|
CAROL SCHWARTZ
Friday, May 30, 2008
IN REGARDS TO the “Now is not the time for marriage in D.C.” column of May 23 by Peter Rosenstein, I would like to clarify my position on same-sex marriage — a position that was misrepresented by the author.
Since getting elected to the board of education in 1974, I have been one of the District’s strongest advocates for equal rights for the GLBT community. In fact, few straight officials have a better record, either professionally or personally, and I am proud of that.
I am also proud of the exemplary domestic partnership laws in the District of Columbia, which we continue to expand on a regular basis. But I do want to have protections in place for homosexual couples that are exactly equal to those that have always been enjoyed by heterosexual married couples — regardless of what you call it.
However, as we all know, the District of Columbia is a profoundly unique jurisdiction in that all of our laws must be approved by Congress. And perhaps more ominously, Congress can revoke laws that we already have on the books. At this point in time I am deeply concerned that if we attach the word “marriage” to any such laws, our existing domestic partnership laws, which are among the strongest in the country, may be put in jeopardy — a point that is often articulated by leaders of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance.
In his column, Rosenstein suggests that in 2009 Congress is likely to be amenable to same-sex marriage for the District. I am unsure. Keep in mind that even the major Democratic candidates for president, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, have gone on record as opposing same-sex marriage. I might add, however, that both — like me — are against a constitutional amendment that would ban such marriages.
DO I OPPOSE same-sex marriage? No. Do I have any personal, moral or religious issues with same-sex marriage? Absolutely not. But was I willing yesterday — or am I willing today — to risk sacrificing our hard-fought domestic partnership laws, which took 10 long years for Congress to allow us to implement? Again, the answer is no. Will tomorrow be better? Yes, I believe it will, and I certainly intend to help that day along.
Whether it was ending discrimination against teachers for their sexual orientation (as I worked to accomplish as a member of the board of education), or whether it was dealing with the AIDS crisis or other health issues (as I did during my 17 years as a member of the board of directors of Whitman-Walker Clinic), or whether it was getting rid of the congressional rider prohibiting gay adoptions (as I fought vigorously and successfully to achieve), or whether it was adding additional resources to our Commission on Human Rights (which I recently did) — I was there. And when that better tomorrow comes, I will be there, as well.
MOST OF THE leaders on this issue have understood my intentions and have acknowledged my commitment to the cause for a long time. A few have chosen, for their own purposes, to misunderstand and/or mischaracterize them. What is important, however, is that we do not let personal differences interfere with the attainment of our shared goal.
Make no mistake: a reasoned strategy will be needed in this town more than anywhere else because of our federal overlords. And we must recognize that on this issue there are lots of them, and they can be found in both political parties (albeit — and regrettably — much more so in mine). So it is incumbent upon all of us — Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Statehood/Green and others — who care about this important civil rights issue to work together to develop that reasoned and winning strategy.
During my career as an elected official, which now spans four decades, I have been loyal to, and protective of, the GLBT community. These are individuals who are not only my constituents, but who are also among my dearest friends. That loyalty and protectiveness will continue to pervade my thinking on this and every issue. When the day comes, and I hope it is very soon, I will be there — as always.
|
 |
