D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray has directed the city’s Department of Employment Services to begin a first-of-its-kind pilot program specifically directed toward members of the transgender community for job training and job placement.

Gray disclosed plans for the program at an Aug. 4 meeting he hosted with representatives of the transgender community. Officials with several city agencies also attended the meeting.

“The Department of Employment Services will run a pilot of their transitional employment program targeting members of the transgender community,” said Jeffrey Richardson, director of the Mayor’s Office of GLBT Affairs, who attended the meeting.  “The program includes six weeks of training coupled with subsidized paid employment,” he said.

Richardson was referring to an existing program that trains city residents for jobs and reimburses employers participating in the program for part of the salary of the employee accepted in the program.

Jeri Hughes (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Transgender activist Jeri Hughes, who requested the meeting with the mayor, submitted proposals in advance of the meeting calling on the city to more aggressively address chronic unemployment among transgender residents, especially young transgender women.

Hughes and other transgender activists have said city employers were turning away qualified transgender applicants for entry-level jobs in violation of the city’s Human Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on gender identity as well as sexual orientation.

“I’m very thankful that the mayor agreed to do this,” said Hughes. “The bottom line is we didn’t get everything we asked for, but we’re getting there.”

Hughes said Gray didn’t make a commitment on a request by transgender activists that he direct the Department of Employment Services, the Office of Human Rights, and the Office of GLBT Affairs to hire at least one transgender person or a person knowledgeable of transgender issues to serve as a full-time coordinator of transgender related matters.

Richardson said Gray made a commitment to expand the city’s diversity training for all city employees to include specific training related to “transgender cultural competency.”

Gray agreed to hold a follow-up meeting with transgender activists in 30 days to discuss the progress of the proposals that emerged from the Aug. 4 meeting, Richardson said.

A Washington Post poll published Sunday shows that 56 percent of adult D.C. residents surveyed favor legalizing same-sex marriage in the city compared to 35 percent who said they oppose it, with 9 percent saying they had no opinion.

But the same poll also found that 59 percent of residents surveyed favor putting the issue to a public vote in a ballot measure. The poll found that 37 percent oppose bringing the issue to a citywide vote.

The poll also identified significant differences on the same-sex marriage issue along racial lines. But the opposition to gay nuptials by blacks doesn’t appear to be as strong as local gay marriage opponents have predicted.

An overwhelming 83 percent of whites responding to the poll said they favor legalizing same-sex marriage, while 12 percent oppose it. A bare majority of 51 percent of blacks said they oppose legalizing gay marriage in the District; 37 percent polled said they support it.

According to the survey, 4 percent of whites and 12 percent of blacks said they had no opinion on the issue.

Although the poll’s finding that an overall majority of 56 percent support legalized same-sex marriage at this time, LGBT activists familiar with ballot measures on the issue in other states could view the D.C. poll results with caution. In a number of states, including California, voter support for same-sex marriage dropped sharply following well funded and what LGBT activists called highly negative campaigns waged by same-sex marriage opponents.

Voter initiatives or referenda seeking to prohibit same-sex marriage have won in every state where they’ve been placed on the ballot.

In D.C., a 1978 law barring ballot measures that would result in discrimination against minorities protected by the city’s Human Rights Act has so far prevented local opponents of same-sex marriage from putting the issue up for a public vote. The opponents have vowed to continue to challenge city rulings against a marriage ballot measure in court.

The Post poll shows that white and black voters differ sharply over whether to bring the gay marriage question to a public vote. Among blacks, 70 percent responding to the poll favor holding a citywide vote on the issue, while 25 percent say a ballot measure should not be held. Six percent had no opinion.

Among whites, 58 percent opposed bringing the gay marriage issue to a public vote; 39 percent favored such a vote. Three percent had no opinion.

The Post’s poll included responses from 1,135 adults reached by either landline or cell phone during Jan. 24-28. The paper says the poll has a 3 percent margin of error.

Gay marriage opponents have filed papers with the city’s election board proposing two more ballot measures to overturn a same-sex marriage law the D.C. City Council passed and Mayor Adrian Fenty signed in December.

Bishop Harry Jackson, the Beltsville, Md., minister who is leading efforts to oppose same-sex marriage in the District, filed papers Wednesday calling for a voter referendum to block the Religious Freedom & Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act from becoming law.

And in a separate development that went largely unnoticed, Ward 8 resident Joyce Little filed papers with the Board of Elections & Ethics on Dec. 23 calling for a voter initiative that seeks to overturn the same-sex marriage bill by banning same-sex marriage in the city.

“The purpose of this initiative is to allow the citizens of the District of Columbia to vote to preserve traditional marriage as between one man and one woman,” Little wrote in a summary statement submitted to the election board.

The election board scheduled a Feb. 16 public hearing for Little’s initiative. Board General Counsel Kenneth McGhie said the board was in the process of scheduling another hearing sometime this month for Jackson’s referendum proposal.

In a related development, two U.S. senators and 37 members of the House of Representatives — all Republicans — filed a friend-of-the-court brief this week in support of an older lawsuit from Jackson that seeks to force the city to hold a voter initiative on the gay marriage question. Jackson filed the lawsuit last year after the election board ruled that a ballot measure seeking to ban gay marriage would violate the city’s Human Rights Act and therefore not allowable.

The GOP lawmakers’ brief was countered by another friend of the court, or amicus, brief filed by three D.C. same-sex couples that were married in other states and another same-sex couple that hopes to marry in the District later this year. Also signing on to the couples’ brief were the local same-sex marriage advocacy groups D.C. Clergy United and Campaign for All D.C. Families.

Attorneys for same-sex marriage supporters and opponents argued on behalf of their respective motions and briefs at a hearing Wednesday before Superior Court Judge Judith Macaluso, who is expected to issue a ruling on Jackson’s lawsuit in the next few weeks.

The two new ballot measure proposals, including the ones filed in December by Little and this week by Jackson, come on the heels of decisions last year by the election board rejecting an earlier initiative and referendum proposal — both introduced by Jackson and his backers. A D.C. Superior Court judge last spring upheld the board’s ruling rejecting the referendum.

Macaluso is deliberating over Jackson’s lawsuit seeking to overturn the board’s decision to disallow his earlier initiative proposal.

Most legal observers expect the election board to reject the initiative filed this week by Little. Little could not be reached to determine whether she plans to appeal in court any board decision denying her request for the initiative.

“If they keep coming back and the courts continue to rule against them, at some point the courts will throw these cases out in summary judgment,” said gay activist Peter Rosenstein, who is a board member of the Campaign for All D.C. Families. “You can’t keep going back to the courts with the same case.”

But Jackson and Ward 5 Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner Robert King have vowed to do just that, saying they believe a higher-level court will eventually force the city to hold a referendum or initiative that brings the subject of gay marriage before the city’s voters.

Marriage bill goes to Hill

Meanwhile, the City Council’s Office of Legislative Affairs sent the same-sex marriage bill passed by the Council and signed by Fenty to Congress on Jan. 5 to arrange for a required congressional review of the law, according to office staffer Ebony Henry.

Henry said her office’s decision to wait more than two weeks after Fenty signed the bill Dec. 18 to send it to Capitol Hill was due to the office’s normal processing of bills that get sent to Congress for their required congressional review of 30 legislative days.

The clock for the congressional review is expected to start ticking next week, when the House begins its 2010 legislative session.

Capitol Hill observers initially thought the congressional review would be completed sometime in March, but some are now speculating the review could be concluded as early as February.

“Nobody knows for sure because it all depends on how many days we’re in session in any given week,” said one Capitol Hill staffer, who spoke on condition of not being identified.

Little, who filed papers in December for an initiative to overturn the city’s same-sex marriage law, filed a motion in federal court the same month seeking an injuction to block the City Council from voting on the same-sex marraige bill at its regularly scheduled legislative session. U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotolly denied the motion Dec. 15, the same day the Council passed the bill, saying Little failed to provide evidence to support her claim that allowing the Council to vote on the marraige bill would cause the city and gay marraige opponents “irreparable harm.”

Little did not issue a public announcement about her motion for the injunction, and most local activists and Council members were unaware that she had made an apparently unprecedented attempt to ask a court to stop the Council from voting on a bill.

One issue is ‘home rule’ scope

U.S. Sens. James Inhoff (R-Oak.) and Roger Wilkins (R-Miss.) joined 37 conservative GOP House members, most of whom are vocal opponents of LGBT rights, in filing the amicus brief in support of the lawsuit by Jackson to force the city into holding a voter initiative on gay marriage.

“Under the United States Constitution, they serve as members of the ultimate legislative authority for the District of Columbia and the very body which delegated to the District its limited legislative power under home rule,” the amicus brief states.

D.C. home rule advocates, including LGBT groups that have pushed for full voting rights for D.C. in Congress, are likely to interpret the brief as a signal by the GOP lawmakers that they will seek to overturn the same-sex marriage law sometime in the future if Jackson loses his court fight. Congress retains authority to overturn any D.C. law at any time.

Most political observers believe the city’s same-sex marriage law will be protected as long as Democrats retain control of Congress, but they caution that the law could be in jeopardy if Republicans gain control in the future.

The same-sex couples who filed the amicus brief opposing Jackson’s lawsuit include city residents Trevor Blake and Jeff Krehely; Amy Hinze-Pifer and Rebecca Hinze-Pifer; Vincent Micone and Thomas Metzger; and Reginald Stanley and Rocky Galloway.

The nationally known law firm Covington & Burling is providing pro-bono legal representation for the same-sex couples in the case.