Gay Rights Convergence
This week, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law saying that the District will recognize marriages between same-sex couples performed in other states. Mayor Adrian Fenty will have to sign the law, of course, and Congress and President Obama will also have to sign it. If the bill makes it to Congress, Ezra Klein points out that it will likely land in the lap, at least temporarily, of Rep. Stephen Lynch, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia Subcommittee.
Lynch, coincidentally, will also probably have some jurisdiction over the House version of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, once it's introduced by Rep. Tammy Baldwin. That's good news for proponents of the expansions of rights for gay and lesbian couples. As New England gay newspaper Bay Windows reported in 2003, Lynch started his career with a somewhat socially conservative reputation but since has won the admiration and respect of his gay constituents, and a 100 percent vote rating from the gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign. It also places a lot of responsibility in Lynch's hands: he could end up guiding the progress of two of the biggest gay rights issues to come up in the new Obama administration.
And in a sign that the Obama administration is paying attention to gay and lesbian federal employees, John Berry has invited Frank Kameny, the pioneering gay rights activist who fought for gay federal employees to be able to serve without fear of reprisal or dismissal, to his swearing in. Kameny writes to my colleague Jon Rauch:
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Staff Correspondent Alyssa Rosenberg takes a look at news affecting the management and operations of the massive federal bureaucracy.
Finally - thank God. We need equality.
ali sue Posted Thursday, April 9, 2009 11:14 AMWhat is next, a National Gay & Lesbian Month? Please wake up folks, people are not born gay. Hogwash.
Viv Posted Thursday, April 9, 2009 1:20 PMAli, that government may or may not recognizes marriage between same-sex couples as the same as marriage between heterosexual couples, is not a civil rights issue. To claim that this is somehow a "equality" thing is simply a Red Herring. Marriage as an institution was created by God. Marriage was and still continues to be defined as a covenant between a man and a woman and God to be united in a relationship. It is only after-the-fact that government has decided that protecting this institution is good for society as a whole. This isn't about a "natural" right, such as the right to liberty. Homosexuals have no "natural" right to marriage and there is no societal interest in protecting an institution such as homosexual marriage. Propogation of the species ultimately requires a male and a female component. Families are the fundamental unit of society. Society is best served when children are brought up in homes with a husband and wife who are committed by covenant in a relationship. Despite any exceptions to this scenario, there is no better environment for children to be reared. Ultimately, it is a huge blunder for any society to attempt to redefine an institution that they have no right to redefine anyways. Kind Regards, Kim
Kim Posted Thursday, April 9, 2009 2:34 PMKim is absolutely correct. Homosexuality is a sickness, not an equal rights issue. Anyone that endorses or supports recognition of anything other than homosexuality being an immoral condition that requires treatment is equally immoral and needs assistance as well. The only support that should be offered to homosexuals is counseling/treatment to address their sickness and teach them to function as human beings are intended to.
American Posted Thursday, April 9, 2009 4:44 PMTo Kim and American: To say that marriage is simply a relationship defined by god or a church ignores the fact that our country has laws regarding marriage. If you get married in the church, the state will not recognize that marriage without the state license/certificate. The religious ceremony is just that. . . a ceremony. I understand that the ceremony may hold a deeper meaning for the involved parties, but it alone does not consitute a legally binding marriage. That being said, since marriage is a civil arrangement, denying that right is a civil rights issue.
wp Posted Friday, April 10, 2009 7:32 AMKim, YOU define marriage "as a covenant between a man and a woman and God to be united in a relationship." How do you think an atheist defines marriage? How do you think others who do not share your Judeo-Christian view of God define marriage?
The United States is not a theocracy. Though it is a nation of Christians, it is not a Christian nation. Laws applicable to everyone, be they atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Shintu, etc., should be based on secular principles applicable to everyone, not religious principles. Rights granted by the State to some should not be denied to others because of purely religious reasons. And no matter how you dress this question, EVERY argument against homosexual marriage is either based on religion or has so many exceptions as to be meaningless.
wallyp Posted Monday, April 13, 2009 8:03 AM