District Weighing Boosts in Gay Rights
Bills Reflect Wariness Of Congressional Veto

By Eric M. Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 2, 2006

The D.C. Council is considering measures that would amount to the greatest expansion of rights for same-sex couples in a decade.

But for some in the District's large and influential gay community, the package of tax and inheritance benefits is perhaps most notable for what it is not: a move to legalize gay marriage. With Massachusetts having legalized gay marriage and other states coming close, some gay activists are saying that now is the time to push for full marriage rights in the District.

Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) said he is "seriously considering" introducing a bill to legalize gay marriage in the District this year. He is hesitating because the gay community is split over whether a debate on the issue would advance or slow the push for rights, since any gay marriage bill probably would be vetoed by Congress, which has final say over D.C. laws.

"Not doing what you believe in is a very uneasy feeling," said Graham, one of two openly gay council members.

But David A. Catania (I-At Large), an openly gay council member who quit the Republican party over its opposition to gay marriage, warned: "If the District trots out too far, we become a cause celebre for Congress to whip on." A better strategy, he said, is to "try to make sustainable advances instead of ideal advances."

The package of bills before the council follows that philosophy, building on the rights the District gave gay couples in 1992, when the city passed a law recognizing domestic partnerships. That law extended medical decision-making powers and other benefits to same-sex couples.

The main bill, authored by council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) would give partners power of attorney, the ability to sue for negligence and immunity from testifying against one another. The bill also would allow the equivalent of prenuptial agreements and create alimony-like obligations in the event of a breakup. The measure would apply to heterosexual domestic-partner couples as well.

Another bill, sponsored by Graham and council member Vincent B. Orange Sr. (D-Ward 5), would require administrations to continue to have an office of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender affairs. The Mendelson and Orange-Graham bills, which passed in a preliminary vote, are scheduled for a final vote Wednesday.

The council has passed a measure to eliminate a tax penalty for residents who want to add their partners to their health insurance coverage. Another act extended discrimination protection to transgender people.

Mendelson's bill and the tax bill have so far breezed through the council. However, some gay groups oppose the creation of a Cabinet-level office for gay issues, calling it unnecessary -- even condescending. Catania said it implies that the gay community is somehow weak and needy.

Congress and the District have clashed over gay rights in the past. Congress blocked funding for the implementation of the District's domestic partnership law for a decade. The law finally received funding and took effect in 2002, enabling unmarried people who live with District government workers to purchase membership in a city health plan.

Many who went through that struggle say that pushing for gay marriage now -- with a Republican-led Congress and during an election year -- would be worse than folly. They fear it may cause Congress to take away rights already granted.

"On gay marriage legislation, the council is well aware of the risks," said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), who has advised council members not to push the issue.

This year, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) warned that the city would trigger a sharp backlash from Congress if it pursued gay marriage.

Graham said playing it safe comes with its own risks. Congress could still find that the proposed incremental measures go too far.

"We could end up in the same circumstance as we would have with a full gay marriage bill," Graham said.

Supporters of gay marriage say the only way gains are made on civil rights is to constantly fight for greater freedoms. They point to the increasing number of other jurisdictions that have civil unions and gay marriage and say change is happening faster than anyone would have dreamed.

The Washington Blade, a weekly newspaper that covers the gay and lesbian community, has editorialized in favor of passing gay marriage in the District. Executive Editor Chris Crain said it is time for District leaders to stand up and register their voices.

"There is something about duly elected representatives doing it, even if Congress turns it down," Crain said.

Mendelson said that theory is "wishful thinking, akin to tilting at windmills."

"Congress has been debating different measures that would go the other way," Mendelson said, referring to efforts in favor of a constitutional ban on gay marriages.

Bob Summersgill, the former president of the Gay and Lesbian Activist Alliance, said that he doesn't know anyone in the community who doesn't want the right but that "no one, and I mean no one, can figure out how we get there.''

If the District did pass a gay marriage law, Summersgill said, "there would be a huge, bipartisan effort in both houses to squash us, and there wouldn't be a peep from anywhere in the country."