Facebook
Brian testified at the DC hearings on same-sex marriage in DC. Read his testimony after the jump!
The Washington, DC City Council Committee on the Judiciary held hearings from public witnesses on October 26 and November 2 to learn about public opinion regarding proposed legislation (B18-482) to recognize same-sex marriage within the District of Columbia. The District has, for some time now, protected people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and this would be another, progressive step towards full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and all queer people who wish to recognize their full human rights in Washington, DC.
Information on the bill can be found on the District''s website: http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/lims/legislation.aspx. 10 of the 13 City Council members support the legislation, which is expected to be voted on by the full council in December. Over 260 public witnesses shared their views over the past two hearing days--in an incredible display of civic engagement.
The bill, titled "The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Act" would enshrine in law recognition of same-sex marriages by the government of the District of Columbia while also allowing religious institutions of whatever denomination to continue to practice and perform marriages on the basis of their respective religious doctrines.
Opponents of the bill, noting the majority support of the City Council, argued throughout the hearings that the proposed measure should be put to a vote by the full district in a referendum, as has been done in political jursdictions across the country. Very few of these referenda have resulted in marriage equality (see: Prop 8 in California , Florida's "Amendment 2", etc.). The heated referendum in Maine on "Question 1" is another such example and analysts expect it to be "razor thin."
The Washington, DC City Council Committee on the Judiciary held hearings from public witnesses on October 26 and November 2 to learn about public opinion regarding proposed legislation (B18-482) to recognize same-sex marriage within the District of Columbia. The District has, for some time now, protected people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and this would be another, progressive step towards full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and all queer people who wish to recognize their full human rights in Washington, DC.
Information on the bill can be found on the District''s website: http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/lims/legislation.aspx. 10 of the 13 City Council members support the legislation, which is expected to be voted on by the full council in December. Over 260 public witnesses shared their views over the past two hearing days--in an incredible display of civic engagement.
The bill, titled "The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Act" would enshrine in law recognition of same-sex marriages by the government of the District of Columbia while also allowing religious institutions of whatever denomination to continue to practice and perform marriages on the basis of their respective religious doctrines.
Opponents of the bill, noting the majority support of the City Council, argued throughout the hearings that the proposed measure should be put to a vote by the full district in a referendum, as has been done in political jursdictions across the country. Very few of these referenda have resulted in marriage equality (see: Prop 8 in California , Florida's "Amendment 2", etc.). The heated referendum in Maine on "Question 1" is another such example and analysts expect it to be "razor thin."
Many of those who support referendum votes argue that such a vote more accurately reflects the "will of the people." Yet this argument is founded on a belief that tyranny by the majority and oppression of minorities is acceptable in a pluralistic society. Underpinning this credo is a belief that through oppressing minorities, we can "preserve our way of life." Apparently, these advocates for oppression don't care much for American history, or the belief in the power of diversity that we hold as a country and as a city in Washington, DC.
In an era in which youth civic engagement is constantly scrutinized, what struck me about today's hearing was not just the impassioned and visible support for marriage equality in Washington, but the political, economic, racial, ethnic, educational, and all kinds of diversity of those who support it.
Further, the vocal presence of young people at the hearing who testified as members of a generation who, as one witness said, "does not see this issue [marriage equality] as an issue at all" left me excited for a future in which my peers and I will be cleaning up the mess of those who sought to "preserve our values" by denying me my rights to full equality. This is reflected in "referenda" votes supported by opponents of marriage equality: in all but one of the states (my home state, Florida) that considered sexual minority equality (gay marriage, gay adoption, etc) referenda in 2008, voters aged 18-29 years old voted in favor of equality for sexual minorities and/or against legislation that would have codified discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
I have some work to do in my home state, but on the whole, onward and upward! I'm looking forward to the Millennial Revolution!
My testimony from the hearing is below:
-------------------------------------------------------
Good morning council members. I would like to begin my remarks by thanking all of you who have supported the introduction of the legislation up for public debate today. The very fact that we are able to sit and have this conversation reveals leagues about your personal and political commitments to social, political, and economic equality for all of the citizens that you represent.
I chose to testify today for several reasons. First and foremost, I am a gay male and I live, work, and pay taxes in the District of Columbia. I don’t know if I want to get married, but I do know that the government should not be making the choice for me.
Second, I came to DC when I was 17 to attend college. To me, DC is not just another city; it is the place that, for the first time in my life, I was openly gay with my friends, teachers, and colleagues. It is the place where—unlike my home state of Florida—I knew I was protected by law from job discrimination on the basis of my sexual orientation. It is the place where, yes, I may, one day, want to be married. And I deserve to have that option.
Third, since my arrival in DC, I have gained so much from the immense educational, occupational, and recreational opportunities that the District offers its citizens. I have lived in four different neighborhoods in three different Wards. What I have gathered from these experiences is that the District is nothing if it is not diverse. The city itself is a microcosm of America’s multitude of ethnic, national, economic, educational, religious, political, and yes, sexual and gender demographics.
No, DC is not an urban utopia. But like many cosmopolitan metropolises, this diversity is reflected in a populace that, like it or not, must get along. Our social and political value system in DC is therefore constructed upon a shared individual and collective commitment to developing an environment in which the multitude of different belief systems, backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives can be respected and constructively contribute to the continued evolution of the city.
There are those here today who have come to voice disagreement with the proposed legislation. I stand in solidarity with them in their commitment to civic engagement and participation in the political process. However, I must adamantly voice my support for the proposed legislation as it promotes equality and inclusion for many DC citizens, without imposing any set of beliefs on another person or group who may or may not want me to be able to marry the person I love. It builds on the tradition of inclusion and respect for diversity that rests at the heart of the District’s character.
Finally, I am not here to testify simply because I am gay, or because I live in the District, but also because this is a battle for equality that is happening all over the nation, and all over the world. I was raised in a moderately religious household, attending Church every Sunday and saying prayers each night before I went to bed. I attended religious school for seven years until college. My family’s religion makes it very clear that according to doctrine, homosexual acts are sinful.
So I tell all that to you, and now I ask you to imagine my parents’ reaction when not only I, but my sister and I both came out to our family as homosexuals. They were upset. Not because of who we were, but because of what we would face in terms of discrimination by society. "From discrimination," they said, "we cannot protect you."
Things did not add up the way they were supposed to. But such is life. My sister and I are who we are. All of us—regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ethnicity, class, education, nationality, ability, etc., is part of some group that makes us in some way “different.” Thankfully for my sister and me, our family loves us and we love ourselves for our differences—even if it took some difficult reconciliation with our belief systems. My heterosexual brother was able to be married this past June in Florida in an amazing celebration. All of my family is looking forward to celebrating that same joy with my sister and I should we also find partners and decide to get married. I only hope that our right to do so is enshrined in law.
I mention this final piece because while the proposed legislation would apply to the District of Columbia, its symbolic reach goes far beyond the District’s borders. As I noted, your leadership and commitment to equality cannot be overstated. The proposed legislation stands as a sign that just as other political jurisdictions are weighing proposals to actively exclude homosexuals from society, the District is embracing its diversity and embracing equality and human rights as a fundamental part of its social contract. It is a sign that this type of political leadership can be taken, and that it must be taken.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Comments
[Add New Comment]
Brilliant testimony! :-)
# Posted By Mahayana
| 11/3/09 12:24 PM
| Report
| Reply
[Add New Comment]
Get email updates and action alerts: