themail.gif (3487 bytes)

November 4, 2009

The DC DA

Dear DCers:

The biggest local political news of the week was made yesterday by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton. When was the last time that could have been said? Yesterday, Norton introduced the District of Columbia District Attorney Establishment Act, which would establish an elected District Attorney to replace the appointed Attorney General (the office was previously called the Corporation Counsel). The bill and Norton’s introductory statement are at http://www.dcwatch.com/govern/occ091103.htm. It’s my inclination to carp and complain about everything, but I can’t find anything in this bill to object to.

Blame it on the news flood about yesterday’s elections, but Norton’s press release on her bill was completely ignored by the local press, with the sole exception of DCIst.com, which misunderstood it and reported it as creating a new elected District Attorney’s office that would coexist along with the current appointed Attorney General’s office (http://dcist.com/2009/11/norton_proposes_dc_should_elect_its.php). No, folks, this is replacement. This is the real deal. This is the Evict Peter Nickles and Let Him Stay at Home in Great Falls Act. What’s not to like?

Since I asked for another recess on comments on same-sex marriage after the past two issues, I've relaxed the length restrictions that I usually put on messages. We’ll return to a stricter limit on shorter messages in the next issue.

Correction: Jonetta Rose Barras wants to correct her posting about Hardy Middle in the November 1 issue of themail. Hardy is in Ward 2, not Ward 3, and Jonetta wants to let everybody know that she actually knows that. The correction has been made in the online version of themail.

Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com

###############

New Topics for themail
Jay E. Vinton, jayvinton@nih.gov

Gary asked for new discussion topics, so here’s another possible topic for themail. The Washington Post has run a two part series about the fraud, waste, mismanagement, and malfeasance, etc., in the District’s HIV/AIDS Administration from 2004 to 2008. But I am aware of little if any response to the articles.

Am I missing something? Or is this just so much more of the same, that it’s of no note?

###############

Book Review, Scratch 1.4: A Beginner’s Guide
Phil Shapiro, pshapiro@his.com

If you know any parents, educators, or community activists interested in getting elementary and middle school students into making things on computers, the free programming tool called Scratch (from MIT) is well worth checking out (http://scratch.mit.edu).

And this new guidebook about Scratch is very well done, too. (See book review at http://bit.ly/3Forfd) Ask your local public library to buy a copy of the book. If you have children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, or other young ones with a creative bent, Scratch might be the right tool for nurturing that creative bent. We have got to start building a stronger geek culture here in DC. We’ve got to plants seeds today that will bear fruit in five, ten, fifteen years time.

###############

Burden of Proof
Naomi J. Monk, nmonk10501@aol.com

I am sharing the following information to let all individuals know of other individuals’ points of views of which I agree with, do not agree with or I am neutral with, and let Mr. Gary Imhoff and anyone else know that I have respect for him, Mayor Fenty, Chancellor Rhee, all our councilmembers and all other individuals’ point of views; that I am not perfect; that I primarily provide E-mails to respectfully share information from different sources that relates to SW and Near SE Community concerns. I did not convey that the Chancellor Rhee’s or our councilmembers’ points of views were correct or incorrect. for I do not know.

I believe that our stated leaders and other individuals have professional leadership to work through their differences and come up with amicable solutions. I do believe that their points of views were a mixture of being correct or not correct or in-between according to one’s interpretation. I did convey that I believe that listening respectfully to different points of views hopefully will bring about more efficient and effective decisions; that it is not good for anyone to lose his/she job and that I wish we had a perfect system, but that is not a reality. I believe that stated officials and other individuals take actions that I agree with, and that I do not agree with. There is not enough time to comment on a fraction of all the many actions taken and provide limited information on both side of the issue at hand. I do, however make a statement and provide statements on both sides of an important issue at hand like the DCPS hearings. I believe that it is appropriate and fair to readers to provide different statements to balance the scale.

I believe, however, that when our great leaders communicate to each other especially on TV and elsewhere, they set the model for their hundreds of thousands of constituents and other individuals to follow. Therefore, I believe that their point of views come across better for the listener to hear when their tone of voice and selection of words maintain a non-threatening atmosphere because they set the comfort level that influences the stability, level of trust, and confidence in those that they are speaking to.

###############

E-mail and Web Address
Malcolm Wiseman, mal@wiseman.ws

[Re: “Easy to Confuse These Two Things,” Phil Shapiro, themail, November 1] An E-mail address is a pointer to a specific user’s “mailbox” on a computer that is running a mail server protocol. A web address is a pointer to a file or a process that is to be served up or fulfilled by a computer that is running the http (aka “web”) protocol. What is a protocol? It’s the predefined and controlled manner in which computers talk to each other. Computers on the Internet can run many different protocols, each one is designed to provide a specific service.

Every address on the Internet is ultimately a numeric. Most of the time that number is associated with and is stored in a database (DNS) as an alphanumeric name. This is done for readability and ease of remembering and communicating the address to humans.

So, the E-mail address “themail@dcwatch.com” means the addressee is the mailbox named “themail” which is located at the computer system that is hosting the mail service protocol for the domain named “dcwatch.com.” The web site address (Uniform Resource Locator - URL) “http://dcwatch.com” says the requested file to download is at the machine that is running the http protocol for the domain named dcwatch.com. In this case (which is common) since a specific file is not cited in the URL, the default document of the web site will be served. For the tree-savers and the keyboard-weary it is interesting to note that the inventor of the web protocol, Tim Berners-Lee recently apologized to the worldwide community. It turns out the “slash-slash” in http:// was completely arbitrary and superfluous. But now you can’t do without it!

###############

Time for New Turks in DC Elected Offices
K. West, kap8082@aol.com

Today a dream; tomorrow, a reality. The results of Tuesday’s elections in New Jersey and Virginia as well as the outcome of Maine’s referendum on the definition of marriage to include same sex marriage clearly show how important it is for public officials to be in tune with the electorate. And Mayor Bloomberg’s slight win in New York City shows that anything is possible and that new leadership is conceivable even against the odds and name recognition. Hope and change are possible.

The District of Columbia could use some new Turks (as they were called once when there was a group of new leaders on the Council). The Tuesday elections elsewhere should embolden several aspiring politicians and/or “good deed doers”. As long as the priority issues are debated and not just a focus on personalities (although leadership style is fair game) candidates may be able to win without the enormous cash flow ($90 million) that Mayor Bloomberg used for his third term running against a virtual nobody that gave him a run for his money.

Additionally, Mayor Fenty’s war chest of more than two million dollars may not be enough to keep determined candidates from defeating him next year if the mayor continues on his current path of self destruction and alienation of DC voters. With councilmembers trying to intimidate and threatening witnesses at public hearings, there is clearly time for new blood on the council. Serving a decade and more in office might have become so stressful for some that they lose focus over the needs of citywide constituencies and tend to focus primarily on special interests and on those that can pay the piper admirably when they decide to call the tunes.

###############

Sponsor a Council Referendum on Marriage
Jason Shine and Robert “Bob” King, grassrootsdc@gmail.com

There are many citizens that would like to see a ballot measure on the definition of marriage next year. Watching Maine voters exercising their right to a voter referendum makes citizens appreciate the rights of citizens of some other states to put initiatives and referenda on the ballot without the turmoil that DC voters have to go through.

These are the turn of events that have led citizens to want a voter ballot initiative even more than to let elected leaders redefine marriage. On October 6, David Catania introduced Bill 18-482, the “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009” with ten co-sponsors. Later another councilmember committed to it, leaving only two expressing reservations about it. The city council decided to have a hearing on the same day as the Board of Elections and Ethics Hearing, unnecessarily inconveniencing the people. The hearing on October 26 regarding the bill was supposed to be a Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary hearing, which is comprised of Committee Chairman Mendelson and Council Members Alexander, Bowser, Cheh, and Evans. The hearing essentially became a Committee of the Whole meeting, with ten councilmembers: Mendelson, Bowser, Cheh, Evans, Kwame Brown, Michael Brown, Thomas, Wells, Catania, and Graham. During the hearing the timer malfunctioned, and Chairman Mendelson was left to manage the three-minute timing of witnesses. Each of the ten councilmembers present declared their positions (in essence, voting) before the first witness was allowed the opportunity to speak for or against the Bill. In Chairman Pro Tempore Evans’ opening statement, he threatened anyone who considered reaching out to Congress for its help to ensure the people’s right to vote on this important issue. In a court of law, that would be seen as intimidating the witness. At the October 26 hearing, Chairman Mendelson threatened to have opponents who expressed their emotions through clapping removed from the hearing on the Bill. Chairman Mendelson was admonished by Council Member Kwame Brown not to take such action because the people are very passionate about this issue. On November 2 after a same-sex couple announced an engagement, there was an eruption of applause. It was not until after their testimony was completed that Chairman Mendelson commented that the audience should be mindful of the rule against applause.

The government must uphold the rights of the people to be heard in a fair and objective venue. In a court of law the jury pool is asked prior to hearing the case if there are any reasons that they would be unable to render an unbiased verdict. If it is found that a fair trial cannot be held in the jurisdiction due to a tainting of the jury pool, then the trial is moved to another jurisdiction where an objective decision can be reached. If it is later found that a juror did render a verdict having been predisposed then that juror faces charges of contempt and a mistrial is declared. Ten of the 13 “jurors” hearing case 18-482 openly declared on October 26 that they are predisposed; they had already made up their minds before the case was heard. In order for there to be a fair hearing on the bill, only those councilmembers who have acted objectively should be allowed to vote on this issue before the council. Only Council Chair Gray and Councilmembers Alexander and Barry refrained from participating in the quasi vote on October 26 and they should be the only Council Members allowed to vote for or against the bill. All others should recuse themselves.

By law, legislation passed by the city council and signed by the mayor must be presented to Congress for a thirty-day review period. During this time Congress can call for amendments and revisions to be made to the bill before approving it and allowing it to become law. It is not uncommon for councilmembers to lobby Congress to advocate the approval of legislation. Why then should Councilmember Evans threaten citizens of the District of Columbia for exercising the same right?

The citizens of DC are asking the city council to amend the legislation when it votes on December 1: “In accordance with the provisions of the DC Self-Government Act, the council of the District of Columbia may, by Resolution, call a special election to present for an advisory referendum vote of the people any proposition upon which the council desires to take action.” We are simply asking that the council call for an advisory referendum to hear what the voters have to say about this important issue. Make the referendum legally binding. It’s that simple. Councilmember Evans and others, we don’t have to go to Congress if our own elected council will allow the citizens of DC the proper forum to render the advice and consent of the public on controversial legislation proposed by the council. Only if the people are denied the right to be heard by their own elected officials will the case be appealed to Congress and the courts to ask for the very same things that we ask of the DC city council and the mayor.

###############

Gay Marriage
Ralph J. Chittams, Sr., rjchittamssr@gmail.com

I am a Christian. I believe in the “Free Church,” a church unencumbered by the state, and a state free from religious domination. Therefore, I have no problem with the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, which prohibits the establishment of state-sponsored religions. Over time, however, the Establishment Clause has been expanded to prohibit the state’s involvement in religious activities. For example, prayer, deemed to be a religious activity, was banned from public schools. This brings us to the crux of the “gay marriage” issue. If a church, based upon its principles and doctrine, deems it permissible to “marry” any two individuals (gay, straight, interracial, biracial, whatever) of legal age, that is the right of that church. No church has the right to interfere with the free exercise of religion of another house of worship. That is the foundational belief of a free church. And the state cannot prevent a church from conducting such a marriage or coerce a church into conducting such a marriage. This is the foundation of the Establishment Clause — the state cannot impose on one church the doctrines of another church. To do so would create a state-sponsored religion. That concept is anathema to the United States Constitution. The current debate concerning gay marriage is obliterating this Constitutional separation of church and state. This flaw is not new; it has long existed. The state, being a civil authority, should not interfere in matters of religious doctrine. In truth, the state should not be in the business of marrying anyone. The business of marriage is religious, not civil, and should remain the exclusive domain of the church.

Given the interest of the state to provide familial stability, relationships are recognized by the state in order to provide contractual protections to the parties involved. These civil contractual obligations are separate and distinct from any religious components. In a society that practices a true separation of church and state, it would be possible to have one without the other. If an atheist desires to join with another atheist and form a family, why should those individuals be forced to accept a religious construct that they vehemently deny? They shouldn’t. They should be able to go to the state, join with whomever they choose in a civil ceremony, and call it a day. The question now becomes, “Is this a marriage?” If marriage is the business of the church, no. It is a civil union. Gay marriage proponents argue that marriage is not religious, it is civil. That statement strains credulity. Marriage in this country has long been recognized as a religious institution. To simply say it has not been flies in the face of the bulk of American history. It would be akin to saying that prayer is now not considered a religious act because I say so and therefore should be allowed back into public schools.

The current debate surrounding gay marriage has nothing to do with rights, but everything to do with the religion of secular humanism seeking to redefine the religious term “marriage,” and by doing so becoming the religion of the state. If this is allowed to happen, we will have violated the Establishment Clause because we will have codified secular humanism as the religion of the District of Columbia. Inserting “carve-outs” into the legislation does not fix this fatal flaw. The state is still saying that secular humanism is the state religion, but we will allow some of you to do otherwise. That violates the very tenets of the Establishment Clause. The simple solution to this matter is to remove state government from the business of marriage entirely. All couples going to the state to unite should receive a Certificate of Civil Union. If a couple desires to overlay the state-sponsored certificate with a religious certificate of marriage, they are free to do so. Doing so would not confer any additional civil rights or civil privileges. Doing so would simply solemnize the union in the sight of God. In this way, all people are treated equally under the law, after all, isn’t that the conclusion we all seek?

###############

Equality
Richard Urban, drichardurban at urbangrocery.com

Thank you, Gary, for your detailed analysis of the city council hearing testimony regarding the same sex marriage bill. I testified in the morning at the Board of Elections hearing. I cannot believe how arrogant and self righteous Mr. Catania is. He browbeats the CEO of Catholic Charities shamelessly for receiving public money that may pay part of his salary, and says that may be offensive to gay and lesbian voters. What about all the voters who support traditional marriage, and are offended by Mr. Catania’s shameless attitude and his promotion of the same sex marriage agenda? Last time I checked, city council members were on the public payroll.

Marriage “equality” is anything but “equal.” The program that I cofounded and am director of, ULTRA (Urban Life Training & Reality Assessment) Teen Choice was barred from working in DC public schools simply because we promote abstinence until marriage. It is not about equality, but about replacing the current definition of marriage with a new one. Michelle Rhee, in her initial letter to us (http://www.ultrateenchoice.org/default.asp?contentID=645), supposedly explaining why we were barred, said that “we expect partners to be inclusive and affirming of all DCPS students and their families as described in the District’s nondiscrimination policy and Human Rights Act.” Ms. Rhee also said, “My decision is based on your refusal to provide the necessary information to my staff.” She never responded to my inquiry about what part of the Human Rights Act was violated, but she clearly was saying that promotion of traditional marriage violates the “rights” of those who want same sex marriage. The “necessary information” she refers to is my personal acceptance of validity of gay and lesbian unions.” So much for equality and freedom of thought and religion. Keep in mind that it was never claimed that ULTRA Teen Choice discriminated against anyone, only that Ms Rhee and her staff did not like my personal viewpoint.

If the same sex marriage bill becomes law, then Ms. Rhee and others could say that we are barred legally simply because we promote traditional marriage, and not same sex unions. Those who do not think that their children should be taught this will have no legal right to object. This has already happened in Massachusetts, where same sex unions are legal, as David Parker testified at the morning hearing of the Board of Elections (http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/).

###############

One Last Take on Gay Marriage
Michael Bindner, mikeybdc@yahoo.com

This issue will be overcome by events shortly, simply because it is an equal protection issue and not appropriate for referendum or initiative. It is directly related to Proposition 8 in California, which already had domestic partnership arrangements (like the District, although California’s arrangements were better — by the way, many of the same people protested those for years and kept a rider in the DC budget prohibiting the District from enforcing the law, which in my view was tyrannical since we don’t have a vote there). Former Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson is bringing suit to overturn Prop. 8 because it demonstrates malice against homosexuals as a class, since there is no other justification for not calling their identical situation marriage. There is precedent for his argument; the Supreme Court overturned a Colorado constitutional amendment that attempted to overturn their gay rights laws. Whether you like it or not, this will be an easy win for Ted and will have nationwide ramifications, including for the District (which is equal to other states in such matters due to Bolling v. Sharpe). The proponents are free to waste their money and their time, but make no mistake, marriage equality will be the law of the land sooner than later. It would take a federal constitutional amendment to stop it — and with a Speaker of the House from San Francisco, that just won’t happen without a constitutional convention. Given the number of blue states that would never ratify such an amendment, going down that road would also be a colossal waste of time and treasure. Quit while you are behind.

#####

[Actually, the American Civil Liberties Union and most national gay organizations have opposed David Boies’ and Ted Olson’s lawsuit because they believe that the most likely eventual outcome will be a Supreme Court decision that upholds Proposition 8 — among other reasons, because the Supreme Court follows rather than leads public opinion, especially on social issues. When Loving v. Virginia was decided, for example, few states still had anti-miscegenation laws; most of them that had ever had anti-miscegenation laws had already overturned or invalidated them. That’s not the case with same-sex marriage; instead, with Maine’s vote yesterday, same-sex marriage has failed to win a public vote thirty-one straight times. A public vote on the issue in DC would be its best chance to show that same-sex marriage can win a popular vote. — Gary Imhoff]

###############

Some Final Thoughts on Marriage Equality
Martin Andres Austermuhle, martin.austermuhle@gmail.com

I know I’ve written plenty on this issue, so consider this the last of what I have to say on marriage equality. I’m happy to see that Gary finally put himself on the record as to why he opposes same-sex marriage. But I still don’t see how his main point — that marriage is the foundation of society — should preclude same-sex couples from entering into the government-sanctioned legal contract we all know as marriage. One way to look at it is that the purpose of marriage is procreation, and same-sex couples cannot as easily bear children as heterosexual ones can. Fair enough. But we don’t have laws on the books mandating that married couples have children, do we? And if the ability to bear children is a hallmark definition of marriage, then older couples, or those that for some natural reason cannot produce offspring, should be forbidden from marrying, right? Now if we look at marriage as simply being a foundation of society because it creates stable households, I don’t understand why it should be limited to heterosexual couples. For the amount of time we’ve given heterosexual couples to wed for the sake of a better society, I fail to understand why we’d assume that giving same-sex couples that same right wouldn’t produce the same results.

In the end, Gary, the point is that there is simply no evidence out there that allowing same-sex couples to marry will negatively impact existing or future heterosexual marriages, much less society as a whole. (If we’re worried about society, I’ll be the first to say that bad heterosexual marriages, adultery, broken households, and bad parents have done more damage to society than same-sex couples have.) That’s why the burden of proof shouldn’t be on those of us that support marriage equality. I’m heterosexual and have a great girlfriend, and the last thing I’m worried about is whether or not a same-sex marriage will somehow impact my own ability to commit myself to her for the rest of my life. (It’s the height of personal insecurity if you really think that your own marriage is somehow cheapened by the fact that a same-sex couple can enter into the same loving union.) You may have religious objections to marriage equality, but this is a society of secular laws, not Biblical mandates. If you can articulate a consistent and coherent reason that same-sex marriage would make the District a worse place, then you should. If not, then it’s not on proponents of marriage equality to try and make you feel better about the future of heterosexual marriages.

Finally, a point about using Congress as a means to appeal the DC Council’s likely vote supporting same-sex marriage. Yes, on paper Congress plays the role of our state government, but that is not a role most District residents are happy about or wouldn’t work to change. While you claim that the Missouri State Legislature could in theory overturn the decision made by the St. Louis City Council, that process is very different from what it is with the District and Congress. In most states the assumption is that local decisions are to be respected, while the opposite is true here. Additionally, it’s my understanding that the Missouri State Legislature could not simply pass a law overturning a St. Louis ordinance — they would have to make such a law applicable to the entire state. In so doing, legislators would have to answer to their constituents and could well be thrown out of office. That same dynamic doesn’t apply here. I somehow doubt that you’d endorse running to Congress to overturn a local decision if you agreed with the decision. (What if the DC Council decided to fire Michelle Rhee? Would you be OK with her supporters running to Capitol Hill to get her reinstated?) It’s ugly politics for opponents of same-sex marriage to threaten having Congress shoot down a decision that is plainly local.

I encourage you and other opponents of marriage equality to do what activists have done for generations — get organized and put pressure on your elected officials. If you don’t like the decision that they make, vote them out or run against them. But don’t undermine the entire concept of Home Rule simply because you’re not getting your way. Try and look beyond the here and now and imagine what it would be like if every other District resident decided to take their grievances to Congress when they couldn’t get their local elected officials to go along with them. Even more importantly, try and imagine what might happen if Congress actually overturned a local decision to grant same-sex couples the right to marry. Would you be happy knowing that you used such a blunt instrument to tell the District’s local government that it simply doesn’t have the capacity to represent its own residents, much less take a step towards expanding the definition of a legal contract? Would your marriage feel more secure and your society more stable?

#####

[Martin seems determined either to misunderstand me or to misrepresent me. First, I have never said that I opposed same-sex marriage; I have said that the supporters of same-sex marriage should address the basic question of whether dramatically changing the definition of marriage that has been consistent throughout history and across civilizations will have an effect on society. It’s not a sufficient reply to say, “If you ask, you’re a bigot.” Martin correctly points out that supporters of traditional marriage believe that it is the best way to structure families in order to raise children, but then he distorts that belief in a foolish way to make supporters of traditional marriage appear foolish — therefore, supporters must believe that the only purpose of marriage is to have children, or that all marriages must be fertile, or that only fertile people should be allowed to marry. That doesn’t follow logically, which is why no one says it. He also misstates the position of any opponents of same-sex marriage that I am aware of, by claiming that they believe legalizing same-sex marriages will somehow damage their own relationships. No, they don’t believe that legalizing same-sex marriage would somehow force them into same-sex relationships. They also don’t believe that lowering the age of marriage to thirteen would tempt them to marry thirteen-year-olds, or believe that legalizing polygamy would require them to marry additional wives or husbands. No reasonable person believes that, which is, I assume, why Martin makes the argument and attributes it to his opponents. For a good, well-developed refutation of this argument, recommending humility when recommending social changes, see http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html, by “Jane Galt” (Megan McArdle).

I believe that Martin distorts “home rule” to mean that the District of Columbia should be able to act as if it were an independent nation, completely free of higher authority of the federal government. Even Martin must admit that “on paper Congress plays the role of our state government,” but that little scrap of paper is the Constitution, which is the basic document that outlines the form of our government. I am completely comfortable with citizens’ appealing local government decisions to Congress, just as I am comfortable with appealing a decision of the Superior Court to the Court of Appeals. Martin’s claim that, “In most states the assumption is that local decisions are to be respected, while the opposite is true here,” completely misstates the situation; Congress overturns local decisions very rarely. And, if I want the right to appeal decisions that seem wrong to me, then I must respect the right of people who disagree with me to make the same appeal. Finally, when Martin says, “It’s ugly politics for opponents of same-sex marriage to threaten having Congress shoot down a decision that is plainly local,” why do I suspect that if he thought Congress would legalize same-sex marriage nationally, he would suddenly discover that the decision, and the policy, should plainly be made by Congress and apply nationally? — Gary Imhoff]

###############

Burden of Proof
Bill Crews, billcrews@aol.com

You know we wouldn’t have to keep writing about marriage equality if you, Gary, would stop masking your prejudices as some crusade for so-called voting rights instead of what it is — bigotry. As a gay married man who has been with my partner thirty-one years, and been an openly gay elected official in two different jurisdictions, I defy you to present any rational argument on how civil marriage equality does anything but strengthen families and society.

Read the Iowa Supreme Court Opinion before you distract your readers further from the real battle in this city — to get a new mayor. And don’t be surprised to discover that there are lots if supporters of marriage equality who want a new mayor.

###############

The Contortions Against Marriage Equality
Joel Lawson, lawson.joel@gmail.com

Gary Imhoff’s contortions continue, in his opposition to the council’s move towards marriage equality. While he fulminates against councilmembers who acknowledge that our city’s laws would be violated by a referendum, Gary simultaneously approves of councilmembers who point to the law in chastising Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee. (I, for one, appreciated Councilman David Catania’s commentary from the dais, which demonstrated that the Chancellor had not, in fact, acted outside the law). When the law is cited by the council against Rhee, Gary is pleased; when the council cites the law to thwart Gary’s anti-gay fellow travelers, he deems them bullies. Gary: I believe you must be so nimble from these contortions as to warrant special admission to the gymnastics team at the next Gay Games!

#####

[To Bill and Joel: in general, arguments aren’t won by calling your opponents names. You may silence your opponents, if you have superior numbers, by saying, “If you don’t agree with me, you’re a bigot,” but you will not gain their agreement or assent. Again, I believe the burden of proof should always be on those who want to make a radical change in society, regardless of the issue. Do you believe that a radical changes in society should always be assumed to be right, and the burden of proof should always be on those who oppose it, or do you believe that only in the case of same-sex marriage? — Gary Imhoff]

###############

Selective Citizen Enfranchisement Is Not Tenable
Dennis Jaffe, DennisJaffe@Gmail.com

Gary expressed surprise (themail, November 1) that “the only thing most people have wanted to write about to themail is the same-sex marriage bill.” The reason is simple: the issue has been among the most divisive issues in years to be debated in every corner of America. Even as states in which gay marriage has been legalized and there has been no evidence to document subsequent moral decay, the advent of two people of the same sex who love each other joining in matrimony evokes strong passion on both sides. The issue goes right to the deep emotional yearnings by gay men and lesbians to be eligible to receive the same legal recognition and right to benefits that the government bestows to couples of opposite gender. Similarly, an increasing percentage of Americans who are not gay share a heartfelt desire for their gay sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters, brothers and sisters, and friends to be able to honor their loving relationships just like we allow straight (or at least straight-pretending) couples.

I’ve always been struck by same-sex marriage opponents citing sexual promiscuity in the gay community as a significant reason for their opposition. It seems to me that promiscuity is more likely when the state tells two loving people that they have to remain officially single than if they were allowed to enter into the institution of marriage. Maybe, just maybe, the advent of marriage for same-sex couples would serve to reduce sexual promiscuity in the gay community. Yes, I support gay marriage and yes, it is my belief that promiscuity is higher among single gay men than among others.

It’s true that we have laws restricting marriage concerning age of consent, blood relation, and polygamy. I’m no expert, but I suspect among other reasons for these restrictions, the first concerns emotional maturity, the second, health of children; and the third, sustained intimacy for each member of the union.

I also have been struck by the notion that same-sex marriage threatens the institution of marriage as it’s been defined to cover only heterosexual couples. If you know of any straight couple who is considering getting a divorce because of the “threat” of gay marriage, please ask them to contact me. I want to understand the link between the joining of one couple and the severing of another.

I venture to guess that historically there has been a higher number of supposedly straight marriages in trouble because of the ban on same-sex unions than there ever will be as a result of allowing them. I can’t imagine the headline, “Within weeks of gay newlyweds moving next door, straight longtime married couples are filing for divorce in record numbers.” Can you?

Gary contended that supporting the right of citizens in St. Louis to appeal a city government decision by seeking redress through their state legislature is analogous to residents of the District of Columbia appealing a city council rejection of a same-sex marriage initiative by seeking Congress’ intervention. They are not in any way analogous, not by any stretch of the imagination. Residents of St. Louis have many opportunities through the political and judicial systems to determine who serves in their state, county, and municipal legislatures and executive offices; what powers their elected legislatures and executives have, and which laws to challenge. District of Columbia residents have zero standing in deciding who is elected to the 435-member US House of Representatives or one hundred member US Senate. It is simply not tenable to support the principle of enfranchisement for DC citizens and to then support such an abrogation of power by Congress.

I also am struck by Gary’s impending closing off of debate on this topic, which he so ardently argues ought to be fully debated by the citizens of the District. There’s an irony in there somewhere — all the more ironic given the lengths to which Gary went in rebutting same-sex marriage proponents [themail, November 1]. One posting of 105 words drew a response by Gary of 609 words; a posting of 594 words elicited a counter-argument of 888 words. Fair enough, Gary has put in the time and effort — and then some, many times over — in furthering citizen participation through themail.

Finally, I am unclear about Gary’s interpretation of District of Columbia law regulating the initiative and referendum process. He wrote that the law “does not allow ballot measures on budgetary matters” (in response to Martin Austermuhle’s having asked why a referendum on the baseball stadium funding, or on Mayor Fenty’s school takeover plan would not have been more compelling). I’m not a lawyer, and my knowledge about and involvement in DC are dwarfed many times over by Gary’s. I found online DC Official Code 1-204.101, which states, “The term ‘initiative’ means the process by which the electors of the District of Columbia may propose laws (except laws appropriating funds) [emphasis added] and present such proposed laws directly to the registered qualified electors of the District of Columbia for their approval or disapproval” http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/media/Legislation%20and%20Laws/Home%20Rule%20Act.pdf. The DC Board of Elections and Ethics also explains this on its web site at http://www.dcboee.org/regulations/initiative_and_referendum/guide.asp. Gary cited the DC BOEE’s rejection of a proposed referendum on Mayor Fenty’s school takeover plan. But the Board had issued a ruling approving the referendum before it rejected it. The Washington Post reported on June 6, 2007, that on June 5, 2007, “attorneys for the election board said that because Congress and President Bush have approved an amendment to the city’s Home Rule Charter that removes power from the Board of Education, the takeover plan can no longer be put to voters. Under the charter, residents cannot undo an act of Congress.” The reversal essentially was based on state-federal powers, not on whether the subject was appropriate, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/05/AR2007060501693.html.

I have not found a source for Gary’s assertion that the more expansive criterion of “budgetary matters” can knock out a proposed ballot measure, as opposed to the more narrow criterion disallowing ballot questions that, if passed, would increase the District’s budget. Perhaps, for other reasons, the baseball stadium issue might not have passed muster to go on the ballot. But I think the point Martin was making was that the financing of the baseball stadium plan and the performance of our schools are more consequential for the people and the taxpayers of the District of Columbia than the prospect of the government someday issuing me and the man whom I hope to meet and develop a long, loving relationship with, a piece of paper that gives us the same approval and rights afforded to straight and purportedly straight couples concerning everything in our everyday lives from finances to hospital visits.

#####

[I’ve addressed above and in the past issue of themail the points that Dennis raised with regard to same-sex marriage. I do think him for giving a fuller account about why the Board of Elections and Ethics did not allow an initiative on Mayor Fenty’s school takeover plan. With regard to the baseball stadium, the baseball stadium bill was largely a tax bill — it created a special stadium tax and directed how that tax would be spent. The BOEE interprets the law as forbidding citizens from legislating on tax matters, from directing what taxes can be appropriated or how taxes can be spent. — Gary Imhoff]

###############

CLASSIFIEDS — EVENTS

Department of Parks and Recreation Events, November 4-13
John Stokes, john.astokes@dc.gov

November 2-22, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., DC Center for Therapeutic Recreation, 3030 G Street, SE. Thanksgiving Can Food Drive for all ages. For the Thanksgiving holiday, nonperishable food will be donated to families in need. For more information, call Kimball Barnes, Aquatic Manager, at 645-5708.

November 2-23, 2:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m., Kalorama Recreation Center, 1875 Columbia Road, NW. Thanksgiving Food Drive for all ages. Participants will drop off can foods; nonperishable items; or donations at the recreation center. For more information, call John Borges, Site Manager, at 673-7606

November 2-25, 5:00 p.m.-8:30 p.m., Lafayette Recreation Center, 5900 33rd Street, NW. Canned Food Drive for all ages. Canned foods and other nonperishables will be collected at the recreation center and donated to a local charity. For more information, call Mike Thompkins at 282-2206.

November 6, 7:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m., Chevy Chase Community Center, 5601 Connecticut Avenue, NW. Youth Art Exhibit for all ages. Teen Clubs from Hearst and Palisades will showcase an art exhibit and host a reception at Chevy Chase Community Center. Exhibit will continue through November 30. For more information, call Fran Scott at 282-2204.

November 6, 12:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m., Theodore Hagans, Jr., Cultural Center, 3201 Fort Lincoln Drive, NE. Thanksgiving Luncheon for ages 55 and up. Seniors will enjoy lunch and fellowship for the Thanksgiving season. For register participants only. For more information, call Nadine Sumner at 576-6440/6641

November 9-13, 3:30 p.m.-9:00 p.m., Macomb Recreation Center, 3409 Macomb Street, NW, Community Can Food Drive for all ages. The Ward 3 community can donation nonperishable food to families in need. For more information, call Belinda Gee at 282-2199.

###############

National Building Museum Events, November 8-9
Sara Kabakoff, skabakoff@nbm.org

November 8, 11:00 a.m.-3:30 p.m., Honoring Veterans Day. Built in the 1880s, the Museum’s historic home formerly served as the US Pension Bureau, which provided payments to disabled Civil War veterans. Take a building tour and enjoy a free noontime performance by the United States Navy Band Cruisers. Building Tours at 11:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m., 2:00 p.m., 3:00 p.m., 3:30 p.m. Free, drop-in program, no registration required.

November 8, 1:00-3:00 p.m., Family Program: Terrific Terra Cotta. Celebrate the Museum’s architecture as a historic site by experimenting with terra cotta — the material featured in the Museum’s frieze and on the bases of its famous Corinthian columns. Participants will use molds to make their own terra cotta frieze to take home and bake. Free for members, $5 nonmembers. Drop-in program, no registration required. All ages.

November 9, 6:30-8:00 p.m., Storefront Churches: A Lecture with Camilo José Vergara. Hear photographer Camilo José Vergara discuss his work on the current National Building Museum exhibition Storefront Churches: Photographs by Camilo José Vergara and other projects. Storefront Churches will be open for viewing prior to the program. A book signing will follow the lecture. $12 members, $12 students, $20 nonmembers; prepaid registration required. Walk-in registration based on availability.

All events at the National Building Museum, 401 F Street, NW, Judiciary Square Metro station. Register for events at http://www.nbm.org.

###############

themail@dcwatch is an E-mail discussion forum that is published every Wednesday and Sunday. To change the E-mail address for your subscription to themail, use the Update Profile/Email address link below in the E-mail edition. To unsubscribe, use the Safe Unsubscribe link in the E-mail edition. An archive of all past issues is available at http://www.dcwatch.com/themail.

All postings should be submitted to themail@dcwatch.com, and should be about life, government, or politics in the District of Columbia in one way or another. All postings must be signed in order to be printed, and messages should be reasonably short — one or two brief paragraphs would be ideal — so that as many messages as possible can be put into each mailing.

 


Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)