Same-Sex Marriage bill introduced in D.C.

bradl

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
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

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

Guest
Jan 8, 2005
6,860
10
"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.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,989
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

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
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.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
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

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
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

macrumors 6502
Oct 20, 2008
474
0
Ottawa, ON
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

macrumors 6502
Feb 3, 2008
260
0
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

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
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

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
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

macrumors 6502
Feb 3, 2008
260
0
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

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
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

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
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

macrumors 68000
Jun 24, 2004
1,722
110
San Diego, CA
...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_western_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

macrumors 68020
Nov 15, 2005
2,182
0
Oregon
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

macrumors 68000
Jun 24, 2004
1,722
110
San Diego, CA
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

macrumors 6502
Feb 3, 2008
260
0
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_western_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

macrumors 6502a
Sep 7, 2009
647
0
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

macrumors 68020
Nov 14, 2003
2,076
28
Washington, DC
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

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
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)?