|
Councilmember Says Initiative Would Have Stripped Legally Married Couples of Their Vows
Washington, D.C. – Today, Councilmember David Catania (At-Large) issued the following statement upon learning of the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics’ (“the Board”) decision not to accept the proposed Marriage Initiative of 2009. The initiative would have re-defined the meaning of marriage in the District to include only opposite-sex couples. In doing so, it would have invalidated the legally performed marriages of thousands of District married couples. The Board found that doing so would violate the District’s Human Rights Act, and thus rejected the proposed ballot initiative.
“At the time of its passage, the District’s Human Rights Act was one of the most comprehensive statements on equality in the world. For over 30 years, we have endeavored to perfect and expand our understanding of equality,” said Catania. “The proposed initiative would have stripped legally married same-sex couples of their vows. Those who proposed the initiative were attempting to write discrimination into our law, and I am pleased that the Board rejected this effort as an impermissible trespass on the human rights of District residents.”
The District’s current HRA was adopted in 1977.[1] Its enactment became necessary when its predecessor, Title 34 – the District’s previous anti-discrimination law – was found to be an improper regulation due to its enactment by a pre-Home Rule Council. With its previous law under challenge, the Council moved quickly to re-enact one of the strongest anti-discrimination laws in the country. At its outset, the HRA states:
It is the intent of the Council of the District of Columbia, in enacting this chapter, to secure an end in the District of Columbia to discrimination for any reason other than that of individual merit, including, but not limited to, discrimination by reason of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, matriculation, political affiliation, genetic information, disability, source of income, status as a victim of an intrafamily offense, and place of residence or business.[2]
Two years after the HRA was enacted, the Council passed D.C. Law 3-1 to protect District citizens from an initiative or referendum that would violate its newly re-authorized HRA. The protection cited the HRA (i.e., “Chapter 14 of Title 2”) specifically, saying:
Upon receipt of each proposed initiative or referendum measure, the Board shall refuse to accept the measure if the Board finds that it is not a proper subject of initiative or referendum, whichever is applicable, under the terms of title IV of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, or upon any of the following grounds…The measure authorizes, or would have the effect of authorizing, discrimination prohibited under Chapter 14 of Title 2. [3]
In its decision today, the Board concluded that proposed ballot initiative would authorize unlawful discrimination by revoking the legal rights currently granted to same-sex married couples in the District of Columbia.
###
[1] D.C. Official Code § 2-1401.01 et seq.
[3] D.C. Official Code § 1-1001.16(b).
|
