# Wedding Planners vs. Norton (DC vote in Congress/same-sex marriage) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 20, 2008, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021 "2008-12-20T03:21:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2008, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021/1 "2008-12-20T03:21:10Z")
In [last week’s Washington DC City Paper](http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/display.php?id=36581), 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: > [@City Paper](#): > > [At-Large Councilmember David A.] Catania is widely expected to introduce a bill to legalize same-sex marriages during the next council term, and, according to multiple sources, he has expressed the distinct possibility of introducing the bill on Jan. 6, at the very first legislative meeting of Council Term 18. > > That—to paraphrase the late John A. Wilson—fucks with Eleanor’s shit. > > Norton, for years, has put securing a vote for herself in Congress at the top of her Hill agenda. With a Democratic president and sizable Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, things are looking as sunny as ever—Norton hopes to have a vote on the vote by Feb. 12. But she thinks if there’s anything that could darken that sky, it’s gay marriage . . . For years, local politicos, mindful of the congressional noose that’s hanging around the District’s neck, have suppressed any desires to move forward on gay marriage. For instance, in 2004, then-Mayor Anthony A. Williams asked his attorney general, Robert Spagnoletti, to draft an opinion on whether the District should recognize other jurisdictions’ same-sex marriages. The so-called “Spagnoletti memo” was drafted and never released—because, most observers assume, it would have legitimized gay unions and attracted a congressional flare-up that Williams and some activists didn’t want. > > The don’t-rock-the-boat approach has worked: Same-sex couples in the District enjoy some of the best domestic partnership benefits in the country, right in Congress’ backyard. But now, the same circumstances that have Norton all pumped about her congressional vote—a uniformly blue federal government—have the LGBT folks pumped about moving forward with gay marriage. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2008, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021/2 "2008-12-20T06:15:56Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Vox\_Imperatoris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Vox\_Imperatoris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vox_Imperatoris)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2008, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021/3 "2008-12-20T06:21:25Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > 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. As it should be. Marriage should be a local issue, not a federal one (whether they try to ban it or federally allow it). Valete, Vox Imperatoris ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2008, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021/4 "2008-12-20T06:26:31Z")
Does anyone think that Horton cares for anyone but herself? She’d vote to legalize cannibalism if she thought that would give her more power. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2008, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021/5 "2008-12-20T06:40:06Z")
> [@dalej42](#): > > Does anyone think that Horton cares for anyone but herself? She’d vote to legalize cannibalism if she thought that would give her more power. Any. Any power. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2008, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021/6 "2008-12-20T07:00:13Z")
> [@Vox\_Imperatoris](#): > > As it should be. Marriage should be a local issue, not a federal one (whether they try to ban it or federally allow it). 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. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2008, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021/7 "2008-12-20T07:30:06Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2008, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021/8 "2008-12-20T13:50:48Z")
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. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2008, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021/9 "2008-12-20T13:57:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. 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!! ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2008, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021/10 "2008-12-20T22:08:55Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > Thereby arbitrarily granting certain rights to people in some states while withholding those same rights in others. That’s unacceptable, in my book… 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? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2008, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021/11 "2008-12-20T22:14:56Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > 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. Too bad it’s unconstitutional. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2008, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021/12 "2008-12-21T04:50:05Z")
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. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2008, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021/13 "2008-12-21T04:55:43Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > I’d like a cite for the proposition that D.C. can’t become a state without amendment of the Constitution… I think Silenus meant the only way for DC to get a vote in Congress _without becoming a state_ would be to amend the Constitution. He is correct. ---
**Author:** ![Vox\_Imperatoris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Vox\_Imperatoris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vox_Imperatoris)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2008, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021/14 "2008-12-21T04:59:35Z")
> [@Olentzero](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2008, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021/15 "2008-12-21T05:07:07Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2008, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021/16 "2008-12-21T05:10:59Z")
> [@Vox\_Imperatoris](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2008, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021/17 "2008-12-21T05:39:17Z")
> [@Vox\_Imperatoris](#): > > 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. 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.) –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2008, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021/18 "2008-12-21T05:43:03Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > 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.) > > –Cliffy So in your view, the Nineteenth Amendment was an unnecessry and cumulative repetition of the rights already guaranteed by the Fourteenth? Those suffragette idiots wasted a lot of time getting their amendment passed, huh? Beats me why we gave Susan B. Anthony a damn coin. ---
**Author:** ![Vox\_Imperatoris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Vox\_Imperatoris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vox_Imperatoris)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2008, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021/19 "2008-12-21T05:43:38Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > 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. Gotcha Me? What the heck was that supposed to add? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2008, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021/20 "2008-12-21T05:58:34Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > 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. > > –Cliffy 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: > [@](#): > > To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-planners-vs-norton-dc-vote-in-congress-same-sex-marriage/478021.md?page=2)