D.C. PARTNERS BILL CLEARS U.S. HOUSE
Social conservatives in the U.S. House of Representatives lost their attempt to continue blocking a domestic partners registry in the city of Washington, D.C. The far right had framed the issue as a threat to marriage, but a majority finally saw through that tactic and defeated the measure 226 to 194, on Sept. 25.
The appropriations bill for the District of Columbia has been a traditional vehicle for social conservatives in Congress in their cultural war on the GLBT community and others. It is a surrogate that allows them to deal with matters such as family law that is not an area of federal jurisdiction and it allows them to impose on D.C. what they would not dare try to impose on their own constituents. This year was no different.
D.C. passed a domestic partner law in 1992. Ever since then conservatives in Congress, under Democratic, Republican, and now split control of those chambers, have blocked use of local funds to implement the law.
"This was the one we said we were going to concentrate on this year," said Carl Schmid, a lobbyist who works with Republican D.C. city councilman David Catania. "We thought the mood had changed across America."
"Given what was happening in the world, in corporate America and in other cities and states, we decided this was the year that we were going to try to fund these benefits," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign ( HRC ) . At least 113 other jurisdictions and more than a third of the nation's largest companies have adopted domestic partner measures.
The broad coalition effort was successful in stripping out the antigay amendment in committee on a voice vote. But Rep. Dave Weldon ( R-Fla. ) reintroduced the amendment on the floor of the House, saying, "Marriage is under assault from culture, the media, and many other entities." He claimed that lifting the ban on implementation would "place heterosexual and homosexual cohabiting relationships on an equal footing with traditional marriage."
The openly gay members of Congress strenuously opposed the amendment. Republican Jim Kolbe ( Arizona ) , who had led the fight in committee, called it "an expression of unadulterated bigotry ... . The fact is that our traditional families have changed in American society. We should be uniting our country."
Tammy Baldwin ( D-Wisconsin ) said, "This amendment could mean the difference between a person having a sensible healthcare plan or no plan at all. It could mean the difference between wellness and illness for the families of city employees." She urged them to accept the decision of local authorities.
"Let us be very clear," said Barney Frank ( D-Mass. ) , speaking of certain Members' dislike of homosexuals, "I am far beyond losing sleep about what the Taliban or anybody else thinks about the way I live. But what I assert is my right to live that way equally and freely as an American, and I implore my colleagues, what motivates them to inflict pain on fellow citizens who have done them no wrong?"
Tom DeLay ( R-Texas ) , the enforcer who many believe really runs the Republican party in the House of Representatives, rarely speaks during floor debate. He attempted to rally support for the amendment by arguing that failure to do so "would radically undermine the special privileges and incentives of marriage by distributing them without requiring the unique commitment between a man and a woman."
But when the final vote was counted, 41 Republicans joined with 184 Democrats and one independent to defeat Weldon's amendment. "It was extremely significant because we beat Tom DeLay," said Schmid. "They used him on the floor of the House, and he lost. I think that is very significant."
"It's obviously historic," said Kevin Ivers, spokesman for Log Cabin Republicans. "I don't think we would have gotten that many Republicans two years ago, particularly from California. But they have become educated on the issue" because of the debate going on in that state legislature and local jurisdictions.
Stachelberg cautioned against premature celebration: "A hurdle has been crossed, but we still have to worry about the Senate and about the administration." Though she admits that the Senate has always been less of a problem than the House on these social issues.
A Boy Scouts amendment had a less pleasing outcome. Offered by right-wing firebrand John Hostettler ( R-Ind. ) , it prohibited use of local funds to enforce a ruling against the Scouts by the D.C. Human Rights Commission.
In June that body ruled that the Scouts had discriminated against two gay scoutmasters, in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act. It used grounds other than those employed by the U.S. Supreme Court in allowing the Scouts to discriminate. That decision has been appealed.
D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton ( D ) argued that such an amendment undercuts the legal process and should be defeated. But opponents had made a strategic decision to concentrate on the domestic-partners amendment and virtually conceded this one. It passed by a vote of 262 to 152, as 54 Democrats joined 207 Republicans.
The D.C. appropriations measure that passed the House has 34 riders attached to it that do such things as deny the expenditure of local funds for abortion services and to operate a needle-exchange program to reduce the spread of HIV and other blood-bourn diseases.
Work on the bill in the Senate appropriations subcommittee stalled unexpectedly last week. Schmid lays it to Trent Lott's maneuvering on social issues. But Schmid does not have significant concern with the Senate."If we don't get what we want in committee, then we have got to go to the floor, because we can win there."
