Lane Hudson, co-founder of D.C. For Marriage, said he expects Congress would try to overturn a gay marriage law in D.C. and joined more established activist groups in calling for expansion of the city’s domestic partnership law.(Blade photo by Joey DiGuglielmo)
Organizers of a Dec. 6 gay marriage forum in Washington, anticipating a possible heated debate over when D.C. should pass a same-sex marriage law, enlisted the services of a professional meeting facilitator, who was poised to calm flaring tempers.
But last week’s Community Forum on Marriage Equality in the District of Columbia played out as a cordial discussion and exchange of information, with most participants agreeing that the threat of congressional intervention makes it too risky for the city to pass a gay marriage bill at the present time.
Lane Hudson, a gay Democratic activist and co-founder of D.C. For Marriage, the lead sponsor of the forum, said he expects Congress would try to overturn a gay marriage law in D.C.
Hudson and other leaders of the new marriage group joined the city’s established gay organizations in embracing a strategy of expanding the District’s domestic partners law while seeking to persuade Congress to eventually allow the city to legalize full marriage rights for gays.
The D.C. Center, a local gay group, along with the Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance, the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, the gay Asian group AQUA, the D.C. Coalition of Black Lesbian & Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Men & Women, and the Burgundy Crescent Volunteers co-sponsored the event.
Activists participating in the forum said the likelihood that Congress would overturn a same-sex marriage law, and possibly pass a separate law banning the city from enacting gay marriage in the future, was especially troubling because the city government has long been supportive of same-sex marriage rights.
All but two members of the 13-member D.C. Council have promised to vote for a same-sex marriage bill, and Mayor Adrian Fenty has pledged to sign such a bill — but only when they believe the legislation would survive congressional review.
Michael Crawford, president of D.C. For Marriage, and David Mariner, another one of its founding members, said the specter of congressional intervention should not stop D.C. gays from taking steps to advance marriage rights while continuing to expand the domestic partners law. The two suggested exploring a range of proposals, including possible city recognition of same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts or in countries like Canada that have legalized same-sex unions.
“We want to make sure that whatever we do reflects the interests and the needs of the community rather than something a handful of people are deciding,” Crawford said after the forum. “All options are on the table right now, and we’re trying to figure out the best way for us to move forward.”
Crawford and other participants said they were hopeful that the election of a Democratic president and more gay-supportive members of Congress in 2008 would make it possible for the city to pass a same-sex marriage bill in 2009.
Among the more than 40 people who turned out for the forum, held at the John A. Wilson municipal building, nearly everyone who spoke expressed support for a more cautious approach aimed at avoiding congressional intervention.
One man said he and his partner had married in Massachusetts and that he would like Fenty to issue an order directing the city government to recognize his marriage.
During his election campaign last year, Fenty promised to release a legal memo prepared by former D.C. Attorney General Robert Spagnoletti that reportedly addresses the marriage recognition issue. Former Mayor Anthony Williams decided not to release the memo, which insiders say concluded that existing D.C. law would allow the city’s mayor to recognize legally sanctioned same-sex marriages from other states. Upon taking office in January, Fenty changed his mind and decided against releasing the memo. Fenty administration insiders said the mayor believed releasing the memo might antagonize Congress.
Discussion over whether Fenty should release the Spagnoletti memo drew the most disagreement among forum participants, prompting meeting facilitator Sabrina Sojourner to close discussion on the issue.
Cornelius Baker, a longtime gay and AIDS activist and former executive director of the Whitman-Walker Clinic, told the forum that opposition to same-sex marriage by D.C. residents could also lead to a voter initiative seeking to repeal a same-sex marriage law, even if Congress did not intervene.
Baker helped found the Foundation for All D.C. Families, a nonprofit corporation formed by local activists several years ago to put in place an organization to oppose an anti-gay marriage initiative. At the time, a few local faith-based activists filed papers asking the Board of Elections and Ethics to place on the ballot an initiative calling for banning same-sex marriage in the city. The organizers later withdrew the initiative.
Baker said the foundation commissioned the nationally known survey research firm Celinda Lake to conduct a poll to determine whether an anti-gay marriage initiative could pass in the District. Baker and other leaders of the foundation have declined to disclose the poll’s findings.
At last week’s forum, Baker would only say that some of the poll findings were “encouraging and some not,” with black voters surfacing as an “issue” to be concerned about.
Past polling data for D.C. have shown that a sizable portion of the black voters, while liberal and progressive on many issues, hold strong religious beliefs and conservative views on social issues. Some of the city’s black Baptist ministers, for example, have been among the leaders of the national effort to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
Partners law provides most marital rights
Local activist Bob Summersgill, who has led efforts to expand the city’s domestic partners law on behalf of the Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance, gave a slide presentation at the forum showing that recent additions to the law offer domestic partners nearly all of the rights, benefits, and obligations that married couples enjoy under the city’s marriage law.
Inheritance and property rights, child custody and alimony provisions, tax deductions, and a wide range of other rights and benefits are now available to domestic partners who choose to register their relationships with the city, Summersgill said. He said the expanded provisions came through 11 separate bills enacted by the D.C. Council since the Council passed the city’s first domestic partners law in 1992.
Congress quickly stepped in to prohibit the city from spending any of its funds to implement the 1992 law, effectively putting it on hold until 2001, when it agreed to allow the city to finally put the law into effect. The 1992 law, the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act, was limited to providing health insurance benefits to domestic partners of city government employees — only if the employees paid 100 percent of the monthly premiums.
The law allowed all domestic partners, not just city government workers, to register their relationships with the city, providing official city recognition, something considered a bold step at the time. Aside from allowing hospital visitation privileges, the 1992 law provided no other benefits or rights to domestic partners who were not employed by the city.
Summersgill said the law has been expanded dramatically since that time, with the city expected put the finishing touches on its incremental approach to broadening the domestic partners law in 2008.
“What’s left out? The word marriage,” Summersgill said in concluding his presentation.
Marriage provides a number of benefits that go beyond the scope of the law, such as status, recognition and personal fulfillment, Summersgill and other participants in the forum said. But they noted that same-sex couples in Massachusetts would have no more legal rights and benefits than D.C.’s domestic partners, even though Massachusetts has legalized same-sex marriage.
This is the case, legal experts have said, because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages from Massachusetts or anyplace else, and it treats married gays the same as if they were single. Thus the more than 1,300 federal rights and benefits associated with marriage for opposite-sex couples, including Social Security survivor benefits, are off limits for same-sex couples, whether they are married or not.
Gay rights advocates note that such rights and benefits will remain off limits to same-sex couple unless or until the federal government enacts laws to recognize same-sex relationships.
The
following comments were posted by our readers and were
not edited by the Washington Blade. We ask that you
treat others with respect; any post deemed offensive will
be removed.
Leland Traiman on 1/1/081:07 PM:
The primary topic of the 2009 Equality Forum(in 16 months)will be discussing the best way for us to proceed to access the 1138 rights of marriage. If I were a magical fairy I would wave my wand and, puff, we would have marriage with all the rights. But I am just a regular fairy and I recognize that 45 states, 90% of America, has outlawed same-sex marriage.So, for now, we must face the fact that, in legal terms: Federal Civil Union = Marriage Equality.
stephenclark on 12/18/0710:38 AM:
I agree with Leland. But our "leaders" at Lambda Legal and other organizations do not. They prefer to bask in self-satisfied ideological purity - while accomplishing nothing.
jeri . on 12/17/077:42 AM:
why must we live with it? 56%? since when is equal rights a matter of a popular vote? i still remember the national guard being deployed in alabama. the laws of this land have been argued and paid for in blood - we believe in personal freedom and equal rights or we dont. as far as the brits go, they still have a queen, and no, i don't mean elton john.
Leland Traiman on 12/17/073:25 AM:
"If federal civil unions(which we have not won yet!)would be the same as marriage why not use the same word?"
REALITY CHECK! Because a clear majority of voters support civil unions(56%) with all the rights of marriage but oppose same-sex marriage. Illogical? Yes! But it is a fact we must live with. The title the British use,"civil partners,"did not stop Elton John from throwing a $20 million wedding. Get our rights under "Civil Unions," have a party and call it a wedding. Go for it!!
jeri . on 12/16/0711:42 AM:
if marriage and federal civil unions are the same, why not use the same word? the use of the term civil union in itself implies that GLBT citizens are less than equal citizens. why should GLBT youth be denied a future where they might celebrate romance and love with their families and friends in an open ceremony? a contract is fine in a business relationship, but lacks the spirituality that sustains a lasting personal relationship. marriage is not a privilege that we need to ask for - it is a God given right. you give the bigots who would deny marriage equality too much credit. they lack both resolve and the moral high ground. reality is a perception and ignorance is finite. my personal reality perceives that GLBT individuals deserve every equality. this opinion can be overwhelmingly justified in any open forum. Why should the GLBT community settle for less? wait, don’t tell me – to placate the ignorant opinions subscribed to by bigots.
Leland Traiman on 12/15/077:07 PM:
There is a myth that marriage has more rights than civil unions/domestic partners(CU/DP).That myth is born from the fact that CU/DP have only been passed by states which have no power to grant the 1138 federal benefits of marriage.However,a national civil union policy would.Senators Clinton,Obama,Edwards,Dodd & Biden support a national CU policy.48 million votes cast in 29 states,32 million against same sex marriage(SSM),we lost 2 to 1.CU's are achievable,SSM is not.Federal CU=Marriage Equality.
jeri . on 12/14/0710:27 AM:
it would appear that DC for Marriage has already capitulated to "congressional review", and their own opinion of what that might be - and they have decided that they will have to accept the "half a loaf" that congress is willing to let us keep. funny, i thought as taxpayers we decided the whole loaf. even our elected officials appear to have no real say, no final word. it seems to be some kind of a totalitarian society.
stephenclark on 12/14/078:31 AM:
Sanity prevails. Now the question is what purpose D.C. for Marriage serves at all, other than boosting the egos of Hudson and Crawford. GLAA and Gertrude Stein seem fully competent to handle the marriage issue without these gadflies.
