 |
 |
D.C. Council member Jim Graham (Blade file photo)
|
|
|
| | |
|
'It has to happen very strategically’'
In an interview Jan. 6, gay D.C. Council member Jim Graham told the Blade that he and his colleagues are “anxious to see” the legalization of same-sex marriage in the District, but “it has to happen very strategically.”
Washington Blade: Council member David Catania has said he planned to introduce legislation today calling for legalizing same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia. But he did not do so at today’s Council session. Did he talk about this with your or mention his plans for the legislation at the Council’s breakfast meeting?
Jim Graham: No, it was not mentioned.
Blade: Did he notify any of his Council colleagues about what he decided to do or not to do?
Graham: Well he didn’t speak to me. And I don’t know what his thoughts are. My thought — you know, we’re all anxious to see this happen. But it has to happen very strategically. And the starting point — this is my opinion, this is why I haven’t introduced it — is I think we have a very strong possibility of 13 co-introducers. I think we should take advantage of that. If it’s 12, OK, take 12. But we should martial as close to a unanimous Council as we can possibly get. And everybody’s name should be on that. This is a bill that will pass the D.C. Council. I don’t have to tell you that. That’s not in doubt. It may pass 12 to 1, it may pass 11 to 2, but it’s going to pass. We have got to have as close to a unanimous Council out the gate as possible. Now the other thing we’ve got to do is we’ve got to be in touch with the congressional leadership, we’ve got to be in touch with the mayor, our congresswoman, and all the other various stakeholders in the community. That’s our best shot at getting this ultimately in effect. I can’t say anything about what David is thinking. But I know those are my thoughts.
Blade: We’re hearing that gay rights groups and gay activists have been lobbying Catania and you, along with the other Council members, not to go ahead with this right now. They say they strongly support a gay marriage bill, but that this is not the right time. But isn’t that ironic that you’re being lobbied by gays not to introduce a gay marriage bill?
Graham: I think it’s very definitely a strategic decision. I wanted to introduce this two and a half years ago. But I listened to what people were saying. It’s so easy to take a misstep here. It would be so easy to have a misstep that would backfire on us. And we don’t want that, none of us want that. What we want is the passage of marriage equality, first in the Council and then we want it to survive the opposition on the Hill. I’d like to go out the gate with everybody’s signature on the bill. There’s a very good chance at getting everybody’s signature on the bill. We’re sending a message that we’re all moving together on this groundbreaking issue.
Blade: Have you heard anything about Eleanor Holmes Norton saying she wants the Council to hold off on this until Congress approves the pending legislation to give her a full vote on the House floor?
Graham: I think we’ve all heard that. She has been repeatedly on the public record in that record. It’s not that she has any question about the merits of the issue. It’s just that she has a certain sense of priority of what she wants. We can understand that. But I think this is the way to proceed. It would be the easiest thing in the world for me today to have introduced the bill. It would have been very easy to do that. But I’m afraid I might not have served the issue. I want to serve the issue. And that’s the reason I haven’t introduced it for two and a half years. I want to serve the issue, and I think everybody is feeling that way.
Blade: Is anybody saying when will be the right time to do this?
Graham: It really is a decision that involves a lot of minds, a lot of people figuring that out. With most legislative actions on same-sex marriage, there has been a pretty good question always about whether it would pass the legislature. I know New York is poised, which would be strategically very important to us if New York passes this. But it’s still not a slam dunk. But in the District of Columbia, it is a slam dunk. The legislature here will pass it. So we’re in a very unique situation of having an assurance of a first step, local legislative victory. But then what? And the ‘then what’ is what we have to be very strategic about.
|
|
| |
|
|
| | |
|
|
| | |
HOME > NEWS > LOCAL
By: LOU CHIBBARO JR COMMENTS
 
D.C. Council member David Catania (I-At-Large) made news Tuesday for something he didn’t do.
Catania, who is gay, decided against introducing a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Washington at the Council’s first legislative session of 2009, holding off on action he told activists and his Council colleagues privately that he planned to take.
His decision followed what appeared on the surface to be an ironic development: A number of prominent gay rights advocates lobbied Catania and other Council members not to take up a gay marriage bill so soon in the legislative year.
“We need a few more months to get prepared to do this right,” said Peter Rosenstein, a gay Democratic activist.
Catania and his spokesperson, Ben Young, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Catania introduced several unrelated bills during Tuesday’s Council meeting but made no mention of the same-sex marriage bill.
His only known public comment on the bill in recent weeks came Jan. 2, when a Washington Examiner reporter asked him if he would introduce the marriage bill at Tuesday’s Council session.
“I don’t know,” the Examiner quoted him as say ing. “It’ll probably be later.”
Gay activists consider Catania one of the Council’s strongest supporters on gay- and AIDS-related issues.
Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), who also is gay, said as many as 12 of the Council’s 13 members are prepared to vote for a same-sex marriage bill.
But Graham said he agrees with the activists who cautioned against moving the bill at this time, saying the major concern is building support for the legislation in Congress and in parts of the city that might take up a voter referendum to overturn a gay marriage bill.
“It would be easy to have a misstep that would backfire on us,” Graham said. “And we don’t want that. None of us want that. What we want is the passage of marriage equality, first in the Council and then we want it to survive the opposition on the Hill.”
Graham and Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At-Large), who heads the Council committee that has pushed through several sweeping domestic partnership bills, said Catania did not tell them when he plans to introduce a marriage bill.
“I feel D.C. would support same-sex marriage,” said Mendelson, who is among the Council members committed to voting for a same-sex marriage measure.
“But I would have said the same thing for California,” he said. “Proposition 8 was a setback. It shows that we’ve got to think through our strategy.”
Mendelson was referring to the approval by California voters in November of a ballot proposition that repealed the state’s same-sex marriage law.
Congressional Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) has also made it known to the Council and the city’s political establishment that the Council should not take up an issue as controversial as gay marriage until after Congress votes on legislation to give the city voting rights in the House of Representatives.
Norton, who represents D.C. in the House, is allowed to vote in committee but is barred from voting on bills that reach the House floor for final passage under the city’s limited Home Rule charter. Conservative Republican leaders have for years blocked legislation calling for giving the city’s congressional delegate full House voting privileges.
With supportive Democrats wining a larger majority in the House and Senate in the November election, Capitol Hill observers believe Norton’s bill has a good chance of passing when she brings it up in February. President-elect Barack Obama has said he would sign the legislation.
Catania, Graham and a number of activists, however, have said they don’t favor postponing a D.C. gay marriage bill until Congress approves separate bills proposed by Norton that call for giving D.C. budgetary and legislative autonomy. The bills would further change the city’s charter to end Congress’ longstanding role in approving the city’s annual budget and having veto power over all legislation passed by the Council and signed by the city’s mayor.
Many Capitol Hill observers believe it could take several years for Congress to act on legislation ceding its budgetary and legislative authority over the city, and some observers are doubtful Congress would support such legislation in the foreseeable future.
Michael Crawford, co-chair of the same-sex marriage advocacy group D.C. for Marriage, said he and other activists are continuing to lay the groundwork for Catania’s bill.
“We are building a structure for a successful campaign no matter when the bill is introduced,” Crawford said.
“Where we are is we’re making sure we are ready,” he said. “What’s important now is to get all our ducks in order.”
Rosenstein said he and ...
|
