By a wide margin:
The District of Columbia City Council voted Tuesday to legalize gay marriage, giving supporters a victory after a string of recent defeats elsewhere and sending the issue to Congress, which has final say over laws in the nation’s capital.
Mayor Adrian Fenty has promised to sign the bill, which passed 11-2, and gay couples could begin marrying as early as March if Congress allows it to become law. Democratic congressional leaders have suggested they are reluctant to get involved, though gay marriage opponents say they will try to get it overturned either in Congress or at the polls.
I have no idea what the process is for this to become reality, so the Catholic Church has a couple more months before they follow their “moral convictions” and stop helping poor people.
Just Some Head
If only ya could gaymarry little kids, the Catholic Church could get behind it.
fraught
As far as I can see for the Catholic Church charity begins at home. I never saw a priest who looked poor, and the nuns who taught me in school always spent their summers in a huge “cottage” at the Connecticut shore. I have no personal knowledge of actual charity work done by this group. Could someone enlighten me?
dmsilev
Does Congress get to interfere here? They, especially the Republicans, seem to have an overwhelming urge to meddle in DC’s governance.
-dms
The Grand Panjandrum
Congress has 30 days after the mayor signs the bill to overturn it. They need a majority vote in both houses then Obama would have to sign it. The best outcome is for the Congress to do nothing. That’s not a bad position to be in these days.
freelancer
@fraught:
At least within the Jesuits and other programs, there is a decent portion of Catholic programs dedicated to social justice, relieving poverty, and making progressive changes that benefit people in need.
That being said, I’d dance a jig if the Vatican burned to the ground tomorrow.
Annie
Let’s just wait for what Joe “the asshole” Lieberman has to say. The Senate seems to take direction from him. I will remind him that Jews are generally for “the gays” (as my grandmother would say).
Our grandmothers will take marriage and grandchildren wherever they can get them. Believe me, I know.
efroh
It’s probably going to die in Congress. I just don’t see it passing given how unlikely it is that the Democrats are going to vote to permit gay marriage in the nation’s capital before a midterm election.
DC license plates speak the truth indeed: Taxation Without Representation.
Also, I just saw the Collapse documentary and I need some Tunch/Lucy pics so I don’t kill myself.
Notorious P.A.T.
That’s nice. Now maybe some day gay marriage will be allowed in the USA.
/stephencolbert
geg6
Well, who would ever guess that I’d be tempted to move to DC because they seem to have one of the few sane governments in the nation. Instead, if I want to live in a city (which I’d MUCH prefer), I have to move up river a few miles to the city that wants to tax students’ college tuition to solve it’s fiscal woes. Luke Ravenstahl or Adrian Fenty? Hmmm…which would you choose?
CJ
@The Grand Panjandrum:
Is Congress obligated to act on it?
Also, beautiful false dichotomy by the Church. “Well we either help the homeless or pay for gays. Can’t have both. No sir.”
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Does this mean that City Council should have opposed the bill because poor people will lose needed aid as a result? Should gays have been less selfish and sacrificed their law in exchange for continued aid to the poor? I wonder how Ezra Klein feels about that.
Roger Moore
@freelancer:
Sure. That’s because the Vatican is one of the most regressive parts of the Church. The parts of the Church that are dedicated to social justice, helping the poor, and other worthwhile goals would keep doing them no matter what happened to the Vatican. They might even be able to do more if they weren’t forced to pay for the Church’s excessive bureaucracy.
Notorious P.A.T.
Oral Roberts is dead.
freelancer
@Notorious P.A.T.:
but guess who’s not dead!
mcc
Legislatively this was the final step. All that has to happen is for the mayor to sign it.
There are two paths to keep this from becoming law. One cannot be used and the other is unlikely to work.
The first way to block this law is using the DC ballot initiative process. This way is impossible because the DC ballot initiative law has a provision along the lines that you’re not allowed to use the ballot initiative process to rule on people’s civil rights. The opponents of the law have been trying to follow this path for months and multiple courts have ruled they can’t. The law is exempt from any kind of people’s veto.
The second way to block this law is under the DC “home rule” law. Under the constitution, Washington, DC is actually directly administred by Congress. In the 70s Congress passed a law delegating that authority to the DC city council. There’s a trap door in that law where Congress has veto power over anything the DC city council does. In order to exercise this veto power however Congress has to actually pass a resolution within some time limit (like 90 days or something) canceling out whatever the city council did. In other words they have to get Pelosi to let that resolution on the schedule, a majority of the House to vote for it, and I think 60 Senators to agree to cloture. I do not think they can do this..
What makes me really happy here is the huge margin the DC city council voted by. This was a huge win.
kommrade reproductive vigor
They run some homeless shelters and soup kitchens. The problem for the R.C.C. D.C. (in addition to the fact that the R.C.C. needs more bad P.R. like I need a hole in the head) is they get a not insignificant amount of funding from the city to provide those services. I’m hoping Catania gets the rest of the Council to say F.U. and give the money to the Unitarians.
Re: Congress – The buzz earlier was no one was inclined to do anything about it. Back when D.C. allowed domestic partnerships (which amounted to a piece of paper signed by a notary) Cong. came down on it really quickly. But that was a long-assed time ago. And these days anyone who stands up to support family values is likely to sit down really quick to keep the dildo from slipping out.
Keith
For comparison, DC approved medicinal marijuana *overwhelmingly* about 10 years ago, and Congress has – up until recently – been blocking DC from implementing the policy (and for them to get to do it, the Senate and prez still have to sign off on it)
kommrade reproductive vigor
Oh and of COURSE Marion Barry voted no. That stupid fuck only has a job because people are tolerant and willing to support a guy they see as being oppressed.
burnspbesq
So now Andrew will be able to have his Big Fat Ghey Wedding.
And I have nothing to wear.
demkat620
This is good news.
Congrats to everyone who worked to make this happen.
Jay B.
After the New York vote, one of the odious douchebags at the Corner gloated:
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Now it’s not fast enough for people who have been waiting for society to wake up, but from a straight married guy’s perspective, the transition from tentative support for “civil unions” to actual gay marriage has been swift. And that since there was nothing close to gay marriage in the very recent past, it’s pretty easy to see the progress of the past 5 years, again from my easy-to-dismiss perspective, as indicative of changing minds.
Assholes, naturally, continue to live in denial. Which is why the Cornerite above was wrong in a stupid and smug way and why Maggie Gallagher was wrong, even if her “cell phone died” (so lame an excuse a drunk teen won’t use that chestnut anymore) and couldn’t properly explain herself to Ben Smith last week (in other news, she just thought of a really funny response to getting caught in being a paid flack to the Bush Administration).
Thadeus Horne
@Notorious P.A.T.: He couldn’t raise the money this time and God took him. ‘Bout fucking time.
Sly
As a point of clarification: After the 1973 Home Rule Act, the power of Congress to interfere with local governance has been limited to budgetary matters because most of the time direct interference has failed miserably (most notably the continual failure to repeal the District’s Gun Control ordinances). But if you can sneak in a rider to prohibit the spending of funds to, say, count the vote on a medical marijuana initiative, you tend to be more successful.
Steph
@fraught: My uncle, who is with Missionary Oblates, has lived with the poor in Brazil for over 40 years now, working as a missionary priest. There are many priests and religious, and Catholic lay people (for example, check out Catholic Worker houses) doing this kind of work, the world over.
Wile E. Quixote
@Notorious P.A.T.
Gee, I hope that is brother Anal and his sister Vaginal are OK.
cminus
It’s probably not going to die in Congress, because Congressional approval is a passive process — if Democrats in Congress want to avoid taking an unpopular stand, all they have to do is not bring the issue to a vote, and it becomes law. Now that the District has done the hard part, political cowardice works in favor of the bill.
The big danger will be a year or more down the road, when we can expect the Republicans to try to pass a rider on an appropriations bill to prohibit the city from expending any money on gay marriage, such as printing marriage licenses. The District is in a pretty crappy position vis a vis the federal government in that regard — the city has to turn over its tax revenue to the feds, who then authorize its return to the District via the federal budget process, usually laden with strings. (It’s too late for them to act on this year’s appropriation bill, which is also getting rid of several long-standing riders that social conservatives have foisted on the District — one of the many small ways in which Democratic control of Congress has actually made a difference.)
Additionally, we can expect legal challenges from conservative carpetbaggers, supported by a couple of local crackpots. They have two main arguments. The first is that the city’s Board of Elections erred when it ruled that the District’s referendum law, which allows for referenda on only a limited range of subjects, does not permit a referendum on this topic. The courts have already smacked down this argument twice; the letter of the law pretty clearly backs the Board of Elections’ ruling. The other challenge would claim that, notwithstanding the existence of an independent city government, the District constitutes a branch of the federal government and as such is bound by the Defense of Marriage Act. This is a more serious argument; while precedent is generally on the District’s side, the issue is sufficiently technical that it would give judicial conservatives a free hand to cherry-pick or ignore precedent in order to properly advance the conservative political agenda.
Annie
What I can’t stand, among many things, is that the religious right wants it both ways — strong families, yet will happily marginalize gay families, even those with children, who want to have strong families. Why should children of gay families, who the right supposedly loves and wants the best for, feel less than pride for their parents — whoever they are? It makes me sick. You are either for families, or not for families. I can’t remember the last time a straight marriage broke up because a gay couple moved next door.
DougJ
Who would Jesus refuse to feed for supporting gay marriage?
ondioline
I CAME HERE BECAUSE SOMEONE TOLD ME THAT THERE IS A BIG WHITE CAT HERE BUT I SEE NO BIG WHITE CAT SO WHAT’S GOING ON WAS I LIED TO
cminus
Right on the fundamentals, but to nail down the details: with a few exceptions (chiefly laws that are in effect for a month or less and a handful of hyper-technical financial matters), Congress can veto District laws by an active process requiring a majority of both houses and the President’s signature. They have 30 days to act, counting only days when Congress is in session.
Bubblegum Tate
@fraught:
Aside from what freelancer said about the Jesuits, the regular ol’ RCC does do things like foodbanks/Meals on Wheels-type programs to feed the poor as well as other forms of assistance. So yeah, they do some good, but that does not excuse the festering pustule that they otherwise are. Fuck ’em.
And I kind of hope they do throw their threatened hissy fit in DC. As others have pointed out, they get a lot of government funds to do community outreach, and there are plenty of other organizations–good ones, less disgusting ones–that would love to get those funds if the Catholics don’t want ’em. That’d be a win all around: Catholic church minimized, more worthy organizations given greater funding, and everybody get to see that it’s not a bad thing to piss off those freaks at the Vatican.
Jay B.
@Annie:
It only happens to closeted, corseted prigs, ergo the Religious Right, whose members fall into every other goddamn temptation there is, will be the ones most susceptible to falling for either Bruce or Ken next door. QED.
gex
@kommrade reproductive vigor: The rep for the Catholic Charities in DC admitted to 75% of their funding coming from the public. They also provide those services under contract, so the funds would presumably go to whomever will help the needy with public funds without being douchebags about it.
Seems like a win-win situation. Get gay marriage and get rid of insincere Christians who’d rather sit in judgement of others on this earth and punish the poor and the needy for someone else’s sin.
r€nato
@DougJ:
yeah I can totally picture Jesus saying, “Stop the gays from marrying, or the poor people get it.”
Annie
@Jay B.:
LOL. Great comment….
@ondioline:
Be patient. The Tunch will appear…
Roger Moore
@Annie:
It’s very simple, really: they hate gays more than they like strong families. So, when given a choice between helping gays have strong families or spitefully doing everything in their power to make the gays’ lives miserable, there’s no real choice. The spite will win out. How they square that with Jesus’ teachings is another question.
Notorious P.A.T.
@freelancer:
Woohoo!
Notorious P.A.T.
@ondioline:
The big white cat is right here, at the side, having a snowball fight with a polar bear to see who gets to eat a bowl of whipped cream.
KCinDC
Cminus has it right about the legal possibilities. I’d only add that my guess for the route Congress might take if they decide to get involved would be to force us in DC to hold a referendum on the question, something marriage opponents are clamoring for, and something that people who aren’t really paying attention (or Blue Dogs) might think is a democratic outcome.
Congress did something similar in 1992. After a staffer of Sen. Richard Shelby was murdered in DC, he got Congress to force us to have a vote on whether to institute the death penalty here. The measure was soundly defeated, with even pro-death-penalty DC residents voting no to express their disgust with congressional interference.
If we are forced to have a referendum, I’m cautiously hopeful that DC residents would uphold marriage equality, but it’d be a hell of a fight, and we can’t be complacent.
Jamey
Wow, that Post article really frosts me.
Tell you what, Child-rape cult of Rome, you do whatever the fuck you want. Get involved in steering HCR legislation. Deny services to people who have trouble swallowing that a Pope who abetted the Third Reich is somehow infallible. Do any of the other fucked-up shit you do, like steal coaches away from up and coming colleges (like Dame did to Cincy). Do all that shit. Please, be our guests.
And in return, you pay the same taxes as the rest of us Americans–and that means on all that gild-edged property and income from gullible old ladies.
We got a deal?
Something Fabulous
@gex: wow, great statistic. I knew it was heavily funded, but had no idea it was quite that much. Gives some support to this quote from the article, doesn’t it?
Annie
@Roger Moore:
Well said…
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Hard to tell based on the meager teachings attributed to this character. Paul counseled that “fornicators” (which broadly includes homosexuals) be shunned from the community. Whether that would include refusing to feed them if they got too uppity and demanded marriage rights, again, hard to tell. Christianity is, frankly, very tractable to either interpretation.
jcricket
Countdown to the GOP including an amendment vetoing DCs gay marriage bill in HCR begins in 3, 2…
toujoursdan
The Archdiocese seems to have backed down from its threat:
chopper
@Wile E. Quixote:
i wonder if dick armey will make a statement.
Tattoosydney
@Annie:
Yep. If their new son or daughter-in law makes their kid happy, then it usually doesn’t matter that he or she is not the gender they expected.
Tattoosydney
@ondioline:
Hee.
Jim Jasion
So, if the Vatican pulls their services, get a contract with a more inclusive religion, say, like the United Church of Christ, (UCC) or the Unitarans. If the RC Church wants to pull out, my reply to them is ‘Don’t let the door hit you in the ass!”