Should Gay Marriage Be In the Hands of Voters or Politicians?
The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics, which currently has two members and one vacancy, will determine whether voters should have a chance in a referendum to block a bill legalizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
The board heard four hours of testimony yesterday and is expected to make a decision Friday or early next week.
Both sides presented legal and political arguments about whether the same-sex marriage issue should be in the hands of voters or the politicians who represent them.
"All we are asking for is a public debate," said the Rev. Dale Wafer, a supporter of the referendum and a minister with the Harvest, a religious community in Northeast Washington. "We are not afraid of a debate. All we want is a public debate."
Philip E. Pannell, a longtime gay rights advocate and Democratic Party activist, accused referendum supporters of "advocating for a popular vote that will give vent to public homophobia."
"Unfortunately, in our society, it is still acceptable in many polite circles to vilify and victimize gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people," Pannell testified. "Hopefully, we in the District of Columbia will not have to be subjected to a campaign of misunderstanding, intolerance, fear, bigotry and hatred toward a minority group."
The battle over same-sex marriage pits a coalition of largely African American ministers against the city's politically active gay community.
In making its decision, the election board has to determine whether the proposed referendum would violate a District law that says a ballot initiative cannot violate the city's Human Rights Act.
The act, approved in 1977, prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbians as well as other minority groups.
Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), who sponsored the bill to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, said the District would be treating gay and straight couples differently if the city recognized some out-of-state marriages but not others.
"What do we do with [same-sex] marriages performed in other states if we allow the referendum and it passes?" Mendelson asked. "A legitimate couple married in another state would be considered less when they came here, and that would be discriminatory."
The council passed the bill in May, and the mayor signed it. It is undergoing congressional review.
Referendum supporters say Mendelson's bill is the first step toward legalizing all gay marriages in the District, an assertion that council members don't dispute. The supporters point to a 1995 court case that denied two men the right to marry in the District.
In Dean v. the District of Columbia, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the city's Human Rights Act did not extend the right to marry to same-sex couples. At that time, gay marriage was illegal across the country.
"The District's Human Rights Act was never intended to suggest maintaining marriage between anything other than a man and woman," said Brian Raum, an attorney for the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, who specializes in fighting same-sex marriage.
Raum is representing Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville and the main proponent of a referendum.
Gay rights advocates, backed by attorneys for the D.C. Council, countered that the Dean ruling might be obsolete.
In the Dean ruling, the judges cited a D.C. family law that explicitly referred to husband and wife. Since then, the council has revised the code to make such references gender-neutral.
"What could not be discrimination in 1995, based on sexual orientation, can be discrimination today," Mendelson said.
Because of the vacancy on the three-member election board, Errol R. Arthur and Charles Lowery Jr. are the only sitting members. If there is a split decision, the referendum will not be allowed to go forward, although proponents vow to take the issue to court.
During questioning of witnesses, Arthur and Lowery appeared sympathetic to arguments that a referendum might run counter to the Human Rights Act. They stressed that members of the public can submit written testimony until 5 p.m. today.
Both sides are applying pressure.
"We are not going away," referendum supporter Corinthia R. Boone of the International Christian Host Coalition of Washington told the board members yesterday. "Generations will either benefit or suffer from what you do. Please, we are in America. Let the people vote."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
About 50 years ago an institution like this would've written "Should Racial Integration Be In the Hands of Voters or Politicians?" I think we're all thankful that the voters' will in that case was overturned.
Since this hasn't been brought up in this tread, unless I missed it, I might as well be the person to do it.
We live in a Republic. Every few years we vote for people who do the voting for us. That's the way it works. Sometimes there are public votes on issues, but for the most part, our voters vote for us. This system tends to work fairly well. If we don't like the way they vote for us, we ditch them, and get new voters.
We do this because the mob mentality doesn't work very well. Geographically the U.S. would still be divided into areas where:
Blacks could not go to the same school, eat in the same restaurants, ride the same buses, etc.
White people could not marry black, brown, or yellow people. Rearrange that sentence any way you like.
Only white men would vote. See, that's the kicker on this one. If only white men could vote (as was the case), then they damn sure would not have given up that tasty little treat to anyone that wasn't a white man.
So in a mob mentality, simple majority vote, the only people that could be discussing any of this would be white males as we would be the only ones allowed to vote on it. Now I know that may be appealing to the FRC, but to most of us, it's just a crappy idea.
I would also like to point out the dilution of a voter system. If every issue was decided by majority vote, people would simply quit voting. Hell, there would be some type of balloting every other week to get anything done in government. So let's say we want to only vote on the "hot button" issues. Who decides which those are?
I could go on for a while on this one, but the sharper knives in the drawer around here get my point.
good points. that is all that i can really say, is good points;)
It worked for Protestants in England, Spain, France and Germany!
It worked for Catholics in Ireland!
It worked for Buddhists in China, Vietnam and North Korea!
It worked for Christians in ancient Greece!
Certainly, history has shown us again and again that when people vote on private religious matters and minority rights that everything in the end favors the majority while respecting the rights of the minority!
Who needs politicians! Let the people decide, I say!
Tell me why they only talk about sex acts and how to do them? This is sickening!Full article can be read at:
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate/tape01.html
Tolerance?
In considering homosexual programs in the public schools one is always told that the goal is tolerance. It's not about sex; it's about tolerance. It's about civil rights; it's about human rights. It's about anything but sex -- so they say.
But when I recently attended the 10th annual Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network Conference (GLSEN) I heard quite a different story. You should know that this conference was fully supported by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Safe Schools Program, the Governor's Commission on Gay & Lesbian Youth, and some of the presenters even received federal money . The audio excerpts you hear on this tape were recorded at this GLSEN conference. My experience and what you are about to hear was likely not a unique experience. This was my first GLSEN conference and the majority of the tape you are about to hear was from the first two workshops I attended. To think that I could have been so lucky as to stumble into workshops that are not normal for these gay student-teacher conferences is highly unlikely. I would not be surprised if you heard the same things if you attended a GLSEN conference in your own hometown. Some of what you are about to hear is extremely explicit. This tape is intended for parents and adults concerned with the homosexual agenda in our schools and should not be listened to by children without parental supervision.
Spitting versus swallowing while giving oral sex to a male
If it's all about tolerance, why is the following question necessary?
Male Teacher: ... Spit versus swallowing - I don't know about the calorie count of cum. All right. Is it rude? Let's ask this question: Is it rude not to swallow?
Students: No! Oh, no! [Many "no's" from the children.]
Male Teacher: No. So it's in good bedroom etiquette … [unclear] to spit out?
Tolerance - You just heard a public employee ask 14-year-olds if it was rude to spit rather than swallow during oral sex.
The phony mantra: "It's not about sex"?
David LaFontaine, chairman of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth and the man who is mostly responsible for the Gay Straight Alliances in Massachusetts, tells us, "We believe very strongly that all students should not be sexually active in high school."
Woman: Question is: What's fisting?
Man: A little known fact is that you don't make a fist like this. When they do it, it's like this. This is a lot easier than this. [laughter]
Woman: You work your way up to it… [unclear] one finger, two fingers, three fingers … Some people can take a hand, or they can't take a hand.
It's about tolerance?
FISTGATE SCANDAL, was set up at a conference taking certian conversations and blowing them way out of proportion and putting them in the wrong context.
Teach abstinence - that's it! Teach them that condoms don't work! What ever you do, don't ever teach them about sex! My parent's generation and grandparents generation was kept in the dark about sex and they turned out fine. No pregnancies, no AIDS , nada. And young gay men? They don't need to education on this kind of stuff, do they? I mean, they're not a target demographic or anything like that, right?
See no evil...
Fall into a pile of waste deep evil.
I recommend doing some reading, I know its hard, but truely its the only way to educate yourself to the truth. Best place to strart read:
www.massresistance.org
We read the piece. We read what happened. People who teach a class to children are obligated to answer their questions to the best of their knowledge. That's what good teachers do.
Of course the people should decide. But it should be all of the people, not just some of the people.