Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

D.C. Council Votes to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages Performed in Other States
Washington Post ^ | May 5., 2009 | Tim Craig

Posted on 05/05/2009 9:02:07 AM PDT by Bokababe

Washington Post reporter Tim Craig relays that the D.C. Council has voted 13-0, without debate, to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Watch D.C. Wire for updates.

(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Government; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: antibiblicalmarriage; celebratesin; culturewar; dc; fauxmarriage; federalism; homonaziagenda; homosexualagenda; marionbarry; samesexmarriage; unbiblicalmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last

1 posted on 05/05/2009 9:02:07 AM PDT by Bokababe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

DC is not a state.


2 posted on 05/05/2009 9:03:31 AM PDT by edcoil (Taxes only help an evil government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

What a surprise!

And the Nation’s Capital steps down to a lower ring of Hell.

Well done, DC. Well done.


3 posted on 05/05/2009 9:03:44 AM PDT by RexBeach ("Do your duty in all things." Robert E. Lee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach

So what’s Barney Frank’s excuse for not getting married now?


4 posted on 05/05/2009 9:04:42 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (IRONY - we know more about the First Dog's historical papers than we do of President Barack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

So when do they recognize my Florida State concealed weapons permit?


5 posted on 05/05/2009 9:05:12 AM PDT by bill1952 (Power is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

He does not want to make it public that he is sleeping with mortgage lenders?


6 posted on 05/05/2009 9:05:35 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe
This is ripe for a vote in Congress.

This will force Congress and Obama to make a stand they do not want to make.

7 posted on 05/05/2009 9:06:15 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

While DC believes in the right to choose in the cases of abortion and gay marriage, they still don’t like having people the right to own guns and let their kids get vouchers to send them to better performing private schools.


8 posted on 05/05/2009 9:07:31 AM PDT by MAD-AS-HELL (Hope and Change. Rhetoric embraced by the Insane - Obama, The Chump in Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Abomination.


9 posted on 05/05/2009 9:09:46 AM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

The inmates are running the asylum.


10 posted on 05/05/2009 9:12:31 AM PDT by Seeing More Clearly Now
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe
I know that I am in the minority here and will likely get slammed for what I am about to say, but I'll say it anyway. It is not for government to decide what is or isn't "a marriage". All that government should be involved in is recognizing a legal partnership. Defining "marriage" should be left to priests, rabbis, clergy and even the individuals themselves. Giving the concept of "marriage" over to a secular government to define is like asking whores to define the concept of "purity".

There is really no way to win this "marriage" issue with politicians in this day and age -- except to take the issue out of their hands-- but people just keep trying.

11 posted on 05/05/2009 9:12:37 AM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Well then you have to get government out of tax issues (or get rid of the IRS as te same time) becuase the priary reason that government is in the business of recognizing marriage is for Taxes/tax filings.


12 posted on 05/05/2009 9:14:43 AM PDT by JSDude1 (DHS, FBI, FEMA, etc have been bad little boys. They need to be spanked and sent to timeout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

Exactly right. I’d love to see the NRA jump all over this one.


13 posted on 05/05/2009 9:17:26 AM PDT by rintense (Go Israel!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day
“Abomination.”

And as such, God fearing men and women who wish to marry shold exclude any acknowledgment or participation by the deviant loving state in the process.

14 posted on 05/05/2009 9:19:19 AM PDT by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

He doesn’t want to GET married. He wants approval for him to get married. It is about knocking down barriers, not about morality of living in a committed relationship vs. unmarried sin.


15 posted on 05/05/2009 9:25:47 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (IRONY - we know more about the First Dog's historical papers than we do of President Barack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack

Why did they decide to recognize gay marriage performed in other places? What about marriages performed in DC? Don’t they decide the marriage laws for DC itself, or is that a Congressional decision?


16 posted on 05/05/2009 9:26:03 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe
Way to further alienate the people and divide the country DC.
17 posted on 05/05/2009 9:26:39 AM PDT by gidget7 (Duncan Hunter-Valley Forge Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1

It isn’t just government that recognized marriages. If your employer gives medical benefits, your spouse also is elligible.

However many firms also offer benefits for unmarried domestic partners (at least of same sex couples).


18 posted on 05/05/2009 9:27:33 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (IRONY - we know more about the First Dog's historical papers than we do of President Barack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Well, I guess that’s good news for Barney Frank and Lindsay Graham.


19 posted on 05/05/2009 9:33:07 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 ("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

no longer slouching.....sprinting.....


20 posted on 05/05/2009 9:33:19 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Marion Barry says its morally acceptable...and that settles it.


21 posted on 05/05/2009 9:36:20 AM PDT by 444Flyer (God is our refuge and strength, A very present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear.Psalm 46)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1
"Well then you have to get government out of tax issues (or get rid of the IRS as te same time) becuase the priary reason that government is in the business of recognizing marriage is for Taxes/tax filings.

I've got no problem with that. We, as citizens, are not obligated to live our lives solely to satisfy the requirements of the IRS.

However, I am NOT suggesting that a marital partnership requires "no legal recognition". I am saying, it shouldn't be the basis for defining "marriage".

22 posted on 05/05/2009 9:38:00 AM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

If I recall Congress makes the law in the district.


23 posted on 05/05/2009 9:39:10 AM PDT by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

“no longer slouching.....sprinting....”

Seems nobody on the council has read Genesis 18 and 19.


24 posted on 05/05/2009 9:41:39 AM PDT by 444Flyer (God is our refuge and strength, A very present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear.Psalm 46)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

He’s a wanderer, they call him the wanderer...he’s goes ‘round and ‘round and ‘round...

Remember, if Barney likes any idea, it’s guaranteed to be bad for America.


25 posted on 05/05/2009 9:44:55 AM PDT by RexBeach ("Do your duty in all things." Robert E. Lee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Doesn’t Congress have final jurisdiction over DC? Congress should be asked to rule one way or the other on this.


26 posted on 05/05/2009 9:50:40 AM PDT by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Promithcuity?


27 posted on 05/05/2009 9:53:15 AM PDT by MortMan (Power without responsibility-the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages. - Rudyard Kipling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 444Flyer

Actually - in an update it states that Marion Barry voted against it as the lone objector (real vote was 12-1). Cokehead Barry didn’t know what he was voting on.

“UPDATE 2: After further debate, a second vote was taken, with D.C. Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) deciding to vote against the proposal. The final count is 12-1 in favor of recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.

UPDATE: D.C. Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) has now asked that the gay marriage bill be reconsidered. He didn’t realize what he was voting on before. “


28 posted on 05/05/2009 9:56:24 AM PDT by Hoodlum91 (There's a strange odor coming from the White House. Smells like BO.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Of course.


29 posted on 05/05/2009 9:58:53 AM PDT by b4its2late (Ignorance allows liberalism to prosper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodlum91
He didn’t realize what he was voting on before.

Put down the crack pipe when you're on the clock, Marion. Sheesh.

30 posted on 05/05/2009 10:00:19 AM PDT by steve-b (Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

You are right. Gubberment involvement in marriage has been awful for the ol’ institution. Now we have folks so condtioned that they think a piece of paper from the gubberment makes someone more or less married, even if its a marriage that is impossible, like two men or two women.

That gubberment screwed this up shouldn’t be shocking to conservatives.

Freegards


31 posted on 05/05/2009 10:00:24 AM PDT by Ransomed (Son of Ransomed Says Keep the Faith!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe
Ah, if only it would end there....after homosexuals “marry”, as sanctioned by government, then comes hate crime laws against churches, preachers, pastors, etc. (as in Canada)

It's coming!

32 posted on 05/05/2009 10:08:31 AM PDT by roses of sharon (Pray Hussein fails!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

The District of Criminals is cutting itself off from the Constitution!


33 posted on 05/05/2009 10:14:19 AM PDT by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

“the D.C. Council has voted 13-0, without debate, to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.”

Imagine a 13-0 vote,WITHOUT DEBATE, recognizing the same gun rights allowed in states like Texas.

Now imagine the MSM screaming how UNFAIR the vote was.

It’s easy if you try...


34 posted on 05/05/2009 10:43:51 AM PDT by Le Chien Rouge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Marriage is an institution of the Church, NOT of the State. I’m wondering when a clever conservative legal establishment will begin to call “Same-Sex Marriage” hate speech, as the use of the word “Marriage” is an oxy-moron and is offensive with the concept of “Same-Sex”.


35 posted on 05/05/2009 10:58:56 AM PDT by prismsinc (A.K.A. "The Terminator"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed
"That gubberment screwed this up shouldn’t be shocking to conservatives."

Ah, but it is to those who think that a big intrusive government "for them" is the alternative to a big government "against them".

Government, under the Constitution, needs to be watched like a child. Government is not capable of being "a good Mommy" -- or a "good Daddy". It is only capable of pushing us as far as it can until we push back, because politicians at best are like teenagers -- but more often they act like spoiled, self-centered and cunning 6 year-olds. They will do whatever they think that they can get away with, just like children.

When Conservatives wake up to that, then maybe the electorate will. Until they do, no one else will!

Fregards back at you!

BB

36 posted on 05/05/2009 11:36:24 AM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

Sorry, missed an “e” there! Freegards!


37 posted on 05/05/2009 11:37:26 AM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe
It is not for government to decide what is or isn't "a marriage". All that government should be involved in is recognizing a legal partnership. Defining "marriage" should be left to priests, rabbis, clergy and even the individuals themselves.

So you're OK with polygamous "marriages", incestuous "marriages", "marriage" to animals, "marriage" to inanimate objects, etc? Because that's where your suggestion logically leads all the crackpots out there.

38 posted on 05/05/2009 11:57:09 AM PDT by vrwc1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Wait a second here. If this “law” is allowed to stand it opens the door for a federal judicial case, something the gays don’t want because they’d lose in the Supreme Court. Such a case would also put the issue rights on the front-burner of politics again. A blessing in dis(qusting)quise.
Is there a plantiff and a lawyer is D.C. willing to fight this in Federal?


39 posted on 05/05/2009 12:02:04 PM PDT by BlueStateBlues (Blue State for business, Red State at heart.........Palin 2012, can't come soon enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vrwc1
"So you're OK with polygamous "marriages", incestuous "marriages", "marriage" to animals, "marriage" to inanimate objects, etc? Because that's where your suggestion logically leads all the crackpots out there."

No, I am not "OK" with that. But when you put the concept of "marriage" into the hands of a secular government, the horror show you cited just may be what you get if some lawyer or politician makes a good case for it and it's a vote-getter!

40 posted on 05/05/2009 12:23:14 PM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Marion Barry asks for his vote back

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Confused-Barry-Asks-for-Same-Sex-Marriage-Vote-Back.html


41 posted on 05/05/2009 12:26:13 PM PDT by Lilpug15 ("I Call Him the Forgotten Man - He works, He votes, He generally prays - but He Always Pays": Sumner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe
No, I am not "OK" with that. But when you put the concept of "marriage" into the hands of a secular government, the horror show you cited just may be what you get if some lawyer or politician makes a good case for it and it's a vote-getter!

That is a ridiculous and illogical argument for your case. It is far more likely for the scenarios I outlined to occur if "marriage" was left to the individual as you suggested. I suggest you try to come up with a more realistic argument to support your position.

42 posted on 05/05/2009 12:32:00 PM PDT by vrwc1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: vrwc1
"I suggest you try to come up with a more realistic argument to support your position"

It's not me who "doesn't get it", it's you.

Like it or not, this is no longer " a Christian country" where common sense prevails at the ballot box. We've elected a bunch of narcissistic idiots and lawyers to public office who will do whatever is popular and gets them re-elected.

Here in California the ONLY thing that got the "marriage between a man and a woman" clause successfully added to the State Constitution was the minority community -- Blacks & Hispanics. The Mormon Church did some in promoting it and Mormons became the primary target for a gay backlash, but that was only because gays didn't want to get called "racists". It was minorities who were the real numbers here in passing it.

But the demographics suggest that this will change in just a few years as a generation dies off and a new generation takes its place, because younger voters don't really care who "marriage" is between.

You can't hold the line with populism anymore, because the masses are against you.

The only reasonable solution is to take "marriage" off the table for government. We all get the legal protection of something like "a domestic contract" between two consenting adults and "marriage" stays where it belongs -- in the hands of the clergy and the private sphere, which is the only place that really regards it sacred, anyway.

43 posted on 05/05/2009 12:52:01 PM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe
Your logic is totally backwards. You don't win by surrendering, which is what you suggest.

Sure, fighting against legal recognition of homosexual "marriage" is tough, but it's doable. And there will always be enough people to stop the other nightmare "marriage" scenarios I listed if we put it to a vote. On the other hand, if your insane approach was tried now, we would immediately see homosexual "marriage", polygamous "marriage" and any other imagined kind of "marriage". That's not slouching towards Gomorrah, that's racing towards it!

44 posted on 05/05/2009 1:08:48 PM PDT by vrwc1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: vrwc1

Gubberment doesn’t define marriage. It doesn’t make anyone more or less married to have a piece of paper from the gubberment. Two gays calling themselves married are just as married with or without the gubberment’s permission, which is to say not at all married.

Freegards


45 posted on 05/05/2009 1:17:10 PM PDT by Ransomed (Son of Ransomed Says Keep the Faith!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed
Gubberment doesn’t define marriage.

But government does recognize legal marriages. And there has to be a definition that the government uses to determine what is a legal marriage. So what we're talking about here is the definition that the government uses to determine whether or not a marriage is legally recognized.

46 posted on 05/05/2009 1:26:04 PM PDT by vrwc1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

Repeating myself....please excuse...

You cannot change the wording of contracts people are already signed into...Marriage contract is between a Man and a Woman....we signed it. I will not enter into the same contract as Men and Men, Woman and Woman....there is precedence> not a lawyer, but dont you have to consider what has already been signed into and called within the confines of the law? If they change it to Same-Sex Marriage...we will then have to change, because I will not sit in the same contract, union as homosexuals....We will have convenant ceremonies those before God. Covenant, committment before God, who does not recognize homosexual partnerships....but only to say they are an abomination.


47 posted on 05/05/2009 1:30:49 PM PDT by Texas4ever (God is Good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vrwc1
"You don't win by surrendering, which is what you suggest.

No, I am NOT suggesting "surrender". I am suggesting that you can only win by assessing your position and relative strength, and developing a realistic strategy for winning. In short, using your head instead of your emotions. Brute force isn't going to work, when they outnumber you.

Sure, fighting against legal recognition of homosexual "marriage" is tough, but it's doable.

That's the point. It's NOT "doable" as you've outlined it -- you'll kill yourself just to put a band aid on it that isn't going to hold because in just a very few years, it's going to be ripped off by younger voters.

The only possible solution is to let politicians deal with a purely "legal contract" aspect of a partnership between two adults, and leave the concept of "marriage" out of it. That's for priests and the clergy.

If two gay guys find some online "church of the holy toaster" to marry them, I could care less -- as long as the government isn't forcing me to call what they have "a marriage".

But you are gambling it all -- and I am sorry if I think that handing marriage over to politicians is a textbook case of "casting pearls before swine"!

Ultimately, what I am suggesting here is the "separation of Church and State" in a way that actually benefits Church for a change.

48 posted on 05/05/2009 1:55:22 PM PDT by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

no surprise but I wonder how the black community will like this.

why not just cut the country and anything north of the potomac go their own way .


49 posted on 05/05/2009 1:57:38 PM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick queer sham--- end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe

sounds great but then you have the benefits, you have employers who have to fork out extra and how do we know if two men are not room mates or homos anyway.
How do we know they are not just wanting the health benefits from work etc?

the fact is that if we allow this as you say then we should not allow Govt to have a say in any kind of marriage so when bubba comes in to his job and says he is just married to his goat then does his employer now have to pay for vet benefits?

fact is there is a line int eh sane , on one side it is normal marriage the other side of the line if anything goes

which side are you on?


50 posted on 05/05/2009 2:01:07 PM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick queer sham--- end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson