- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- March 2009
- October 2006
- July 2002
America's Leading Gay News Source
Vote on D.C. anti-bullying bill expected in fall
Action on legislation pending before the D.C. Council that would prohibit bullying in the city’s schools, parks, and libraries, among other places, has been put on hold until the Council returns from its summer recess in September.
A separate bill of interest to the LGBT community that would allow a notary public to perform a civil marriage at a location other than the D.C. courthouse remains stalled in the Council’s Judiciary Committee since the panel held a hearing on the measure last October.
The Bullying and Intimidation Prevention Act of 2011 has strong support in the LGBT community following widely publicized incidents of gay teen suicides linked to school bullying. Nearly all Council members have signed on as co-sponsors or co-introducers of the bill.
But LGBT advocacy groups believe the bill as introduced doesn’t have adequate enforcement and implementation provisions. They are working closely with Council members to prepare one or more amendments to strengthen the bill, according to Rick Rosendall, vice president of the Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance.
The bill requires the city’s public and charter schools, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the city’s public libraries, and the University of the District of Columbia to adopt “a policy prohibiting harassment, intimidation or bullying” in their respective facilities, buildings and grounds.
The legislation defines harassment, intimidation or bullying as “any gesture or written, verbal or physical act, including electronic communication, that is reasonably perceived as being motivated either by any actual or perceived characteristic, such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or a mental, physical or sensory handicap, or by any other distinguishing characteristic.”
LGBT youth representatives joined officials from LGBT organizations, including the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, a national group that monitors anti-LGBT bullying, in testifying for the bill and for amendments to strengthen it at a Council hearing in May.
Meanwhile, supporters of the Marriage Officiant Amendment Act of 2011, which was authored by Council member Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3), say it’s aimed at giving couples – gay or straight – who are interested in a non-religious civil marriage the option of having such a marriage performed at a location outside the D.C. Superior Court building.
Under current city law, civil marriages must be performed at the courthouse by a court-appointed marriage “officiant” unless the parties getting married know a judge and the judge agrees to perform the marriage at another location, such as a banquet hall or a private home.
Backers of the bill say D.C. Superior Court judges, who are authorized to perform marriages under city law, do so only on a limited basis and are not available to most people seeking a civil marriage.
Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At-Large), who chairs the committee overseeing the bill, could not be immediately reached to determine whether he plans to move the bill out of committee for a vote anytime soon.
At the time of the hearing in October, Mendelson told the Blade he believed more research was needed on the bill and he had no immediate plans to call for a vote in committee or before the full Council.
“As far as I know, the notary bill will not be marked up,” gay activist Bob Summersgill told the Blade last week. “The bill is severely flawed and will need to be completely rewritten.”
Summersgill testified in favor of the bill at the October hearing. But he called for major changes that would allow any adult to perform a civil marriage by obtaining a one-day authorization to become a marriage officiant.
Massachusetts and some counties in California have similar one-day officiant laws that allow a couple planning to marry to select a friend or family member or anyone else of their choosing to perform their civil marriage. In Massachusetts the person seeking to perform the marriage must apply in advance and pay a $25 fee for the one-day authorization.
South Carolina, Florida and Maine have laws that allow a notary public to perform civil weddings.
Gay Council member David Catania (I-At-Large) and Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) joined Cheh in co-introducing the D.C. Marriage Officiant Amendment Act last year. Gay Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) and Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) signed on as co-sponsors. Council member Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6) co-sponsored the bill last year but has not signed on as a co-sponsor this year.
Cheh told the Blade in an e-mail that she would consider the changes proposed by Summersgill to broaden the bill to include a one-day officiant provision similar to Massachusetts’ civil marriage law.
“I don’t know exactly why the bill hasn’t moved,” Cheh said. “Council member Mendelson has had a huge volume of stuff to move through his committee, and I have no reason to think he is opposed to the bill,” she said.
Steven Lowe, a D.C. resident who testified in support of the bill at last October’s hearing, said the bill as currently written provides couples seeking a civil marriage an option for having their marriage ceremony outside the courthouse. He describes the courthouse as “bureaucratic” and unappealing to many couples seeking a civil marriage.
Lowe said he doesn’t object to Summersgills’ call for a one-day officiant provision that would be available to all adults.
“But the point for me was to have something less restrictive and a non-religious option” in a location that people can choose, Lowe said. “So I supported the notary public bill because it was at least a move in the right direction.”
Tagged with bullying, D.C. Bullying Prevention Act, Phil Mendelson
We welcome your thoughtful, respectful comments. Please read our 'Terms of Service' page for more information about community expectations.
Comments from new visitors, flagged users, or those containing questionable language are automatically held for moderation and may not appear immediately.