Skip to comments.D.C. Council Votes to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages Performed in Other States
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 ...
DC is not a state.
What a surprise!
And the Nation’s Capital steps down to a lower ring of Hell.
Well done, DC. Well done.
So what’s Barney Frank’s excuse for not getting married now?
So when do they recognize my Florida State concealed weapons permit?
He does not want to make it public that he is sleeping with mortgage lenders?
This will force Congress and Obama to make a stand they do not want to make.
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.
The inmates are running the asylum.
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.
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.
Exactly right. I’d love to see the NRA jump all over this one.
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.
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.
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?
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).
Well, I guess that’s good news for Barney Frank and Lindsay Graham.
no longer slouching.....sprinting.....
Marion Barry says its morally acceptable...and that settles it.
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".
If I recall Congress makes the law in the district.
“no longer slouching.....sprinting....”
Seems nobody on the council has read Genesis 18 and 19.
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.
Doesn’t Congress have final jurisdiction over DC? Congress should be asked to rule one way or the other on this.
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. “
Put down the crack pipe when you're on the clock, Marion. Sheesh.
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.
The District of Criminals is cutting itself off from the Constitution!
“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...
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”.
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!
Sorry, missed an “e” there! Freegards!
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.
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?
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!
Marion Barry asks for his vote back
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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?
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.