This morning, in a 5-4 decision, the DC Court of Appeals upheld the decision by the Board of Elections and Ethics to not allow a ballot initiative on the recently enacted same-sex marriage law here in the city. Local homophobe majordomo Bishop Harry Jackson and his cohorts filed a lawsuit arguing the matter should be put to a vote, but courtesy of a 1977 law, the Human Rights Act, banning civil rights from being put to a majority public vote, the measure stayed off (would it were that every state in the union had such a law).
[W]e ... affirm the Superior Court's rulings that the Council acted lawfully in imposing the Human Rights Act safeguard and that the Board correctly determined that the safeguard required it to reject the proposed initiative. As we go on to explain, we reach this result because (1) resolution of this appeal turns on what legislative authority the Council intended to share with the people of the District of Columbia when it passed the Charter Amendments Act (the "CAA"); (2) the Human Rights Act safeguard is not inconsistent with the Council's intent as conveyed by the language of the CAA; (3) this court owes substantial deference to the Council's legislative interpretation that the Human Rights Act safeguard carries out the intent of the CAA; (4) the relevant history convinces us that the Council could not have intended to authorize, as a proper subject of initiative, any initiative that would have the effect of authorizing discrimination prohibited by the Human Rights Act; (5) the Home Rule Act gave the Council authority to direct the Board, through the legislation that the Council passed to implement the CAA, to refuse to accept an initiative that would authorize prohibited discrimination; and (6) the Board correctly determined that the proposed initiative would have the effect of authorizing such discrimination. On the last of these points, our court is unanimous.
Although a 5-4 decision, the last two sentences are notable. Full text of the decision can be found here.
I'm on and off throughout the day, but will update with next steps, if any, as it becomes available.
Today was the first day same-sex couples could apply for marriage licenses at the Superior Courthouse in the District of Columbia. Couples started lining up in the wee hours of the morning. Below is a picture of Sinjoyla Townsend and Angelisa Young, the first couple to obtain their marriage license:
h/t to Cathy Renna for the photo
By 11:30 AM, over 100 couples had applied for marriage licenses and the clerk said she was processing 20-25 per hour. The language was changed to "I now pronounce you legally married" instead of "I now pronounce you man and wife". Kudos to HRC, GLAAD and Renna Communications for providing media assistance on the ground to spread the word about how the nation's capital is now providing equality to all.
For those counting, this now makes DC the sixth jurisdiction in which same-sex couples currently have the freedom to marry, along with Iowa, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts. Previous same-sex weddings performed in California between June and November 2008 have also been ruled legally valid, and in states like New York and (moving forward) Maryland, out-of-state weddings are legally valid. More and more states are recognizing marriage is about love, and today's couples show that once again. Congrats to all the couples.
Tomorrow morning, the law legalizing same-sex marriage equality in the District of Columbia will take effect, having completed the Congressional review period without incident. That means at 8:30 AM tomorrow, same-sex couples will begin applying for marriage licenses at the DC Superior Court Marriage Bureau (expect long lines). Tuesday, March 9th will be the first day couples can legally receive their licenses and wed. Opponents have filed a last-ditch stay to the Supreme Court, but after four lower court rejections, legal experts tell me there is a very slim chance the Supreme Court will intervene.
Here in town, I've seen ads all over the place aimed at same-sex couples; wedding planning consultants; restaurants and hotels advertising their banquet spaces; flowers and more. One argument that I think is too-often underused is the economic impact of marriage equality. The marriage industry is a multi-million dollar industry. The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School put out a report last year estimating that DC marriage equality would result in $52.2 million economic spending in spending over three years, creating an estimated 700 jobs. That doesn't include $5.4 million in new revenue from things like sales taxes and license fees. Based on tourism data, the Williams Institute estimates over 10,000 couples will come from all over the country to get married in the nation's capital. Restaurants, hotels, and small businesses like flower shops will all appreciate the new business, especially in a recession. It's like a small stimulus shot in the arm for the area.
This has been a long time coming, and local activist Rick Rosendall has a piece naming a number of key folks who have laid the groundwork, and a bit on the legislative and legal strategy that has been going on for years. A number of them are very close friends and extremely strategic activists, and deserve a big h/t.
If you are a couple involved in politics (Hill staffers, local activists, etc.) and are applying for a license tomorrow, a few reporters have reached out looking to talk to same-sex political couples who planned to be married. Drop me a line at adambink at gmail dot com if you're interested (and congrats!).
Back in November I wrote a piece regarding how DC Catholic Charities was holding poor people and kids without homes as hostages over the marriage equality bill (which went onto pass the DC Council overwhelmingly, was signed by the Mayor, and is nearing the end of the Congressional approval process without any incident). Catholic Charities pushed a red herring, claiming that under the marriage equality bill, they might be forced to end services altogether in DC because they didn't want to be forced to place children in the homes of same-sex parents, even though anti-discrimination laws had already been on the books for years, mandating that. Luckily, no one on the DC Council bought it, and in one of the proudest moments I've ever had of elected Democrats (and Catania, an independent), one by one, nearly every one of them came out and essentially told Catholic Charities to take a hike.
Since the DC bill is set to officially become law on March 3rd and fire and brimstone will rain down from the sky same-sex couples in DC will gain full equality, yesterday, Catholic Charities decided to end its foster program altogether rather than license same-sex couples. As expected, another group stepped forward to work with the 35 families in the program- locally-operated National Center for Children and Families- which will not discriminate. Tommy Wells, the DC Councilmember who oversees the Committee on Human Services, said the transfer went smoothly.
Good. If they aren't in the charity business for charity's sake, then don't take the money. Any group that takes taxpayer money- on the order of $20 million to Catholic Charities- shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in this fashion. And good on DC Councilmembers for taking a stand against discrimination and a false argument.
Photo credit: Bob Summersgill, who helped write the legislation
This morning, Mayor Adrian Fenty signed legislation legalizing marriage equality in DC (pending Congressional approval). His remarks regarding race, to me, were very poignant:
"We knew this day would come," Fenty said. "I say to the world: An era of struggle ends for thousands in Washington, D.C. . . . Our city is taking a leap forward."
Before he signed the bill, Fenty spoke of his interracial upbringing, noting it was illegal for his parents to get married 40 years ago.
"This is one of the churches my parents would have brought me to when I was a boy," he said as his parents sat among advocates in a second pew. "Things have a way of coming full circle. When you're mayor."
Several months prior to today, in my testimony to the DC Council on this bill, I felt the same way:
As the son of a Catholic father and a Jewish mother, I wouldn't be here if marriage was denied to two loving, committed people. Neither would my boyfriend, the son of a Native American father and a Filipina mother. We are only here because those who have come before us have recognized that marriage is about love and commitment.
A good day here in DC.
Update: Andy Towle's got a video if anyone wants to watch.
Michael Jones at Change.org raises the question of whether the Catholic Archdiocese will follow through on its threat to end its social services now that the marriage equality bill has passed the DC Council. In response to today's vote, the Archdiocese released a statement that, to me, didn't firmly state a decision one way or another. I actually think that if I were the Archbishop, I would rather avoid this choice altogether and wait until the last possible minute- e.g., when the bill finally becomes law. That won't happen until it passes the Congressional review process, and even then there are some landmines around the appropriations process and a potential lawsuit. So I don't expect to see much soon, but HRC has a petition out to the Archbishop anyway. Once again, I was heartened by how many members of the DC Council- Democrats and Independents- told the Archdiocese to get lost and passed the bill with no changes. Not something you'd see many places.
Also, National Organization for Marriage blasted its list today, urging people to tell their member of Congress to stop the marriage bill during the 30-day review period. As an organizing strategy, that is almost certainly not going to happen in the next 30 legislative days, as bills to overturn the law must be passed in both houses and signed by the President. I imagine it is more geared towards screwing with the legislation through the appropriations process down the line, and making their donors happy.
Also, please take a second to thank your DC Councilmember if you live here. A few Councilmembers stuck their necks out. Here's a list, and here's some help if you're not sure which Ward you're in. Remember the at-large members, too.
The DC Council just passed the marriage equality bill. You may remember earlier this month the Council passed the bill, 11-2. It's required to pass a "second reading" under law, and it did today by the same margin. The bill will now go to Mayor Fenty's desk for signature (he will sign it), then to Capitol Hill for the 30-day review period.
Folks close to the process tell me that based on the Congressional schedule in January, it should take about two months, and we are cautiously optimistic that the bill will be fine through the review process. At that point it will become law. The real landmines are in the appropriations process later next year, where Congress has, in the past, screwed with our laws (needle exchange, among others) via funding mechanisms. There may be a fight around that next year.
One other thing that has been interesting to me is the amount of support African-American legislators have lent to the effort. You saw the same in New York State, where African-American Senators like Ruth Hassell-Thompson gave incredible speeches- hers was about her brother coming out, which she had never spoken about publicly before. Last night, Councilmember Harry Thomas spoke at a rally I attended. He spoke movingly about this being a human rights issue, and concluded with "I will stand with you until the day I die." It was an amazing moment.
After Prop 8 passed, there was a narrative based on exit polling that the African-American vote was the real key to the bill passing. While there is an element of truth to the lack of support in the African-American community on this issue, it is something we will chip away at by winning over leaders in that community and asking them to speak out in support. Half of the Councilmembers voting for this bill are African-American. In New York, the entire debate, every Senator's speech, was captured on video. That is all important to have and use to work to build support.
A good day in DC in the midst of the mess at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
This morning the DC Council passed legislation legalizing marriage equality. The vote was 11-2. The two against were former Mayor Marion Barry and Yvette Alexander. Neither vote was surprising, and both had been active in trying to weaken the bill or put it to a ballot vote. What is heartening is how many Councilmembers stood up for equality today, and stood firm in the face of the Washington Archdioecese's recent disingenuous blackmail threats to cut off charity services.
On the religious note, even better was that the lead sponsor, Chairman Mendelson, adopted a proposed amendment by GLAA, one of the local LGBT activist groups, and other supporting organizations. It would delete the words "same-sex" from the following bill text (bolding mine):
"a religious society, or a nonprofit organization which is operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, facilities, or goods for a purpose related to the solemnization or celebration of a same-sex marriage, or the promotion of same-sex marriage through religious programs, counseling, courses, or retreats, that is in violation of the religious society's beliefs."
Full justification for adding it can be found in this brief, but the short version is that the term would "confuse" the law because it suggests that religious organizations are legally obligated to provide services and facilities, or solemnize other sorts of marriages that violate their religious beliefs; and because it opens up the possibility of a legal challenge that DC has a less compelling interest to protect same-sex marriages from discrimination than other kinds of marriages. It's a good addition. The other amendment I want to emphasize as important was added upon committee passage, which retains the ability for same-sex and opposite-sex couples to register as domestic partners. Full details on that here.
The bill will now proceed to a "second reading" later this month, where it will pass easily, be signed by Mayor Fenty, then go to Capitol Hill for the Congressional review process.
There are too many folks individually to name who worked hard to get to this point, so I will just say thanks and congratulations to them and our allies who spent a lot of time on this, and to DC Councilmembers who stood up for equality.
As I wrote earlier today, there is an argument out there, and fear, that the marriage equality movement will fail in the short-term, and we should switch to a push for domestic parnterships, because we will continually lose at the ballot box.
Today, as expected, the DC Board of Elections and Ethics denied an attempt to place a ballot initiative that would strip same-sex married couples of their rights in the District.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics today released a memorandum opinion on the "Marriage Initiative of 2009", which would establish that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in the District of Columbia." A public hearing on the proposed initiative was held on October 26, 2009.
Under current law, the District recognizes as valid same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The Board concludes that that Marriage Initiative of 2009 would, if passed, strip same-sex couples who have entered into such marriages of rights afforded to them by that recognition. Accordingly, the Board orders in its memorandum that the Initiative be received but not accepted under D.C. Code section 1-1001.16(b)(2), which prohibits the Board from accepting an initiative that authorizes discrimination prohibited under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.
Accordingly, couples to be married under the legislation moving forward in the DC Council (which will have a first full vote on Dec 1) will not be subject to such a vote.
If marriage equality legislation is passed in New York State, the same is almost assured. The same goes for New Jersey. It is important to not misunderstand the 0/31 statistic as an indicator the LGBT movement should shift strategy away from marriage equality because we will continually lose at the ballot box. We should continue on our path with our eye firmly on marriage equality where possible and appropriate.
So the Catholic Church announced it is blackmailing the DC Council over marriage equality, at the expense of the poor and kids without homes.
The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.
Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.
Oh, well, heaven forbid (pun intended) they should have to obey city laws. A couple of points:
The city has anti-discrimination laws on the books. Their claim- that they might be forced to place kids with same-sex parents, for example- is already true under existing law. Catholic Charities, the social services arm of the Church, has lived under those laws for years and received millions from city coffers, and is trying to erode them using scare tactics.
This has nothing to do with the marriage equality legislation. It is a red herring. The legislation provides for exemptions for religious organizations to, for example, not allow same-sex couples to use their religious building for a wedding. The amendment that did not pass on Tuesday relates to individuals' rights, and as Chairman Mendelson said in the WaPo piece, the problem with individual exemption is that anybody can use their religious beliefs to discriminate- back in the 50s and 60s, people said the separation of the races was ordained by God.
Catholic Charities receives DC taxpayer money to fund its services. If they aren't interested in abiding under already-existing DC public laws using our public money, then don't take it. City leaders themselves have pointed out that Catholic Charities is not an indispensible component of city services. I'm no expert on the non-profit world, but I can't imagine there aren't other groups who can use the money to take their place. And I'm not really down with my money going to religious organizations anyway.
In Boston, Catholic Charities shut down its adoption services over the same issue. But before they did so, they had been placing kids in same-sex households to comply with the law until the Boston Globe exposed it and the hierarchy told them to stop. It is plainly nauseating to me that the need to discriminate so overrides the Church's commitment to feed the hungry and clothe the naked that they would take this stand.
Or, as DC Clergy United for Marriage Equality said today:
"The Catholic Church hierarchy is at a crossroads: they must decide whether they are in the charity business for charity's sake, or if imposing their will on the DC City Council and the citizens of the district is their primary interest."
This whole thing reminds me of the Bishop's engagement in the Maine marriage fight, even while his churches were closing, which went so overboard an opposition organization sprung up to generate a lot of pushback. We have to do the same in DC and reach out to people of faith to say that this has nothing to do with the marriage equality legislation, and that Catholic Charities should concentrate on its core values, not pushing its political beliefs.
I'm in the middle of an letter to the WaPo over this. If you are a DC-area resident, please consider joining with me. If you're a Catholic willing to organize in your congregation, drop me a line at adambink at gmail dot com.
Yesterday's hearing on the legislation to legalize same-sex marriage equality was quite something. The hearing started at 3:30 PM and was still going strong well past 10:00 PM- about 100 witnesses were on the list, and the rest (169 more) will be up to testify a week from yesterday. It's the largest number of witnesses ever on a bill. The crowd was about a 50-50 mix of supporters and opponents, but in terms of witnesses, we had 79 in support of marriage equality, 13 against, and 8 no-shows.
There were a few things I wanted to note that were of interest to me.
Opponents of the bill were largely African-American and made religious-based arguments. It's not surprising, considering the majority of the city is African-American and that Bishop Harry Jackson, a local preacher from Beltsville, MD is leading the charge on their side. It was, however, quite a turn from seeing white opponents in Maine. Maine is 98% white, and most of the arguments I saw related to slippery slopes (man sleeping with dog) and how the national homosexual lobby was trying to notch a win in Maine. It's also the 4th-least religious state in the country, according to Gallup. The arguments I saw yesterday repeatedly invoked the Lord and the Bible. An example from this, um, classy lady at about 10:50 PM last night.
Opponents also repeatedly made "give us the vote" arguments to put the issue on the ballot. The Board of Elections and Ethics yesterday morning held a hearing on the issue, and is expected to deny the challenge on the grounds that it violates the DC Human Rights Act, but what gets to me most is the hypocrisy. The bill has 10 co-sponsors and is expected to get 11 votes at least, so supporters try to maneuver to get it on the ballot. But if the situation were reversed, they'd try to keep it off the ballot. The shamelessness of it is irritating, but it's their strategy. Chairman Mendelson pointed out in his opening remarks how the $700 million new baseball stadium for the Nationals wasn't on the ballot, along with multiple other pieces of important legislation, and Councilmember Catania did the best job in striking down this argument, pointing out that the last time civil rights was on the ballot was December 21, 1865- when racists were trying to strip the right to vote away from African-Americans.
How many opponents decried the hearing as "window dressing!" because the bill has 10 co-sponsors and is expected to pass. Chairman Mendleson pointed out that wise opponents use hearings to push for amendments, gain supporters, agitate, gain press coverage, etc. This didn't deter anyone from whining democratically elected members supporting and moving on a bill they didn't like.
My testimony focused on my experience in Maine, the actual similarities between Maine and DC, and about the definition of marriage itself. It's below the fold if you're interested in reading.
The hearing will continue next week with the rest of the witness list.
I just got back from Maine, where I was blogging on the ground with the No On 1 campaign, and exploring some of the contours around marriage equality in the state. It was an extremely interesting experience, and we also got a lot done on the ground. Thanks again to those of you who contributed to send me to Maine, and I hope you liked the coverage. If you missed my posts on the ground, you can find them all by clicking here.
Today's my first day back in DC, and it's also the first day of the DC Council hearings on the legislation to legalize marriage equality. For a little background on the legislation and its chances, click here. I'll be testifying this afternoon (you can watch it starting at 3:30 PM EST live streaming here, and follow #DC4M on Twitter for updates from myself and others).
I talked a lot with key players in Maine around the legislative push in their own state (I'll be writing more on that soon). One of the biggest moments was their own public hearing. Expected attendance grew so large that they had to move it to the convention center in Augusta. 4,000 people ultimately attended- an incredible number. Our side outnumbered opponents 3-1, and we asked supporters to wear red to be easily identifiable. It was cited by many I spoke to as a big moment in helping wavering legislators see the outpouring of support throughout the state- particularly when moving testimony came out, like that of Phillip Spooner, whose video now has over 500,000 views on YouTube.
Here in DC, we've turned out a record 269 people to give supportive testimony as well (we expect, as in Maine, the overwhelming majority to be in support), and will also be wearing red. I'll be talking about some of the striking similarities of Maine to DC, as well. We're applying a lot of the lessons that were learned up there to our legislative situation down here, and hopefully we'll be equally successful. More to come.
This is more of a sports metaphor, but h/t to Jerry Sullivan, one of my favorite Buffalo News writers, for the title
Some items of note around the country today:
I just got an e-mail from Rep. Eric Massa with the ominous title "An Important Announcement About The 2010 Election", with the text:
The Founding Fathers designed the House of Representative as the People's House, and as such the citizens of this great Nation have the duty to elect their member of Congress every two years. While people sometimes get sick of campaigns, this cycle of frequent elections gives the people the best and most immediate tool possible to hold their member of Congress accountable and make their voices heard.
Accountability is a value that I hold near and dear, and it is with this spirit of service that I write you today.
On Saturday, 10/10 at 10:00 am, I will be making a formal announcement about the 2010 election. I would like to invite all of you, friends of old and new, to join me at Centerway Square in Corning NY on this morning.
It has been my honor and privilege to serve the families of this region and I hope to see you on Saturday in my hometown of Corning.
I called Massa's comm people for comment, and they declined to do so initially. Will update if warranted.
I don't like the sound of it, though. Massa knows it's a tough district (he lost his first race in 2006, which I worked on for a bit, and it's my grandpa's district), so perhaps it's just to prime the pump for a big crowd for his re-election announcement. I can't imagine he's running for higher office- certainly not Gov or Senator, and I don't really see him in something like a primary for comptroller or AG (or even qualified). The worst possibility is that he's not running again, something that would really disappoint me. I've been a huge fan of Massa's, particularly on his pushing for the House health care bill to be more progressive, and on his very strategic ways of talking about health care to constituents. He spent 45 minutes with a group of us NYers at Netroots Nation talking about that, and also hit some nails on the head when speaking at panels, too.
But one term and done would really piss me off, considering how hard the district is and how hard many of us worked for him, and that many of you contributed close to $1 million overall on ActBlue- including several thousand for standing firm on a public option. I hope he stays.
At the polar opposite of one term and done, former four-term Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad is running again. I asked former Iowa political operative Mike Lux for comment, to which he replied "I thought we got rid of that m*****f*****."
Last night, the defense authorization bill with the LGBT hate crimes amendment beat a motion to recommit (an effort by the Republicans to strip out the amendment), 178-234. Those are solid numbers, in addition to the fact that the Senate version already has it in by amendment. So we should be all set. HRC reports the conference report should be voted on in both houses by the end of next week before going to Obama's desk. We're close to the first major legislative achievement for LGBT rights in this term.
Glenn Greenwald has a fantastic piece documenting how Anne Kornblut violates the WaPo's own rules by using anonymous sourcing sixteen different times in one piece on the Obama Admin's national security policies, and journalistic ethics in general, as well as some on national security issues.
Yesterday, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, which would legalize marriage equality in the District, was introduced with much fanfare and 10/13 councilmembers co-introducing it. If you're looking for legislative and process details going forward, I wrote a piece last week on it here, and my friend Michael Crawford of DC for Marriage also has a piece today.
If you live in California, there are two LGBT bills before the Governor- one that would recognize Harvey Milk Day (which he's vetoed before, prior to the movie I believe) and one that would clarify that same-sex couples married out-of-state before Prop. 8 are recognized in CA, and that couples married after Prop 8 are entitled to the same rights. I know a lot of LGBT couples who marry in other states and have talked about moving to California one day- this would ensure they are entitled to marriage recognition. Equality California has phone numbers here of your local office- call Arnold and tell him to sign the bills.
Robert Harding at TAP reports the Rochester D&C is running another column by David Sirota, his latest on Afghanistan, which is a great sign. I wrote a bit last week on the D&C, a staid, center-right newspaper with far too many right-wingers on the ed page and a center-right ed board in a solidly Dem city with some hubs of progressivism. They're considering adding David permanently to the ed page. Take a second and drop an e-mail to Editorial Page Editor James Lawrence at jlawrenc@democratandchronicle.com and tell him that you want to see David Sirota's column made permanent.
I'm mentioned it offhandedly in a few places here, but we here in DC are quietly moving forward with our own bill on marriage equality. For a little background, DC is a city of about 590,000 people, governed by a 13-member city council, five of whom are from at-large seats, and a popularly elected mayor. Legislation passed by the Council and signed by the Mayor must go for a Congressional review period where it can be overturned. Congress can also screw with our laws by denying funding since our appropriations bill must go through Congress (this has been used in the past by Republicans to, for example, deny DC funding to implement our legislatively-passed needle exchange program).
But, most of the news I have is very good. I heard some final details last night from two colleagues taking point on this, legislatively speaking.
The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009 will be introduced on October 6th. 10 of the 13 DC Council members are co-sponsors, and while I'm extremely doubtful we'll get to a unanimous vote, we should get very close. A hearing will be held in late October, with a vote to follow.
Mayor Fenty has repeatedly stated he will sign the bill.
The bill will then go to Congress for a 30-day Congressional review period. The 30 days can stop and start depending on when Congress is in session, and timing of when legislative days start etc. so we expect this to last about two months, more or less. We're working with the Democratic leadership to do our best and make sure there are not opportunities for votes to overturn it, but anything is far from certain.
We currently have a comprehensive domestic partnership law for same-sex and opposite-sex couples in the city. One provision in the bill would end the right of same-sex and opposite-sex couples to register for new domestic partnerships, which I oppose, as there are some- sisters who live together, for example- who would choose to register under such an arrangement for multiple purposes, even with marriage. I also know gay couples who simply do not agree with the concept of "marriage", but deserve legal protections. I would like to see this provision stricken.
Regarding a ballot initiative, Bishop Harry Jackson, the local major domo homophobe (who actually lives in Beltsville, MD), has filed a request with the Board of Elections and Ethics to collect signatures for an initiative to ban marriage equality. The good news is that his last request (a few months ago) was denied on the grounds that it violates the District's Human Rights Act, which bans discrimination of the sort. Multiple sources have told me it is almost certain the BOEE will do the same this time.
Having marriage equality in DC would not only be an incredible accomplishment for DC's LGBT couples (DC has one of the highest percentages of LGBT individuals of any metropolitan area in the country), but would be hugely symbolic to have it in our nation's capital.
DC for Marriage, one of the groups I've been working with taking the lead on the ground all summer long, will continue to do so throughout the fall. Even if you don't live in DC, you can sign up for their e-mail list and join their Facebook group (the Facebook organizing is particularly great). Even better, ask your friends who live here or in suburban VA or MD to do so.
STATE BLOGS
