LGBTQ Nation » District of Columbia

Georgetown University LGBT center receives $1 million gift

By Lou Chibbaro Jr. — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:00:03 +0000

Former National Football League Commissioner Paul J. Tagliabue and his wife, Chandler Tagliabue, have donated $1 million to Georgetown University for the creation of a new program to assist LGBT students.

In a statement released on Oct. 26, the university said the gift will establish the Tagliabue Initiative for LGBT Life: Fostering Formation and Transformation, which will be overseen by Georgetown University’s LGBTQ Resource Center.

The LGBTQ Resource Center, the first such center at a Catholic university, opened on the Georgetown campus in 2008.

“The Center is inspired by Catholic and Jesuit principles of respect for the dignity of all and education of the whole person, and we are very pleased to support its services that provide a safe, inclusive and respectful environment for LGBTQ students and promote their acceptance in the entire campus community,” the Tagliabues said in the statement.

The $1 million gift for the LGBT student life initiative is part of an overall $5 million donation the Tagliabues made to Georgetown University that will fund other university programs such as undergraduate scholarships, including athletic scholarships.

Sivagami Shiva Subbaraman, director of Georgetown’s LGBTQ Resource Center, called the Tagliabues’ gift “exciting and wonderful news” and said it would have a beneficial impact on LGBT related programs and centers at colleges across the country, especially other religious institutions.

“To have someone of Paul Tagliabue’s stature and reputation make this commitment is a huge validation and endorsement of the necessity, value, and importance of the work we do,” Subbaraman told the Blade. “Paul and Chan’s generosity – their courage and vision – sets an incredible example of the importance of our allies,” she said. “Given his stature in the world of athletics, this is even more powerful.”

Subbaraman said that similar to the LGBTQ Center’s current programs, the new initiative funded by the Tagliabues will operate under the supervision of the university’s Vice President of Student Affairs. She said the center’s work is carried out “consistent with, observant of, Jesuit values and principles of education” and in collaboration with the university’s Office of Mission and Ministry.

She said details of the new initiative will be worked out over the next several months but that she envisions “some form of a hybrid academic/student life program.”

D.C. police investigating murder of transgender woman

LGBTQ Nation — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 06:00:22 +0000

Lashai Mclean

Police in Washington D.C. are investigating the murder of a 23-year-old transgender woman who was fatally shot during the early morning hours on Wednesday.

The victim has been identified as Myles Mclean, who is also known to friends as Lashai Mclean.

The motive is still under investigation, but detectives are looking into the possibility Mclean was the victim of a hate crime.

Mclean was on Dix Street with another transgender person at around 4:30 Wednesday morning when police say words were exchanged with two men.

A pistol was pulled. Shots were fired and Mclean was hit in the back.

WTTG-TV

Officers do not yet know if the killing was motivated by transphobia.

D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray says the investigation is continuing and no motive has been determined. But he said bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity cannot be tolerated.

Community organizers are planning a candlelight vigil at the corner of 61st and Dix Streets NE for Saturday, July 23, at 7 p.m., in memory of Mclean.

'Rowdy queers' vandalize HRC store on anniversary of Stonewall Riots

LGBTQ Nation — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 04:55:40 +0000

A Washington D.C. Human Rights Campaign store was vandalized in the late night or early hours of Wednesday by self-described “rowdy queers" who chose the date to coincide with the 42nd anniversary of the Stonewall Riots.

“HRC’s DC Action Center and Store was vandalized last night with paint on the front windows and an LGBT group has claimed responsibility for the crime," according to a statement released by the HRC.

"It’s unfortunate that after a marriage win in New York that represented an unprecedented coming together of LGBT groups, some are more interested in fostering division in the community.”

Photos: Brody Levesque, for LGBTQ Nation

The damage was mostly cosmetic, and consisted of pink paint splattered on the store front windows, and the word "Stonewall" scrawled in pink paint on the concrete sidewalk in front of the store.

A group claiming responsibility -- calling themselves "The Right Honorable Wicked Stepmothers' Traveling, Drinking and Debating Society and Men's Auxiliary" -- released a rambling manifesto-style press release, and said they targeted the HRC because the organization "hordes money and does nothing useful."

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) gift shop in Dupont Circle in Washington, DC is a god awful monstrosity. We were in there yesterday and between wiping our genitals on the clothing and discovering that the snow globes wouldn't properly fit up our bums, we got to thinking:

"This place would look great with a bit of shattered glass and splattered paint."

So we strapped on our riot chaps, poured pink paint into light bulbs, grabbed hammers, and went party party party! all over that tacky testament to the transformation of radical queer liberation into consumer junk.

We've got good reason. This week marks the 42nd anniversary of the Stonewall Riots. [...]

The modern LGBT movement owes its success to three days of smashing, burning, punching, and kicking--all of it happily indiscriminate--and the confrontational tactics of groups like ACT-UP that followed in the decades since. Yet, somehow we've forgotten our riotous roots. [...]

Why, you're asking, did we specifically target the HRC, a massive national gay rights non-profit as opposed to vomiting urine on Rick Santorum or something equally fun?

Put simply, they suck. What do they suck? Cash. Lots of it.

Full statement here.

Reactions from community leaders was swift, and condemned the group's actions, with most comments terming the action "juvenile."

Safeway cashier fired after directing anti-gay slur at same-sex couple

LGBTQ Nation — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:00:55 +0000

A grocery store employee at a Washington D.C.-area Safeway has been fired after directing an anti-gay slur at a same-sex couple last weekend.

Jason Morgan and his partner Brendan Harrington stopped by their local Safeway grocery store, one block away from their condominium on the Southwest waterfront, to pick up dinner on Saturday night, reported Metro Weekly.

"We put our groceries up on the conveyer belt, some frozen dinner and wine, and [the cashier] said, 'Oh God, they're faggots,'" says Morgan.

"And then Brendan said, 'I'm sorry I didn't hear what you said.' And she said 'You guys are fucking faggots.'"

The couple said they made several attempts to contact a store manager about the incident, but was unsuccessful. On June 13, the couple filed a complaint with the D.C. Office of Human Rights.

After an inquiry by Metro Weekly, Safeway eventually responded on Thursday, issuing this apology:

''This goes against everything we believe and practice in terms of serving and welcoming our customers, and in being a part of the diverse communities we are privileged to serve,'' his statement reads.

''We are at a loss to explain how one of our employees, even one who has been on the job for less than a month, could consider this kind of behavior to be acceptable. The employee has been terminated.''

The couple said their claim is still in process with the District's Office of Human Rights.

GWU attacker charged with 'hate crime' on straight man he thought was gay

By Eric Ethington — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 06:00:10 +0000

WASHINGTON -- A heterosexual student at George Washington University was beaten to within inches of his life earlier this week, after another heterosexual student mistook him for being gay.

Police have arrested Ross Richardson, a GWU senior, and he has been charged with a hate crime.

The GW Hatchet reports:

Metropolitan Police Department officers arrested senior Ross Richardson early Sunday morning in Ivory Tower [residential hall], after he kicked and punched a fellow senior while saying "you fucking fag," according to court documents.

The victim was transported to GW Hospital with significant head trauma, including bleeding in his brain.

The incident is classified as a hate crime, or a crime directed at an individual based upon prejudice or bias, according to the documents. The victim - whose name is being withheld due to a Hatchet policy of not naming assault victims - said he never met Richardson prior to the assault.

One witness saw Richardson kick the victim in the stomach several times while the victim was on the ground, according to police documents. Another witness saw Richardson push the victim against a wall while punching him and calling him "fag" and "motherfucker" multiple times.

The Ivory Tower co-ed student residence hall is home to more than 700 GWU students.

Eric Ethington, based in Salt Lake City, is a gay rights activist and Editor of Pride In Utah.

U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal by opponents of DC's gay marriage law

By Lisa Keen — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:00:46 +0000

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court this week refused to hear the appeal of a group of clergy in Washington, D.C., who want to put the city’s new marriage equality law on the ballot.

Bishop Harry Jackson

The denial of review appears to be the end of the line now for opponents of equal marriage rights in the nation's capital.

The District of Columbia enacted its marriage equality law in March of last year, but not before a group of clergy, led by Maryland Bishop Harry Jackson, tried to stop the law from going into effect by requesting an emergency order from the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court refused that request, in Jackson v. D.C., but the group came back with this second effort aimed at undoing the marriage equality law.

What the group sought, in Jackson v. D.C. II, was a ruling from the high court saying the D.C. government could not bar an initiative regarding whether to repeal the marriage equality law.

The question before the Supreme Court, however, was not about marriage on the surface. On the surface, the question was whether the city’s law governing initiatives can bar voters from considering an initiative that violates the city’s human rights act.

Important to the case was the fact that Washington, D.C., is not a state but a unique District, controlled by the Congress to serve as the nation’s center of government. But in recognition of the needs of citizens who reside in the District of Columbia and who raise and school children there and require routine services such as fire and police protection, Congress, in 1973, provided for the formation of a D.C. Council to govern its citizens under a “Home Rule Act,” or D.C. Charter.

Congress also approved an amendment to the Charter, in 1978, that incorporated the D.C. Council’s laws spelling out how it would govern its own elections, including initiatives. The following year, the D.C. Council then approved the legislation necessary to implement that Charter amendment. And there lies the rub.

The implementing law –- the Initiative Procedures Act -- stipulated that the Elections Board “shall refuse to accept

if the Board finds that it . . . authorizes, or would have the effect of authorizing, discrimination” prohibited under the city human rights law.

The D.C. Human Rights Law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation so, when the group of clergy sought a ballot measure to overturn its marriage equality law, the city Board of Election refused to accept the measure, and the city’s highest court, the D.C. Court of Appeals, upheld that decision.

The Alliance Defense Fund, representing Jackson, Walter Fauntroy, and the other petitioners, argued that this limitation violates the Charter itself, which provides for initiatives. And, after the D.C. Court of Appeals, its last resort was an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

When the Alliance initially sought U.S. Supreme Court intervention, it filed a request for an emergency order to Chief Justice John Roberts, who handles emergency requests from the District of Columbia. Roberts denied that request last March and the marriage equality law went into effect on March 3, 2010.

But in denying the emergency request, Roberts said he thought the clergy coalition’s challenge to the restriction on initiatives had “some force.”

The clergy group took Justice Roberts’ note to heart and, with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund, a right-wing legal group, filed this new challenge. The new challenge argued that the decisions by the D.C. Courts “approved a Council-imposed limitation on the people’s Charter-based initiative power.”

The D.C. Court of Appeals, in upholding the D.C. Council’s right to include a limitation on the city’s initiative process, “allowed the Council to usurp a congressional grant of power,” argued the Alliance. And, said the group, it “bestows unapproved and extensive authority upon the Council to further erode the people’s initiative power, or otherwise alter Congress’s division of legislative power within the District of Columbia.”

“Congress is the source of all legislative power over the District,” argued the Alliance in its petition to the Supreme Court in October.

But Congress, dominated in both houses by Democrats, did not use its authority in December 2009 to disapprove of the D.C. Council’s passage of the marriage equality law. Nor did it disapprove of the D.C. Council’s establishment of a restriction on ballot measures, in 1979.

The Alliance argued that “Congress’s failure to reject or overturn” the restriction on D.C. initiatives “does not amount to implicit congressional approval of that measure.”

But attorneys for the D.C. government, in their brief opposing acceptance of the Alliance’s case by the Supreme Court, said the D.C. Council had authority to enact this restriction as part of the Charter amendment approved by both Congress and the voters of D.C. And they noted Congress had authority to disapprove of the Initiative Procedures Act but did not do so.

Further, the D.C. attorneys argued that the restriction on initiatives is a narrow one and that conflict before the high court was “of exclusively local concern” involving “no important questions of federal law.”

In order to hear an appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court, four justices must agree to take the case up for review and, generally speaking, the case must present a question concerning federal law. However, as in the case of California’s Proposition 8, state laws can end up in federal court when they are challenged as violating some federal constitutional provision.

Nan Hunter, a gay legal scholar who blogs at hunterforjustice.com, said that, if the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the Jackson case and overturned the D.C. Court of Appeals decision, the result would have been like “an East Coast rerun of Prop 8.”

The state of Marriage Equality in 2011

By Dana Rudolph — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 18:00:12 +0000

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated since its original posting.

After a 2010 with few marriage equality measures contested outside the courtroom, 2011 will likely see a number of battles state by state across the country.

Three states plus the District of Columbia are facing the prospect of losing marriage equality, an additional seven states could start the process of amending their state constitutions to ban marriage equality, five could gain marriage equality.

Here are the key states to watch.

States that could lose marriage equality:

New Hampshire:

LGBT advocates have considered New Hampshire -- with a new, veto-proof Republican majority -- one of this year’s most serious battlegrounds.

But House Majority Leader Rep. D.J. Bettencourt (R-Salem) said January 13 that repealing the state’s year-old marriage equality law is not a Republican priority in 2011. The party wants, instead, to focus on jobs and the economy.

But Bettencourt refused to say he would discourage the introduction of repeal bills. And gay marriage opponents Kevin Smith, executive director of the far-right group Cornerstone Action, and State Rep. David Bates (R-Windham), told the Associated Press they still plan to pursue a repeal.

The executive director of New Hampshire Freedom to Marry, Mo Baxley, said in a statement that she was “pleased” the repeal is not a priority for Republicans but added that her organization is continuing its planned efforts to preserve the existing law.

Iowa:

Republicans in the legislature plan to introduce a bill to pursue a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, in response to a 2009 ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court that made marriage legal for same-sex couples.

The change must be approved by two successive legislatures and then ratified by voters. Republicans control the House 60-40, but Democrats have a 26-24 edge in the Senate, and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D-Council Bluffs) has said he would block a vote on such a bill.

Several Republican legislators also want to begin impeachment proceedings against the remaining four of the seven justices who joined in the unanimous marriage ruling. The other three justices lost retention elections last November, after right-wing groups campaigned to oust them.

Impeachment would require a simple majority in the House and a two-thirds majority in the Senate, but the judges would be removed immediately if impeached by the House and could be reinstated only if found not guilty after a Senate trial. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told The Cedar Rapids Gazette that Democrats would “shut the place down” if necessary to block an impeachment effort.

Update: On Feb. 1, The Iowa state House passed House Joint Resolution 6, an amendment that seeks to repeal the state’s marriage equality law, and deny any form of legal recognition for gay couples. The bill now moves on to the Iowa Senate, where Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (D) has vowed to fight attempts to pass the amendment.

Washington, D.C.:

A coalition of local anti-gay activists led by Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Maryland has been pushing for a referendum on the district’s year-old marriage equality law.

D.C. courts and the district’s Board of Election ruled last year that this would violate a district prohibition on referenda related to the city’s Human Rights Act -- which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. Jackson has asked the Supreme Court to consider the case.

Update: On Jan. 18, the U.S. Supreme Court said it would not hear Jackson's appeal.

States that could win marriage equality:

Rhode Island:

Newly elected Governor Lincoln Chafee (I) expressed his support for marriage equality during his inauguration speech January 4. Legislators introduced marriage equality bills in both the House and Senate on January 6.

Democrats hold large majorities in both chambers, and House Speaker Gordon Fox (D), who is openly gay, is a cosponsor of the bill. The bill may face a bigger struggle in the Senate, where Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed opposes marriage equality.

Maryland:

Marriage equality bills are pending in both houses of the legislature, and supporters now form majorities on the key judicial committees that must first approve them.

State Senate Minority Leader Allan H. Kittleman, however, said he will introduce a bill to allow civil unions for both same- and opposite-sex couples.

Update: On Jan. 18, Kittleman announced he will step down as minority leader after Republican colleagues told him they would not support his civil unions bill.

On Jan. 21, Senate Majority Leader Rob Garagiola (D) introduced the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. The legislation would permit same-sex couples to marry but would not require churches to perform the unions.

New York:

Although Republicans have a two-seat majority in the State Senate, Empire State Pride Agenda Executive Director Ross D. Levi said in a press release that LGBT advocates have “picked up at least two ‘yes’ votes.” Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo has said he would sign a marriage equality bill if it reaches his desk.

Update: On Jan. 17, New York state Sen. Thomas Duane (D-Manhattan), the Senate's biggest booster of gay marriage, said he'll introduce legislation "within weeks" to legalize same-sex marriage, and will push for a vote before the end of June.

All three of the above states already recognize marriages of same-sex couples from other jurisdictions.

New Jersey:

The state Supreme Court last June refused to hear a case that claimed the state’s civil union law did not provide full equality. It said the case must first go through the trial court process.

Jennifer Pizer, National Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, said a trial court attempt is “a sensible next step for us to consider.”

Lambda Legal and state LGBT rights group Garden State Equality are also working on another round of marriage equality legislation, although Pizer could not yet share any details.

California:

The case to overturn Proposition 8, the state ban on same-sex marriage, is in a rather unusual spot.

It is awaiting a decision from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, but the appeals panel said January 4 that it could not render a decision on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 until the California Supreme Court rules that there is some state law or authority to justify giving the Yes on 8 proponents of the initiative legal standing to appeal the case in federal court on behalf of California voters.

Pizer said that a 9th Circuit decision against Proposition 8 would have “a massive positive effect nationwide” as marriage equality became a reality on both coasts.

She also noted there are “serious efforts underway now” for potential ballot measures in 2012 to secure marriage equality in Maine, Oregon, and Washington.

States that could win civil unions:

Hawaii:

Acting House Majority Leader Blake Oshiro, who is openly gay, told KITV on Jan. 10 that he wants to pass a civil union bill early in the session. The Hawaii legislature is almost the same as the one that passed such a civil union bill last year only to see it vetoed by outgoing Republican Governor Linda Lingle.

Current Governor Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat and long-time supporter of equal rights for gays, has said he would support a new bill.

Update: On Jan. 28, the state Senate passed a civil unions bill that would grant same-sex and heterosexual partners essentially the same protections, rights and benefits currently extended to married couples. The measure moves to the state House, where, leaders said they expect it to pass by a wide margin.

Illinois:

The Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act passed in the Illinois state Senate on Dec. 1 after passing in the House the previous day. The civil unions bill will provide the same spousal rights to same-sex partners when it comes to surrogate decision-making for medical treatment, survivorship, adoptions, and accident and health insurance.

Update: On Jan. 31, Gov. Pat Quinn signed the civil unions bill into law. Gay and lesbian couples will be able to have their unions legally recognized by the state effective June 1, 2011.

Montana:

Montana bans same-sex marriage under the state constitution, but the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a case on behalf of seven couples to try and gain the protection of domestic partnerships.

Colorado and Delaware will also likely see civil union bills introduced.

States that could ban marriage equality:

Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Wyoming have statutes that prevent same-sex couples from obtaining marriage licenses, but efforts to protect those bans from legal challenges are expected through proposed constitutional amendments.

Lambda’s Pizer noted that anti-gay groups may wait until 2012 to do seek introduction of such measures in hopes of using them to rally conservative voters to turnout during a presidential election year.

This year, though, Wyoming State Rep. Cathy Connolly (D), the only openly gay member of the legislature, plans to introduce a bill for full marriage equality and one for civil unions, while Republican legislators are planning to reintroduce a defense of marriage law.

Update: On Jan. 20, the Wyoming state House advanced legislation to prohibit recognition of out-of-state gay marriages, while a Senate committee approved a resolution aimed at a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The House measure passed on its first hearing with 34 out of 60 votes.

And New Mexico Attorney General Gary King issued a non-binding opinion January 4 stating that same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions would likely be recognized in the state.

Evan Wolfson, Executive Director of Freedom to Marry, said that this year, “we have the chance to really make some important strides in key states.” He stressed that wins in the states will help sway public opinion and move marriage equality forward on a federal level as well.

D.C.'s highest court rejects efforts to force vote on gay marriage

LGBTQ Nation — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:00:15 +0000

The District of Columbia's highest court has rejected yet another challenge to D.C.'s same-sex marriage law, ruling Thursday that opponents cannot ask voters to overturn it.

In a 5-4 decision, the D.C. Court of Appeals rejected an appeal brought by Maryland pastor, Bishop Harry Jackson, and others that sought to recognize the right of D.C. voters to vote on gay marriage.

On three separate occasions this year, the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics has rejected referendum petitions on the issue of same-sex marriage, ruling that a ballot measure on the issue will not be allowed.

The board has consistently ruled that such a measure would violate the city’s Human Rights Act that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

On Thursday, the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision:

Appellants contend that the proposed initiative would not authorize or have the effect of authorizing prohibited discrimination. We disagree with both contentions, and we therefore affirm the Superior Court’s rulings that the Council acted lawfully in imposing the Human Rights Act safeguard and that the Board correctly determined that the safeguard required it to reject the proposed initiative.

Read the full decision (.pdf) here.

Opponents had wanted to challenge a law that took effect March 3, allowing same-sex couples to marry. They have made numerous attempts to get approval to put an initiative on the ballot asking D.C. voters to define marriage in the city as between one man and one woman.

The D.C. Council passed the historic legislation on December 15, 2009, to legalize same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia; the bill was signed by mayor Adrian Fenty just 3 days later.

Jackson's efforts have been thwarted by two Superior Court judges and a D.C. appeals court. During the mandatory 30-day Congressional Review period, neither the U.S. House or Senate took up the issue, although two Republican lawmakers from Utah, Rep. Jason Chaffetz and Sen. Bob Bennett, introduced resolutions designed to force a ballot initiative. On March 1, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to put the law on hold.

In the dissent, Judge John R. Fisher wrote that "even if we assume that the people at large are more likely to discriminate against minorities than are their elected representatives, appellees forget that there are numerous checks and balances in place here to protect against the tyranny of the majority."

He pointed out that an initiative could be defeated at the polls, it could be disapproved by Congress (under the "Home Rule" authority), or it could be amended or repealed by the D.C. council.

Jackson said that while he was disappointed in the appeals court decision, he was encouraged that the decision was split.

Study: 14% of gay men in D.C. are HIV positive

LGBTQ Nation — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:00:14 +0000

More than 14 percent of gay men in the District are HIV positive, almost five times as high as the overall rate for the city's adults and teenagers, according to a snapshot of the community released Thursday by the D.C. HIV/AIDS Administration.

Interviews with 500 gay men throughout the District found that more than 40 percent were unaware of their diagnosis before the study, even though most had seen a doctor in the past 12 months, and more than a third did not know the HIV status of their last sex partner.

"This is a wake-up call," said D.C. Council member David A. Catania (D-At Large), 42, who is gay. "It's time for my generation to assume greater responsibility for themselves and their partners. Just because we escaped the epidemic of the 1980s doesn't mean we are immune."

Of those surveyed, younger men generally had safer sex behaviors, while men older than 30 were tested less frequently, had more sex partners and used condoms less. In fact, the report found that more than 40 percent of those interviewed said they did not use a condom with their last sex partner.

Foiled again! Senate rejects Bennett's latest effort to stop D.C. gay marriages

LGBTQ Nation — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 05:00:09 +0000

The U.S. Senate has rejected an amendment to the health care reconciliation bill that would have stopped same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia until a referendum could be held.

Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah), who has been relentless in his efforts to stop gay marriage in District, had introduced that amendment, but the full Senate rejected it Thursday morning by a vote of 59 to 36, with five members not voting.

Earlier this month, Bennett sought to attach a similar amendment to a Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization bill, but that amendment was ruled out of order.

Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine, joined all the Democrats in voting against Bennett's latest amendment.

Their votes could be a sign that future efforts in the Senate to overturn the law will also be unsuccessful during the current Congress.

Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), the District's non-voting representative in the U.S. House, has stated she will have to remain on "daily vigil" to guard against congressional intervention of D.C.'s marriage equality law.

Washington Post defends front-page photo of two men kissing

LGBTQ Nation — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:00:53 +0000

Gay marriage came to the nation's capital this week, and the Washington Post has been fending off reader complaints for marking the occasion with a front page picture of two men kissing.

(Washington Post photo)

The above photo of Jeremy Ames, left, and Taka Ariga was taken last week when the District of Columbia began accepting applications for same-sex marriages, and ran on the newspaper's front page and online March 4.

But according to Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander, the photo has drawn an unusual amount of criticism from readers.

Several readers wrote to suggest that a snapshot of two men kissing doesn't belong in a family newspaper. One reader went so far as to say, "That kind of stuff makes normal people want to throw up."

At last count, the photo has caused 27 Post readers to cancel their subscriptions. But earlier this week, Alexander offered this unequivocal defense of the photo and its placement:

Did the Post go too far? Of course not. The photo deserved to be in newspaper and on its Web site, and it warranted front-page display.

News photos capture reality. And the prominent display reflects the historic significance of what was occurring. The recent D.C. Council decision to approve same-sex marriage was the culmination of a decades-long gay rights fight for equality. Same-sex marriage is now legal in the District. The photo of Ames and Ariga kissing simply showed joy that would be exhibited by any couple planning to wed - especially a couple who previously had been denied the legal right to marry.

There was a time, after court-ordered integration, when readers complained about front-page photos of blacks mixing with whites. Today, photo images of same-sex couples capture the same reality of societal change.

In other words... get over it!

Gay couples wed as same-sex marriage dawns on nation's capital

LGBTQ Nation — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:30:24 +0000

Gay marriage has arrived in nation's capital.

Angelisa Young and Sinjoyla Townsend wed Tuesday in D.C. (Image: CNN)

Same-sex couples began marrying in Washington D.C, on Tuesday, with some lining up as early as 3:30 a.m. to pick up their licenses from D.C. Superior Court.

More than 300 same-sex couples have applied for a license since the application process began last Wednesday.

Angelisa Young, 47, and Sinjoyla Townsend, 41, were the first couple in line Wednesday to apply for a license, and were the first couple to officially wed in D.C. on Tuesday morning in a ceremony at the Human Rights Campaign headquarters in downtown Washington.

Watch their ceremony here, courtesy CNN:

The 13-member D.C. Council voted in December in favor of the Marriage Equality Act, making D.C. the sixth jurisdiction in the country to legalize gay marriage -- joining Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont.

Opponents of the legislation tried unsuccessfully to stop it from passing, including asking the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a temporary injunction.

Dozens apply for licenses as gay marriage becomes legal in Washington D.C.

LGBTQ Nation — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:00:41 +0000

At least 50 same-sex couples lined up to apply for marriage licenses when city offices opened Wednesday as gay marriage became legal in the nation's capital.

Gwen Migita, left, and Cuc Vu, at D.C. SUperior Court Wednesday to apply for a marriage license. (Washington Post photo.)

Cheering erupted from the crowd when the first couple signed in at the city's marriage bureau just blocks from the U.S. Capitol.

By just before noon Wednesday, about 100 couples had come to the bureau, and about 40 had completed applications. Each couple is leaving the bureau to a round of applause from the crowd.

Because of a mandatory waiting period of three business days, however, couples won't actually be able to marry in the District of Columbia until Tuesday.

The gay marriage law was introduced to the 13-member D.C. Council in October and had near-unanimous support from its inception. The bill passed and D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty signed it in December.

But because Washington is a federal district, the law had to undergo a congressional review period that expired Tuesday.

Opponents have tried numerous attempts to get a referrendum on the ballot to force a vote on the measure, but it has been repeatedly rejected by the Elections Board, citing it would violate the city's Human Rights Act.

On Tuesday, The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request to block the District's gay marriage law from taking effect; opponents, however, are still attempting to overturn the bill in court.

Archdiocese Of Washington ends spousal benefits, citing gay marriage law

LGBTQ Nation — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 06:20:14 +0000

The Archdiocese of Washington has changed its employee health care policy in the latest fallout from the District's decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

As of Tuesday, Catholic Charities will no longer offer benefits to spouses of new employees or to spouses of current employees who are not already enrolled in the plan.

Under the District's new same-sex marriage law, if companies and organizations offer benefits to spouses of its employees, those benefits now must be extended to the spouses of employees in same sex unions.

Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl said Tuesday that the decision by Catholic Charities to change its health coverage to avoid offering benefits to same-sex spouses of its workers is justifiable under Catholic teaching as long as the employees are paid a just wage.

Archdiocesan spokeswoman Susan Gibbs says currently about 10 percent of those employees have their spouses covered by their health care plan.

Catholic Charities, which provides services such as substance abuse treatment programs and shelters, employees some 850 people.

Last month, the Archdiocese announced it was shutting down its 80-year-old foster care program, also citing the District’s plan to legalize gay marriage.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected opponent's request to block the District of Columbia’s gay marriage law, which takes effect on Wednesday.

U.S. Supreme Court refuses to block D.C. gay marriage; law to take effect Wednesday

LGBTQ Nation — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:51:12 +0000

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request late today to block the District of Columbia's gay marriage law from taking effect on Wednesday.

Opponents of the law had asked the Supreme Court to step in and issue a temporary delay so they could hold a city-wide referendum on the issue before the law took effect.

Chief Justice John Roberts released an opinion refusing to put the law on hold, reaffirming the D.C. Board of Elections, the city's superior court and its court of appeals rulings, all of which previously rejected opponent's request for a referendum.

The elections board has refused to put gay marriage on the ballot, ruling it would violate the city’s Human Rights Act, designed to protect gays and lesbians and other minority groups from discrimination.

Roberts said the Supreme Court's practice has been to defer to local court decisions on District of Columbia matters of exclusive local concern and said he saw no reason for the Supreme Court to step into such a local matter involving the referendum process.

In a three-page opinion, Roberts said that emergency action isn’t warranted in part because Congress chose not to block the marriage measure during the 30-day review period that applies to new laws in the nation's capital.

The D.C. Council, the city’s legislative body, voted to legalize gay marriage in December.

D.C. gay couples can begin applying for marriage licenses tomorrow. Pursuant to District law, couples must wait three business days before the marriage license is issued, so expect to see the first gay unions in D.C. officiated on Tuesday, March 9.

The Distirct of Columbia will become the sixth jurisdiction to legalize same-sex marriage, joining Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire.