Apr 09, 2004  |  By: LOU CHIBBARO JR.  | COMMENTS     

Gay members of the D.C. Republican Committee rebelled against the committee’s chair last month by invoking a rarely used rule to call a special meeting to vote on a resolution opposing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

The 12 gay DCRC members enlisted support from non-gay members, including D.C. Council member Carol Schwartz (R-At-Large), to help them line up 15 members to sign a petition requiring chair Betsy Werronen to schedule the meeting, which she set for April 13, according to gay DCRC member Mark Sibley.

Sibley, a member of Log Cabin Republicans of D.C., a gay GOP group, said Werronen had ignored repeated requests that she schedule a meeting to allow a vote on the resolution. He said that the DCRC normally holds meetings once a month or once every other month, but Werronen had not scheduled a single meeting for 2004 at the time the gay Republicans organized their petition effort.

“[W]e believe that by refusing to hold a meeting, some DCRC leadership are attempting to stifle debate,” said Sibley and two other gay DCRC members, Michael Ferens and Paul Dionne, in a March 29 letter to Werronen. “We continue to believe that the longer the DCRC and others remain silent, the greater the likelihood an amendment will pass through Congress and move on to the states,” the three said in their letter.

Werronen has been supportive on gay issues in the past and has had excellent relations with local gay Republicans, Sibley and other gay Republicans said.

Some have speculated that Werronen was uncomfortable with the prospect of the Republican committee in the nation’s capital adopting a resolution at odds with a position held by President Bush. Earlier this year, Bush announced his support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Werronen suggests platform fight
In a telephone interview this week, Werronen said some gay DCRC members appear to have misunderstood her intentions. She said she planned to encourage the gay members and their supporters to raise the issue of a constitutional amendment at a DCRC platform hearing later this spring.

According to Werronen, the D.C. platform hearing would enable the DCRC to develop a series of recommendations to the Republican National Convention’s platform committee, including a possible recommendation opposing a constitutional amendment on gay marriage.

“I felt that since this was coming up, why did we have to have a special meeting solely for the purpose of discussing a resolution?” Werronen said.

Sibley and gay DCRC member Mike Ferens said they and other gay members of the committee believe the DCRC would have a greater impact on Congress by taking a stand against the constitutional amendment before Congress votes on the issue.

They noted that the Senate and House have already held hearings on the Federal Marriage Amendment, a version of the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that has been introduced in Congress. A vote on the proposed amendment in the House could come as soon as July.

“What good would it do us if we delay this until after Congress votes on it?” Sibley said.

Ferens said relations between some of the gay DCRC members and Werronen became even more strained when she responded to the petition by sending a notice to all DCRC members announcing that substitute resolutions and amendments would also be considered at the April 13 meeting.

Shortly after Werronen’s announcement, DCRC member J. Michael Farrell introduced a “substitute” resolution praising President Bush for reiterating his support in February for the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, which Congress passed in 1996.

Following is the text of the two resolutions concerning gay marriage that the D.C. Republican Committee plans to consider on April 13: Submitted by a group of gay Republicans and their straight allies: WHEREAS, the District of Columbia Republican Committee believes the Constitution of the United States is our nation’s most sacred document, WHEREAS, every amendment to the Constitution of the United States, currently in effect, has either expanded the people’s rights, liberty, or freedom enumerated in the Constitution, or further defined or limited the process or authority of the federal government, WHEREAS, the District of Columbia Republican Committee believes Americans can respectfully disagree on issues such as gay marriage, however amending the Constitution of the United States to limit the rights, liberty or freedoms enjoyed by any American by limiting authority currently vested in the States sets a dangerous precedent for future generations ... COMMENTS email       password Please review and follow Washington Blade’s current Comment and Discussion Policy. Guidelines updated as of August 22nd, 2009. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

CONTACT US: E-mail | Masthead | Location and Directions © 2009 | A Window Media LLC Publication | Privacy Policy