guarantee 2 permanent Democratic senate seats and a Democratic house seat.

Regardless of which solution you support, it's the entire situation is just ********** dumb. Imagine if people living in London or Tokyo had no elected representation in government because they live in their country's capital. DC residents have about as much representation as residents in Pyongyang.

[colourfastt]

It's not, sadly. DC is a huge legislative mess. The District, when first created, was never meant to have any permanent residents. The idea was it would have the White House, Congress, other government buildings, etc. If anyone lived in DC besides the first family and the VP, it would be elected officials who still have permanent residence back home or foreign dignitaries who don't vote in our elections anyways. And anyone who worked in these places would commute in from MD and VA. Hence, no need for any representation. But later the shops were built, and the tourist attractions were built, and the schools were built, and the people who worked at those places or attended those schools wanted to be closer to work and people started living in DC.

Unfortunately, nothing has been done to remedy that situation. Obviously you can't kick all residents out of DC. That leaves two viable options. The first is statehood for DC. Give them 2 senators, a governor, a representative, just like every other state. The second option is to make DC a part of Maryland, at least for electoral purposes and give DC residents the ability to vote for MD senators and DC would probably become another Maryland congressional district. The land that makes up DC now was originally a part of Maryland, so it would go back to MD rather than VA.

The option I favor is full statehood. I've been to DC many times as my sister and brother in law live there, and I've noticed that many people in DC are, despite the fact thay have no representation, proud to say they live in the District and wouldn't want to become Marylanders. And I don't think Marylanders (at least not the conservative ones) suddenly want DC residents voting for their gov and senators and having an affect on their election, because DC is a very sizable voting block that will sway elections. But, the most practical option is the latter, give them MD voting rights, because DC is too small to be a state. Not in population (DC is more populated than Wyoming) or even physical size, but money. DC relies on the fed way too much for its budget and probably would quickly go broke if it was its own state. Wyoming can do it on their small population because things are cheap out there, that's not the case in DC. Also, there is no way in hell the republicans would ever allow DC statehood, since it would guarantee 2 permanent Democratic senate seats and a Democratic house seat.

Regardless of which solution you support, it's the entire situation is just ********** dumb. Imagine if people living in London or Tokyo had no elected representation in government because they live in their country's capital. DC residents have about as much representation as residents in Pyongyang.

Since from the responses all I can assume is that noone took a high school civics class, here is the relevant part of the Constitution:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States ...


So, if DC does become a state I want to know which state or states will cede territory to form the new federal district (the residents of which, if any, will have no congressional or electoral college representation, or "local government"). Also, I want to know how costs of building a new federal governmental infrastructure will be handled.

[leekohler]

Since from the responses all I can assume is that noone took a high school civics class, here is the relevant part of the Constitution:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States ...


So, if DC does become a state I want to know which state or states will cede territory to form the new federal district (the residents of which, if any, will have no congressional or electoral college representation, or "local government"). Also, I want to know how costs of building a new federal governmental infrastructure will be handled.

Since DC has no state government, what are they supposed to do?

[Tomorrow]

So? It's not their jurisdiction. This is like a city planner declaring gay marriage legal.

What's wrong with you? Or do you just not understand the situation at all?
--Same to you, Lee.

As I understand it, the council doesn't have actual jurisdiction on the issue. They do, however, have de facto jurisdiction in that their resolutions are subject to review by Congress, and may be overturned if Congress so rules.

Since Congress isn't likely to intervene here, it's pretty much a done deal.

[aquajet]

Since from the responses all I can assume is that noone took a high school civics class, here is the relevant part of the Constitution:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States ...


So, if DC does become a state I want to know which state or states will cede territory to form the new federal district (the residents of which, if any, will have no congressional or electoral college representation, or "local government"). Also, I want to know how costs of building a new federal governmental infrastructure will be handled.

Please read the previous posts. You're not telling us anything we don't already know. The point is, people living in DC are not properly represented (as the rest of folks living in the 50 states). And that requires some sort of change to our laws. Understand? That's what people are complaining about.

Now back on topic. Why are you so concerned over this point as to completely ignore the fact that you are being oppressed and instead you opt to criticize a governmental body for trying to challenge such oppression? Can you please address this question?

[yg17]

Since from the responses all I can assume is that noone took a high school civics class, here is the relevant part of the Constitution:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States ...


So, if DC does become a state I want to know which state or states will cede territory to form the new federal district (the residents of which, if any, will have no congressional or electoral college representation, or "local government"). Also, I want to know how costs of building a new federal governmental infrastructure will be handled.

You must be the one who never took high school civics class because the Constitution can be changed.