http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR2009040702200.html

By Nikita Stewart and Tim Craig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, April 7, 2009; 1:57 PM

The D.C. Council voted today to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, on the same day that Vermont became the fourth state to legalize same-sex unions.

Domestic partnerships are already legal in the nation's capital. But yesterday's vote, billed as an important milestone in gay rights, explicitly recognizes relocated gay married couples as married.

The initial vote was 12-0. The unanimous vote sets the stage for future debate on legalizing same-sex marriage in the District and a clash with Congress, which approves the city's laws under Home Rule. The council is expected to take a final vote on the legislation next month.

Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), who is gay, called the amendment a matter of "basic fairness."

The city's laws on same-sex unions have been murky, he explained. Couples ask, he said, "Is my marriage valid in D.C.? For years now, it has not been clear."

"It's high time we send a clear, unequivocal message to those persons of the same sex and married in another jurisdiction that their marriage is valid in D.C.," said Graham, who added, "I hope this city recognizes this is a human rights struggle."

Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), who is also gay, predicted it was only a matter of time before the council also takes up a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the District. "It's no secret that I have been working on legislation that would take us further," he said. "This is the march toward human rights and equality. This is not the march toward special rights. This is the equal march and that march is coming here."

Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), who has been chipping away at barriers for same-sex couples for years, said he saw the legislation as one that is in keeping with the city's laws. "Some are saying it's an important step. I am saying it's a simple step," said Mendelson, who authored the legislation.

Council member Harry Thomas Jr. (D-Ward 5) called the amendment "long overdue."

"We as a council need to stand in the right place and take the gray area out," he said.

Maybe sooner than even I though, we might just one day be done with this question and on to other issues. No more using it as a political tool. Still sceptical but encouraged.

down with discrimination

I just do not see what the problem with Gay marriage is, to me it's always been a nonissue, other than by blocking one group of citizens from having the same rights as everyone else, you leave the door wide open for Totalitarianism.

I think it should be a non-issue. However, so many people are offended by it and don't want it to happen, for whatever reason they have.

I know, it's funny, because it seems those same people tend to be the ones who are so upset that Obama's Admin. seems to be coming after guns. Well, there's the problem, those Gun lovers let Government do whatever they wanted to with the Gay folks, so now they are facing the same medicine (poison) with their gun rights.

I'm so sick of hearing about how gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. You want to know what the threat to traditional marriage is? Divorce for 35 bucks.
Being able to get married in Vegas after drinking enough Jager Bombs to drop Rush Limbaugh.

Those things are threats to traditional marriage, not 2 dudes who want the same rights to be miserable, to get insurance, to visit their mate in the hospital as the rest of America has. If Gay marriage isn't okay, how about interracial relationships? Those offend people too, should we Amend the Constitution to ban those as well?

This topic is why we were designed to be a Democratic Republic and not a Pure Democracy, because Pure Democracy is mob rule where 51% of the population can force their views, ideals and moral view on the other 49%.

My idea on this topic is this: I would suggest you stop worrying about what those 2 chicks are doing next door and start focusing on what's going on in your own home.

War makes an excellent point here.

"You want to know what the threat to traditional marriage is? Divorce for 35 bucks.
Being able to get married in Vegas after drinking enough Jager Bombs to drop Rush Limbaugh."

Thank you for stating the obvious.

Honestly, I would love to see these focus on the family types addressing the issue of divorce.

It is way too easy to get married. Having been divorced I am not sure even in a no fault state with no children it was easy...but...

Advocates of what they term "traditional marriage" seem unable to discuss what's wrong with society and marriage these days. Instead they go after gay marriage. That's always been a real puzzler to me.

I wonder how many on this site who oppose gay marriage are themselves divorced or have had other failed relationships?

Does it upset them to think that people who live a lifestyle they consider immoral or perverted might have a more successful marriage than they were able to have?

I always thought that was one of the things that upset some neocons so much about Bill and Hilary. While Newt, Giuliani and other conservatives were divorced or on second or even third wives Bill and Hilary stayed together. They embodied commitment in the face of weakness and betrayal.

Don't like gay marriage? Don't marry someone of the same sex.

Well said!

They just use it as an excuse to try to make people believe that gay marriage is bad and hurting others.

Wow, I remember hearing people go after Hillary for not dumping Bill. I though why is this their business. Bill and Hilary had a special relationship to eachother, it was obvious. If their sex life didn't meet the standard that some might wish, they had much more going between eachother than sex. Some thing more rare, a genuine respect and liking of eachother on a much deeper level than sex.

Gun lovers let the government do what they want with gay folks?

That is an interesting observation.

I still see no problem with it...but that's me i guess. i don't thikn anyone has a right to say people can't get married (as long as they are consenting adults)

and no animals gio

In my experience, the most hard line gun folks are antigay- However, I lived in Kansas for a long time.

Now, to be clear, it was an example, meaning that when you let one group be discriminated against, you only get what you deserve when that machine, we call government, turns it's gaze on your activities.

I understand. I think in some cases that might be true, but I am a hardcore gun rights/owner, and I have defended, on this board,the rights of gays to be married.

That's good to know not everyone will fit into that category. I think it's true in a lot of cases, but definitely not all.

Actually war I know you don't mean in general, I hope cuz I have met some pretty hard core gun folks up here, and they don't have a problem with gays wanting to marry. Something I was quite suprised by frankly. Though I also know that there are some hard core gun owners that do but they also tend not to be all that friendly to anyone they consider different.

I have a group of 32 Vietnam Vet buddies, all into their guns big time, and frankly a bunch of great guys, I had a blast with them, I never once felt like an outsider with them. Guess I have just lucked out in this life to meet some really open minded people.

I really wish we could just end all this and get it over with and move on. I am starting to feel a bit more encouraged.

It could have something to do with the area you live in? Either way, that's a good thing.

YAY

Hey when the first neighbor you meet tells you that there are no blacks allowed in this town, you know that your not in LA.. LOL I never thought I would move to a small town but here I am.