Force of law does help to prevent, and adjudicate, discrimination. If you cannot appreciate that the needle moves, at all, then I'm talking to a wall.

And failure of a bill to address all sociological misinformation is no argument for subjecting the rights of any minority to a vote of the majority.

And if you're actually suggesting that Graham and Catania will support a referendum, then we've all been given a lesson in your powers of political analysis.

The POLICY change you seek is multi-faceted and sorry one ceremonial bill won't do it. Laws need to be changed, augmented, etc. but more importantly, to usher such change, folk's attitudes need to be changed as well. The populace doesn't hear the inequalities in Housing, Health Insurance, etc. All they hear is what the media has been feeding them. And you know what that is... Those 'folks' in CA, NY, and DC trying to get the right to marry each other like us 'normal' folks. It is that Joel, which is causing the collapse of your platform. Yes...the MARRIAGE issue. Most reasonably minded folks (note the adjectives) would say that fair housing, health insurance, pension benefits, etc. should be given to all...black, white, brown, man, woman, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, disabled, Jew, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, etc. FAIR Housing, etc. is mutually exclusive to marriage. Yet, the prevailing argument I keep hearing, even from you is that by granting same-sex marriages, everything will be miraculously EQUAL! RUBBISH!

Finally, before you charge off into left field saying I'm "flatly unaware", let me tell you that I know firsthand the discriminatory practices of lenders, and as a result was able to capitalize on an investigation and judgment handed down by DOJ. I CAN walk and chew gum simultaneously. I just ask you to get another stick as the one you've been chewing has gotten old and have loss its taste!

Keep arguing for why you believe I do not need plain equity under the law. Keep offering pointless sociological rhetoric in addressing a legislative juncture regarding equity...

...without having read the law. Without acknowledging the discrimination in housing, health insurance, pension benefits, and other vital impacts upon gay couples today (heck, you flatly state that such discrimination simply doesn't exist).

You are flatly unaware of the inequities out there that give rise to the need for a policy change. It's that change we're after, it's that change we'll one day achieve. As for moving minds, we'll keep working on that too. Again with the chew gum and walk thing.

I'm not saying this to be saying it, I'm trying to prepare you for the onslaught should this go to ballot. Do you sincerely think as progressive as IOWA was that their marriage/partner bill still doesn't have fallout? What I'm saying is...Heck, let the Bill pass, let all GLBTs flock to DC and get "married". When it is all said and done, the ONLY thing they will have is a piece of paper based on some contrived legality of a union. Why let a heterosexual concept define who you are and what you have? Once again, why do you need a piece of paper to consummate your partnership, contract, etc.? You don't! You don't need it to buy a house, car, credit card, get health insurance (at least with the major carriers in this area), etc.

This discourse has gone too far, so I'm going to close the loop here. Obviously, by your insults you feel that I'm not accepting of your kind. An inference that is far from the truth. First, church in itself is the actual believer, fellowshipped with others. It is not a building or even a denomination. So, I "get my church on" through the sincere belief that we are all created equal (not just limited to "under the law" as this country would say") and called for a Divine purpose. As a single entity church, I want the best that God would have for you. And I honestly don't see the marriage issue as helping the overall cause of being accepted as you are. Not that you even give a d*mn about how other people feel, but honestly, that is what's stifling this discussion. And what causes folks to use the "discriminatory" speech of "special rights".

Case in point, I spent quite a bit of time in a major MidWestern city the 90's in which equality per "special rights" was being debated on. In this city's attempts to "perfect" anti-discrimination (hate crime) law against GLBTs, they in part almost created "special rights" by extending the statute around a certain population demographic. All the legalese and language severely hampered the intentions of the original bill. The bill was defeated at the time, because quite frankly, equality wasn't achieved and too vague. It wasn't by ignorance or discrimination that these "code words" were used. It was because the Bill left TOO MUCH to interpretation.

I've said my peace. I wish you well. Don't have an ill-feeling or thought about you. Just want you to know that one should be careful what they wish for, and all that glitters is not gold.

And you suggest this and other dire snags give rise to your concern that "an agenda will continue to be pushed until it pales into comparison with equality, but transforms into 'special rights'."

I am quite familiar by now with the code words of ignorance and discrimination, and recognize them here.

Speaking of license, the legality on top of more legality begins, for example with licensing "celebrants" etc. to perform marriages. Can one be grandfathered in, or is there a correspondence course one can take to properly marry GLBT persons? Premarital counseling will take on a different form. Adoption forms have to be changed from husband/wife/mother/father to spouse#1/spouse#2/parent#1/parent#2, etc. What I'm saying in my "blasé' ramble" juxtaposed with Harry Thomas' luke-warm support is -- whatever the GLBT perform as a union, why call it marriage or even marriage-like? It would be far easier to legislate something new than to modify something old.

If DC doesn't do what CA did with Proposition 8, I don't expect the sky to rain fire with God's disapproval, for God never takes away our ability to choose. However, what I do see happening is that an agenda will continue to be pushed until it pales into comparison with equality, but transforms into "special rights".

BTW, nice touch on Atheist marriage...once again it proves my point. Atheists or Agnostics don't bother with a church, synagogue, mosque, etc. They make their union a LEGAL one instead of a Spiritual one.

There is no "legality on to of more legality" in a measure that would simply extend the rights of marriage to all District residents. There is no abrogation of your precious (and alleged) historical status of marriage as a "SPIRITUAL covenant with God first" -- churches will be free to avoid performing ceremonies if they wish, while others (including the LGBT congregations in our city) will be able to bestow their blessing. Atheists will still be allowed to marry, as they are today.

Heck, Britany Spears will still have any of her, ahem, "SPIRITUAL covenants" in the future automatically respected by law when she crosses into the District.

Yes 40+ years ago this country was at a crossroads over CIVIL RIGHTS. A nice term coined to placate the Segregation and Racist practices since this country's inseption. Many Civil Rights Bills passed, but I tell you that racism and segregation are thriving today. I recently read in a little town in Georgia that they still have separate proms, one for the white students, and another for the black students. What I'm saying is that a BILL won't make you EQUAL. You have to operate in a spirit of EQUALITY to begin with.

Why fight in to be a part of this "heterosexual" designed concept of marriage. Why not make up your own and be done with it.

However, making a marriage bill only adds more legality on top of more legality. Regardless of legislation, marriage is/was always designed to be a SPIRITUAL covenant with God first. It became legalized when disputes over the dowries (property), divorce, and women owning property (after the husband dies) came into play. Sexist as it was, legalization didn't have to happen if folks really understood it to be a covenant (divine agreement), instead of a contract where loopholes could be found.

This isn't a doom-and-gloom-Soddom-and-Gomorrah-you're-going-to-hell rant. I'm simply saying that if I had to choose between a SPIRITUAL covenant (what God recognizes) and a legal contract (what Man recognizes), I'd have to choose the former. Which really is why this isn't such a big issue as folks are making it out to be. I'm not bent out of shape about it because whether men/men, women/women, can legally marry is not for me to decide. People will do what they want to do, legally or illegally, but in the end we ALL will have to be accountable for our lives.

I support the bag surcharge measure, retooling our schools, fixing street lights, addressing crime, and so much more, yet I also would like my full rights as a resident of the District, and as an American citizen, if that's alright with you, Q. And if you want drama, how about someone being kept from visiting their partner or child in the hospital, or struggling with cancer sans their partner's health insurance coverage, or many other inequities with real impact upon real lives? So, you be real careful in stating, on my behalf, "things Washingtonians really care about."