8/14/2019 Mark Levine, Counsel, Getrude Stein Democratic Club, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning

1/8

Mark II. Levine,counsel n behalfof the GertrudeSteinDemocraticClub,respectfullysubmits he following Memorandum f Points andAuthorities n supportof thepropositionhat heReferendumoncemingheJury andMarriageAmendment ct of 2009is not aproper ubjector areferendumn the Districtof Columbia ecauset authorizesdiscriminationn violationof the DC HumanRightsAct.

I. BACKGROUNDOF "JURYAND MARRIAGEAMENDMENTACT OF 2009"On May 6, 2009,Districtof ColumbiaMayorAdrianM. Fentysignednto aw

theJuryandMarriageAmendment ct of 2009 'JAMA), which heDC City Councilapprovedy a voteof 12 o 1.JAMA will becomeaw n the Districtof Columbiafollowing hedecline fCongresso exercisets 30-day ight to review he egislationundersection 02(c)(1) f theDishict of ColumbiaHomeRuleAct.

JAMA was a clarification of DC 1aw.Under JAMA, the District of Columbiaexpressly ecognizeshe valid marriagesof DC residents egally entered nto in anotherjurisdiction,without regard o the sex or sexualorientationofthe marriedparties.l

Prior to JAMA, DC law was unclearon the questionof recogrritionof out-of-statemarriages.Although in 1995 he DC Court ofAppeals did interpret he gender-neutralDC Code as making llegal any same-sexmarriagesperformed n the District,2 he court

' SeeJAMA, Section3(b) andpasslz. The law also modified the sectionbaming incestuousmaniages Section1283,D.C. Code$46-l0l) to make he sectiongender-rcutral.JAMA, Section3(a).2Deqn v. Distict ofColumbia,653 A.Zd. 307 (DC. 1995).The plain statutory anguageofcurentDC law then and now is gender-neutral n marriagesperformed n DC, neither expresslyprohibiting norauthorizingsuchmarriagesbetween ndividuals of the samegender.SeeTitle 46, Chapter4, D.C. OfficialCode g$ 46-401 et seq.But the Court in Dear found that the DC Council would not have ntendedsuch a''major definitional change" n 1977as allowing its gay residents o marry without expresslymentioning t,Deen, 653 A.Zd at320, given the egislative history ofthe statute, he ncest definitions therein, he''traditionalurderstandingof 'mariage'," and case-law rom other states,none of which allowed same-sexmarriageback n 1995.Dean,passim.The court noted, or example, hat the curent DC marriagestatutestemmed rom a Congressionalaw that, at one time, regulated slavemaniages" using the term "husband"and "wife.'' 653 A.2d, at 313 n. 10 (referencingormer D.C. Code $30-l l6).

8/14/2019 Mark Levine, Counsel, Getrude Stein Democratic Club, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning

2/8

madeclear hat ts decisionwasonly oneof statutorynterpretationnd hat heDC CityCouncilcouldeasily ectifu hematter: [T]heCouncil,andonly heCouncil, anprovidefthegaycouplewho suedo obtaina marriageicense]with the elief hey seek."Dean,652A.2d 362 Terry,../.,oncurring).

At the imeof this 1995decision, o staten thenationpermitted aycouplesomarry.So he Courtof Appeals ndentandablyailed o addresst hat ime he ssueofwhethermarriagesof gaycouplesperformedout of statewouldbe legally recognizednDC. In fact,accordingo theplain anguage f DC'smarriage tatutesrom 1995untiltoday, heDC Code,evenpre-JAMA,contained oprohibition n recognition f anotherjurisdiction'smarriage fgay coupl"r.' Bot "u.n though here's o such anguagen theCode equiring nequalreatment fmarriages utsideDC based n sexual rientation,theDC Council eared courtmight onceagain nfer an ntention y theDC Council oconduct iscriminationheCouncildid not want o do.

So heDC CouncilpassedAMA to cleanup anypossible mbiguityn the aw.From thispoint on, the DC Govemment'sntent and aw arecrystal clem: DC willexpresslyecognize nymarriagelegallyenterednto n anotherurisdiction etweenpersons f thesame ex hat s recognized svalid n that urisdiction"andnot expresslyprohibitedy theprovisionsn footnote below.a

3The D C Code cuFelltly oly prOhibis recognitlon ofvalid marrlages perfOmled oudolI)C ifsald nlaIIlages atei

inccsmous Or big 3us(SCCtOn 1283,D C Code 46401), judlcially declared void(SeCt10n 1284,D C Codes4602),or not conscnted to,becausc(lle Or boarlics wclC undCr thc age of consent(16 yettS OfagC),(b)COnSCnt was procurcd by forcc or fraud,Or(c)One Or bOtll partlcs wcrC ullablc byrcason of mclltalincaPaCity to g e valid conscntto n ariagc"(SeCtOn 1285,D C Codes46-403)4JAMA,Scction 1287a,to bc cOdirled as D C Code46407a

8/14/2019 Mark Levine, Counsel, Getrude Stein Democratic Club, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning

3/8

II. PROPOSED REFERENDUMOnMay27,2009,HarryR. Jackson r., hepastor f theHopeChristianChurch

in Beltsville, Maryland,proposeda Referendumo repealJAMA. (Mr. Jackson wearsunderoath o bea "registereduali{iedelector n theDistrictof Columbia" ut apressaccounteportshatasofyesterday, e continueso both eside ndbe registeredo voteat oneof his Maryland omes.s) ackson'sSummary tatement"laimsa " T,lo' ote othe eferendum ill continuehe currentaw ofrecognizing nly marriage etweenpersonsf the opposite ex,"This formulations confusing nd,asdrafted,naccurate."Currentaw" posfJAMA doesnot allowDC to discriminaten thebasisof sexorsexual rientation.And evenundercurrentawpre-JAMA,asnotedabove, o DCstatuteequired uchdiscrimination.t is unclearwhether ackson'sepeal f JAMA, ifsuccessful,ould etumDC to its pre-JAMAambiguity r do whatJackson eeks:activelymakeDC'sgaycitizens eparatendunequal y "unmarrying"hemwhilestraightcitizens n the exactsamecircumstance re espected.

But Jackson's eferendumhould otproceed.On June10, heDistrictofColumbiaBoardof Elections ndEthics "BoardofElections")will considerhequestionof whether ackson'sroposedeferendumis aproper ubjector a referendumn theDistrictof Columbia."SeeBoardofElection's ublicNotice or June10,2009hearing. odecidehis, he Boardof Electionsmustdetermine, mong ther hings:

1 If the votersof theDistrictof Columbia ave egislative owerby referendumto require heDistrictof Columbia overnmento discriminate gainstDCresidents olelyon thebasisof theirgender nd/or exual rientation?'See . The article is attachedas anexhibit hereto.

8/14/2019 Mark Levine, Counsel, Getrude Stein Democratic Club, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning

4/8

2. With regard, ay, o valid marriagesegallyperformedn Iowa, f DC votersmay force the DC governmenthrough eferendumo makedistinctionsamong ouplesmarriedn Iowa hat owa tselfdoesnot recognize?May DCtreat he same alid Iowamarriagesifferently ased olelyon differencesnthemarriedcouples'genderand sexualorientation?3. May a DC referendumequireDC to recogrizemarriages utsidetsjurisdictionasvalid n DC only or DC'sstraight itizenswhilerequiring heDC Governmento "unmarry"DC'sgaycouples egally married n the exactsameurisdictionsolelyon thegroundhat"DC gaypeople annot e allowedto have hesamemarriage enefit hatDC straights njoy"?4. May themajorityof DC votersdenyDC'sgayminorityequal ightsunder helaw in DC, even hough heexpressanguage f theHumanRightsAct banssuchdiscrimination,even houghDC Referendumaw bans eferendummeasuresn violationof theHumanRightsAct, andeven hough he DC CityCouncilhaspassed 1awexpresslyequiring heDC governmento recognizea// its citizensmarried utsidets urisdictionequally nder he aw withoutregard o theirgenderor sexualorientation?A DC REFERENDUMMAY NOT VIOLATETHE HUMAN RIGHTSACTThe nitiative,Referendum,ndRecallProceduresct of 1979, samended,

establishesroceduresor enactingaw n theDistrictof Columbiahrough oterinitiatives. .C.Code i-1001.i6."Upon eceipt feach roposednitiative rreferendummeasure,he Boardshall refuse o accept he measuref the Board finds: . .(C) Themeasure uthorizes,r wouldhave heeffectof authorizing, iscrimination nderchapter 4ofTitle 2." D.c. code$ 1-1001.16bx1xc) (ernphasisdded). he asrsection f Chapter 4of Title 2, theDC HumanRightsAct,provides s ollows:

'$ 2-f 402.73 pplication o the DistrictGovernment.Exceptasotherwise rovided or by District aw or whenotherwiseawfully andreasonablyermitted,t shallbe anunlawfuldiscriminatoryracticeor a Districtgovemment gencyor office to limit or refuse o provideany facility, service,prcgram,or benefit o any individualon the basisof an individual'sactualorperceived:ace,color, religion,nationalorigin, sex,age,marital status, ersonalappearance,exual rientation,enderdentityor expression,amilial status, .."

8/14/2019 Mark Levine, Counsel, Getrude Stein Democratic Club, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning

5/8

TheBomdof Election asno discretionn the matter. t shallrefuse o acceptheproposedeferendummeasuref themeasure uthorizes iscriminationor has he effectof authorizing iscriminationnder heHumanRightsAct. Sodoes ackson'sreferendum uthorizediscriminationorhave he effect of doing so? Actually, it goesmuch urther hat that.If Jackson's eferendum oeswhat he wants t to do, the measurewouldnot ust authorize iscrimination;t would equiredtscimination.Jackson eeksto force he DC Govemment, gainsthe will of its elected epresentatives,o treatidentical ut-of-state arriages ifferentlyand orcea "separatendunequal" olicyonthebacksof gayDC residents, hile shaightDC residents ouldcontinueo have heirmarriagesespecteds"first-class itizens".

It is beyond isputehatmarriages a benefit.And theHumanRightsAct makesit unlawful or anyDistrictgovemmentgencyo deny hatbenefit o someone asedsolelyon his or her sexor sexual rientation.And yet hat s exactlywhatJacksoneeksto do with his referendum.He seeks o make t law that a man'smarriage o a woman srespectedut a woman'smarriageo a woman s not, solelyon hebasisof hergender.He seekso requireDC to recognizealidout-of-state arriagesnly f thatmarriageconsists f straight ersons hile denying ecognition fequallyvalid marriagesperformednder dentical ircumstancesn thesameocation olelyonthebasis hat heindividualsn thedisfavoredmarriage ontract regay.

In addition o sexandsexual rientation iscrimination,ackson eekseligiousdiscrimination: o establishis personaleligionas he Law overother eligions hatteach he equalityofall mankind,heir equaldignity n theeyes fGod andequal ightsunder he Law. Jackson'shurch andiscriminate ll it wantson thebasisofsex, sexual

8/14/2019 Mark Levine, Counsel, Getrude Stein Democratic Club, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning

6/8

orientation,gendsr dentity, religion,and even ace,andhe can ulminate againstgaypeoplen his Church,but he cannot orce he DC Governmento do thesame.Neithercanhe nor even hemajority ofDC residents hroughdirect referendum an orcetheirgovernmento mistreat heir fellow citizens. Only the District's elected epresentativesrCongress an do that and henonly to the extentconsistentwith the United StatesConstitution.

Some fthosewho supportmarriage iscriminationgainst aycouples rguethat would not bediscriminationby the DC Govemmentagainstts own gaycitizens oforceDC to "unmarry" aycouples, ecauseay ndividuals ouldust eave heir ifepartners ndmany straight eoplensteado getequal enefits.A similarargumentmadewithout regard or the emotionalanguish ufferedby forcibly separatingifeJongcompanionsor the raudof marrying olely o getmarriage enefits)wasunsuccessfullymaden the Supreme ourtcase floving v. Virginia 1967),whenproponentsfbanningnterracialmarriage rguedheirpositionwasnot aviolationof equal rotectionunder he aw becausewhitescouldstill marrywhites"and blacks ouldstill marryblacks."But, ofcourse,hebanon marriages fgay coupless far moreseverehananinterracialmarriage an. An interracialmarriage an,asawful as t is, at eastallowsindividualso many someone ith whom t is possibleo havesexual ndemotionalintimacy, venf he or shemustmarrysomeone f theirown race. But if gaypeople rebanned rom marrying eachother, hey are effectivelyprohibited rom marryinganyone.

The clear esultofa banon recognition fgay coupless to consign aycitizensof DC never o obtain he same enefitof marriagehatstraight itizens njoy. And thatis inconsistent ith theDC HumanRightsAct. But if marriagenequalitys inconsistent

8/14/2019 Mark Levine, Counsel, Getrude Stein Democratic Club, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning

7/8

8/14/2019 Mark Levine, Counsel, Getrude Stein Democratic Club, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning

8/8

complainedwas non-existent-the uncertaintyof Dean'sstatutoryconstructions goneaswel1.TheBoardofElections lall refuseo accept ny eferendum easure uthorizingdiscriminationor having he effectof authorizingdiscriminationby a District govemmentagencyagainstproviding anybenefit to any ndividual on the basisof the ndividual'sreligion, ex,sexual rientation,nd/or enderdentityor expression. s Jackson'sreferendum oesexactly hat(andeven equiressuchdiscrimination ather hanmerelyauthorizingt), it mustbe not be accepted s a referendummeasure. f the residents fDC want o treat heirgayminorityassecond-classitizens, eparatendunequal,heywill have o do so hroughheir electedepresentativesr Congress. ccording o DC1aw,t is ustnot heproper ubject f a referendumo putminoritydiscriminationp formajorityvote.

TheGertrudeSteinDsmocraticClub respectfully equestshat theDC Board ofElections ndEthics eject heReferendumn the JuryandMarriageAct of2009proposed y Harry Jackson n thegroundshat t is notapropersubject or referendumin theDistrictof Columbia.

Respectfuly submitted,

/ Mark H. LevineCounsel n behalfoftheGertrude teinDemocratic lub

Dated: une9, 2009

G e r t r u d e S t e i n D e l n o c r a t i c C l u b1929 18th St NW,PMB 2000Washington,DC 20009