In last week’s Washington DC City Paper, there’s an article commenting on the strategic implications of two initiatives: same-sex marriage in DC and a vote for DC in the House.
Some excerpts:
There’s much more, but the gist of the story suggests that Delegate Norton is urging temperance on the same-sex marriage issue until such time as the DC-gets-a-vote issue can be handled. Catania, and others, feel the time to strike is now… in other words, if there’s capital to be expended, better to expend it on same-sex marriage than on a DC vote on the Hill.
I agree with Catania. This is same-sex marriage being done right: by action of elected officials. The convential wisdom is that it has the votes to pass the council, and with a solid blue majority in the House and Senate, this is probably the best time to make sure that Congress won’t get involved overturning the council’s action.
I wouldn’t necessarily agree that this is gay marriage done right. I know DC is heavily Democratic and probably will be for a long time, but this strategy would mean gays in other states would have to wait until a friendly majority is elected in their state government. That could be a long time coming.
I do agree, however, that now is the time to push for it. It’s been the time to push for it for a long @#%$! time now. Norton’s artificially dividing the issue and relegating an important civil rights issue to second-class status. I find that unacceptable.
Thereby arbitrarily granting certain rights to people in some states while withholding those same rights in others. That’s unacceptable, in my book. The issue of slavery in the United States is an excellent example of why the states’ right approach doesn’t work - we ended up with detestable legislation like the Dred Scott decision, which put the right to own humans as property above the right of humans not to be property.
Similarly, it’s not far-fetched to imagine a situation in which a gay couple, married and resident in a state that allows gay marriage, to be on vacation (for example) in a state that neither allows it nor recognizes the concomitant rights - and something happens to one partner, like a serious accident. It’s entirely possible that the hospital, in accordance with state laws, would prevent visitation, and perhaps refuse the surviving partner to be allowed at the bedside if his spouse is dying. This is to say nothing of removing the surviving partner’s right to make medical decisions, which heterosexual spouses enjoy no questions asked.
It’s not a local issue. It’s a federal issue. It has to be.
Giving D.C. a vote doesn’t just empower Delegate Holmes. It literally gives residents of our nation’s capital a seat at the table. I’ve never been there but I can’t imagine it even being close if the question were put to a vote in D.C. Their resentment with the lack of congressional representation is well known. To me it’s a no brainer.
Of course, I think spending political capital on gay marriage is pretty much always a bad idea. Given the social trend toward more tolerance of homosexuality and the fact that gay marriage doesn’t affect the pocketbooks of the rich and powerful, I see it as inevitable. Why spend now on an issue that you can get for free or even earn you political capital in the future? For me there are far more pressing issues to be faced, issues that will face enduring opposition and where even small changes now can save the country a lot of economic and environmental trouble down the road.
Like Olentzero, I agree with everything in the OP, except that while I welcome popular enactment of gay marriage, it’s neither the only nor “proper” way to do it.
Not to mention what a nice little campaign issue the Pubbies could make of this next time around. They are always looking for ways to pin the SSM “stigma” on the Dems, and this would be a rare chance to do that on the national level.
See… I told you the Democrats were going to bring us SSM!!
So you’re suggesting that same-sex marriage shouldn’t be legalized in any onestate until it can be legalized everywhere at once? :dubious: Going state-by-state is the only option gays & lesbians have right now for getting full equality. The only way same-sex marriage could be legalized nationwide would be either; the Supreme Court rules same-sex couples have the right to marry under the US Constitution, or the constitution itself is explicitly amended to grant same-sex couples the right to marry. The idea of either happening before SSM has been legal for decades in a majority of states is beyond absurd.
Regarding DC; the marriage law in DC is an act of Congress passed before the district had self-government, right? Can the DC council actually repeal acts of Congress on it’s own?
DC has three options: Become part of Virginia or Maryland and lose their “DC” status, amend the Constitution, or shut the fuck up and move somewhere else.
I’d like a cite for the proposition that D.C. can’t become a state without amendment of the Constitution.
You’ll be looking a looooong time.
I’m not convinced of the constitutionality of giving Del. Norton a full vote in Congress absent making D.C. a state, but minds greater than mine have said it passes muster.
Then amend the Constitution, like they did with slavery. Congress has no right to enforce marriage laws, unless it is explicitly granted that power by amendment.
I don’t see a problem with that. Gay rights activists could also push for the repeal of DOMA (which wasn’t an amendment of the Constitution, as I recall) while we’re at it. There’s a whole lot that could be done at the national level which would go a lot farther than restricting ourselves to a state-by-state approach. It certainly didn’t do much good for the ERA, as many here might remember.
Actualliy Congress has every right to set marriage laws in Washington, DC regardless of the wishes of the local government or citizenry. They could even dissolve DC’s elected government and have it go back to being run by a Presidentially appointed mayor & commsioners if they wanted to.
There is an Amendment on the issue. It’s the 14th, which guarantees Equal Protection of the laws. Not every issue of constitutional scope requires constitutional text. For one thing, first year law students wouldn’t be able to carry a copy in their backpacks without serious trapezius strain. Moreover, this is a proposition of nearly 200 years standing: “It is a Constitution we are expounding.” McCulloch v. Maryland (U.S. 1819).
Oh, and alpha is of course correct that in the particular case of the District, Congress does have the power to legitimize gay marriages. (IMO, Congress does not have the power to prohibit them because such is in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments, but I recognize this is as yet a minority view. As yet.)
Well, the following is not a view I’d defend tooth and nail, but…
Art I Sec 9 provides in pertinent part that Congress has the power:
The District of Columbia is that District, and therefore the Constitution gives to Congress the right to exclusively legislate in that area. Congress cannot, merely by purporting to accept DC as a state, delete this power, and the existence and exercise of that power is wholly inconsistent with the idea that DC is a state with its own plenary police power.
Can the DC council actually repeal acts of Congress on it’s own?