Back to Referendum Concerning the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009 main page
|
Columns DCWatch
Archives Elections Government and People Budget issues Organizations |
COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA THE JOHN A.WILSON BUILDING 1350 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20004 June 9, 2000 Errol R, Arthur Re: Proposed "Referendum Concerning the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009" Dear Mr. Arthur and Members of the Board: I am writing to express opposition to the proposed measure, "Referendum Concerning the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009," as I believe it is not a proper subject for a referendum as it "authorizes, or would have the effect of authorizing, discrimination prohibited under Chapter 14 of Title 2", as described in D.C. Official Code §1-1001.16(b)(1)(C). Chapter 14 of Title 2 of the D.C. Official Code, commonly known as the Human Rights Act, is very broad and prohibits discrimination in 19 different categories for almost every reason, other than merit. The stated intent of the Council in passing the law in 1974, and reaffirmed by the elected Council under home Rule in 1977 is stated in §2-1401.01:
The proposed referendum would run counter to the public policy objectives of our Human Rights Act in both letter and spirit, and would prohibit the D.C. Government from providing recognition, and therefore service, programs, and benefits to same-sex couples legally married in other jurisdictions that are provided to other District married couples. Since this measure would permit discrimination not permitted under our Human Rights Act, this matter is therefore not properly a legal subject for a referendum. There is a very long list of services, programs and benefits which the District accords to married couples — more than 250 rights and responsibilities — which would be denied to same-sex couples legally married in other jurisdictions if this referendum were approved and passed. Denial of any one of these rights accorded to married couples would be sufficient to render the proposed measure an improper subject referendum per §1-1001.16(b)(1)(C). In short, denial of marriage recognition to legally married same-sex couples, as the proposed measure would do, is prohibited under the Human Rights Act. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. I hope you will find the proposed measure, "Referendum Concerning the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009," is not a proper subject of referendum as it "authorizes, or would have the effect of authorizing, discrimination prohibited under Chapter 14 of Title 2." Sincerely,
.d under Chapter 14 ofnde.Hbed in D,C.Offloitt Code s l1001` lhintlon l¦19 direrent.at.Hes f.r almost.... r.880Hj cll h PasshB th.w in 197¦.d reafF.ed by th.. 1.... CoHEOll und“ rr...,."ror..c..`.......... '9/6.'.,..,...friPrg . IF ttFPra.r0 ... .a.. ....D...r9/.r7..a,....'.a.. Tho ProP. 8ed referendul would rlH. ountertc he pubL.Pohcy..·CiV.s
ofOw a¦d tteref..ce,PT. re s. PmVidhg reoo"ti6¦3rams,and benents to samem ot mmttet cowles.Since th. tions hat are providtt to. t dsclllnmBtion n.ttghtt Act,his matterig gnl subi.
Thereis a very long list of emricee,programsaud baefits whioh the District accordsto grnrriedcouples-morethan250 rights and rospousibilities --which would
bedeoied to ssmg sexcouplesLegallymaried in other juriedietionsif this rEf€rendumwerc approved rnd passed. Denialofany oueof these rights accordedto maried coupleewould be suffioisnt to ronder the measurean improper subjectreferondumpcr $ 1-1001.16(bXlXC). Ia lhort, denialof lnoposedmarriagerecognitionto legally maried
sarne-sexcouplas,asthoproposedmearuf€would do' is Tbank)ou for your attentionto this important matter. I hope you will find thppnrposed nleasurle,',Refercndun c.oncerningthe Jr:ry and }vlarriage AmendmentAct of 2009," ig uot a propersubjectofroferendum as it "authorizes,or would havethe effect of euthorizing, discriminationptohibited undet Chsptor14 of Title 2," CorurcilmemberJack Evans
|
Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)
