As predicted by Marion Barry, the first volley of attacks has occurred in the DC battle over gay marriage.
The attack comes in the form of a bill with 30 initial co-sponsors, notably including Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Dan Boren (D-Okla.), that directly opposes the DC Council decision earlier this month to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions. The “DC Defense of Marriage Act” states that for all legal purposes, “marriage” means the union of one man and one woman. If it passes, it will undo the DC Council’s decision as well as preempt any DC marriage equality bill.
Conservative opponents of gay marriage in the District continue to claim that the majority of DC residents oppose gay marriage. Religious and other leaders plan to petition the Council for a citywide referendum. Again, the suggestion is made that a black-majority, traditionally made up of notably religious Democrats, opposes gay marriage and any attempt to recognize same-sex marriage from other jurisdictions. Until the referendum shows otherwise, that appears to be the type of hype and speculation that keeps naysayers like Bishop Harry Jackson of Lanham’s Hope Christian Church in the media spotlight.
Not only is this a gay rights battle, but it is also an example of the states rights conflict that sets DC apart from every other jurisdiction because, despite having a council, it lacks its own legislative representation. In other words, regardless of a decision made by DC local rules, the federal Congress can intrude with its own agenda.
Put succinctly by Jeffrey Richardson, president of the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, a group that represents gay residents of the District:
The disappointing thing is that here we are fighting to govern and pass our own laws in the District of Columbia, and Bishop Jackson chooses to run to Capitol Hill to stand with congressmen to impose their will upon the residents of the District of Columbia.1
Of course, none of this will matter if Mr. Broun of Georgia, and company, get their way… (yes, unlikely in this Democrat-heavy Congress, but why again are we paying the salaries of people who waste time trying to pass such amendments when the economy is still tanking, people are still dying in distant and pointless wars, and so many other problems in this nation exist?)
May 7, 2009… Mr. BROUN of Georgia (for himself, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. PITTS, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. PENCE, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. TIAHRT, and Mr. ROGERS of Alabama) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage .
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
`Article–
`Section 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment’.
`Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’.
