Ward 5 Councilmember Harry Thomas Jr. has been walking a mighty fine line the past couple of weeks.

When you're representing a ward that contains both quickly gentrifying (and gayifying) areas like Bloomingdale, Eckington, and Brookland, in addition to the generally conservative Bungalow Belt and many of the city's most politically active churches, same-sex marriage would be one of those issues you might wish would go away.

Thomas veered heavily to one side of that line when he voted this month to recognize other states' same-sex marriages here in D.C. He leaned even further when the Washington Blade reported last Friday that Thomas was on the record in support of a full gay marriage bill—-a story LL had highlighted in his Friday news roundup.

Leaned too far, perhaps: That afternoon, Thomas spokesperson Victoria Leonard called LL to say the Blade story, by Lou Chibarro Jr., wasn't true. Her boss, she said, wasn't committed either way.

Chibbaro says that he went with his story after Leonard mentioned to him a questionnaire that Thomas had filled out for the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance ahead of his 2006 election. It asked, "Do you support legal recognition of marriages between partners of the same sex?" Thomas replied, "Yes." Leonard told Chibbaro that her boss stood by his response three years later.

"She was very upbeat and definitive," the veteran reporter says. Thomas himself was in Las Vegas for the shopping-centers conference at the time and unavailable for direct comment

Leonard says she indeed told Chibarro that her boss stood by his old line. Giving such an unequivocal response, she says, was a mistake. "I'm not an attorney, and I'm not a councilmember," she tells LL. "As a spokesperson, I'll have to learn to be more careful, especially on tumultuous issues."

LL finally got Thomas himself on the horn yesterday: "That's why I always speak to you guys directly," Thomas says. "My spokesperson's statement was taken out of character a little bit."

OK, fine, unfiltered, straight from the horse's mouth. No confusion, right? Well, see if you can parse these comments from Thomas:

"We're going to have to make sure whatever we do passes the congressional smell test. And so I am looking at how we look at possible referendums and other options where we have a true voice of the people on this issue, to strengthen our position when we go forward."

So you favor a voter referendum, then?

"Well, I want to look at the possibilities of having one...make sure that we as councilmembers ensure we have due process in this whole piece. I think we've gone a long way in a quick period of time, and people need to have input in this process. And I've stuck to my guns about my position on it, but at the same time, we must be open to making sure that the whole citizenry feels like it was engaged in this process."

Stuck to your guns? What guns?

"My position is that, I've supported the equity issues in recognizing what other states have already done, so people would not have those legal issues here in the District of Columbia."

What about the questionnaire?

"I am supportive of that, but again, in defining that support, you have to look at how you get to that point. I think there's legislative [ways] and there's ways through referendums to do it. And so I haven't hedged from my support on the issue. My issue is how you bring others along in a city with such a diverse opinion on it."

Haven't hedged, huh?

"Have you ever seen me hedge? I'm not a hedger, man. That's not in my nature!"

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

Introducing the bill are Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio, pictured top) and Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla., bottom). It's important to note that the legislation would define marriage in the District as between a man and a woman. It is not a resolution specifically disapproving the city's action this month to recognize gay marriages performed out of state.

Politico's Alex Isenstadt was at the press conference today:

“Nothing can be more important than the sanctity of our families,” Rep. Tom Price, chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, told reporters.

Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Dan Boren (D-Okla.) introduced the bill today, which aims to define marriage in D.C. as a “union of one man and one woman.”

“The family is truly the foundational institution of our nation, and marriage is its cornerstone,” Jordan said today in a statement.

Jordan unveiled the bill today in a press conference. He was joined by a group of pastors and religious leaders. It's not clear if there's any legislative vehicle for the anti-gay-marriage bill or whether Democrats would even allow a vote on the measure.

Isenstadt says the bill is supported by a "handful of House Republicans and two Democrats." One of those Republicans is our hamburger-loving friend Jason Chaffetz of Utah.

UPDATE, 4:35 P.M.: The bill is called the "D.C. Defense of Marriage Act."

Joining Jordan, Boren, Chaffetz, and Price at the presser today was none other than Bishop Harry Jackson, the pastor of a Maryland church who has been the most visible opponent of D.C. same-sex marriage.

A press release from Jordan's office says this is a "one-page bill" that states, “That in the District of Columbia, for all legal purposes, ‘marriage’ means the union of one man and one woman." The bill, according to the release, will have "30 bi-partisan co-sponsors."

The Democrats supporting the measure are Boren and Mike McIntyre of North Carolina.

UPDATE, 4:42 P.M.: Jeff Richardson, president of the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, is first out with a statement, and it's a good one: "The residents of the District of Columbia are accustomed to some members of congress using the District as a political playground to earn points back in their home districts. But today, it is Bishop Harry Jackson and other DC, and metro DC, based clergy who participated in today’s press conference, that have shown total disrespect for District residents’ historical struggle for self-determination....Jackson has shown that he does not stand with and for the people of the District of Columbia, but I have confidence that District residents will continue to fight for our self-determination and equality for every resident of this great city.”

Richardson was not at the press conference and does not know who the other local clergy were. LL is trying to run that down now.

UPDATE, 4:50 P.M.: Also said to be in attendance: Rev. Anthony Evans, an associate minister at Mount Zion Baptist Church in Brightwood Park. He was also one of the ministers who stormed the John A. Wilson Building hallway immediately after the council vote.

UPDATE, 5:30 P.M.: Additional stories have been posted by AP, UPI, and Cleveland Plain Dealer, who notes that Jackson said, "I do not want my grandkids sitting in a classroom hearing about Heather has two mommies, or the prince and the prince grow up to marry and become the king and the king."

UPDATE, 5:50 P.M.: A response from Eleanor Holmes Norton's office: "[N]othing has changed, and we expect nothing to change, since the Congresswoman released her last statement," says spokesperson Sonsyrea Tate Montgomery. In that statement, Norton said, "I do not believe that a serious attempt to overturn the Council bill will be made or would be successful."

Assuming the bill becomes law, plenty of observers see two fronts of possible conflict. First is that the law will set off a frenzy of congressional intervention. To wit, American Prospect's Ezra Klein.

Nope, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton says to LL this afternoon: "I anticipate being able to be able to protect it....In order to do something someone is going to have to introduce a bill or otherwise get something through the Congress. Well, you gotta pass by me on that....I believe I can prevent any bill from moving to the House floor to overturn the bill that was passed yesterday."

What Klein doesn't quite get right is that Congress need not actively "approve" D.C.'s decision. If lawmakers do nothing about the bill for 30 days, it's law.

In fact, no District statute has been actively disapproved by Congress; what is more common is that "riders" are attached to District appropriations prohibiting spending on the controversial legislation—which is what happened when D.C. first passed domestic-partnership laws. The chances of an active disapproval wending its way through a Democratically controlled Congress are slim—but of course LL and others had the same thought on guns and D.C. voting rights.

Norton says the gun issue was a special case, due to the power of the National Rifle Association. "Unfortunately, the gun amendment is controlled by a big lobby that specializes in out-and-out intimidation of members and big donations. There's no such organized lobby against gays or gay marriages....There are a lot of little organizations and a even larger ones, but they don't have the money or the bullying tactics that have been used by the NRA. The NRA stops just short of putting guns at people's heads. It's a classic back-alley bully."

The second conflict is that the law would conflict with the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which essentially prohibits the federal government from recognizing a same-sex relationship as a marriage. That's the hope of "traditional marriage" defender Brian Brown, who did a washingtonpost.com chat yesterday with David Catania.

Here's the text of the language: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Seems the questions are: (1) is District law the same as an act of Congress? and (2) does the District count as one of the "various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States"?

Norton says, in both cases, absolutely not: "It's a self-governing jurisdiction....Congress could reassert jurisdiction over the District, but it's delegated that jurisdiction to the District, and I have insisted at least since I've been here that that delegation remain."

Don't count on that argument to satisfy conservative jurists. Once a D.C. gay-marriage law is on the books, expect to see them in court.

A Catania aide says in the Blade story that no date is certain, but LL can say with certainty that same-sex marriage efforts are humming right along. Last Thursday, Catania hosted in his office a meeting of about 10 activists with local and national ties to discuss the status and strategy of gay marriage in the District.

At the meeting, multiple sources say, Catania gave no date certain for his bill, but he said his patience would not be infinite. "He basically said, 'I'm very into doing it. I don't want to wait forever, and I will give you notice when I do do it,'" said one person who attended the meeting.

He also told the group that the bill would amend the District's Human Rights Act—important, because measures involving the HRA aren't subject to ballot initiatives under District law.

Ben Young, Catania's chief of staff, declines to detail what was discussed at the meeting, but says, "It's not a secret that the councilmember continues to talk to any number of people to solicit input."

Catania did point out in the meeting that he expects the D.C. House Voting Rights Act controversy to be settled in two weeks—just in time for the April 7 meeting—which some of the attendees took to indicate his sense of timing.

One person at the meeting brought up the possibility of waiting until next year to introduce the bill. According to another attendee, Catania pointed out next year is a congressional election year. The source paraphrased Catania as saying, "If you think next year will be better than this year, you're wrong."

LL will have a lot more about this drama in his column this week, which will be posted later today, but Catania is wasting no time in attacking WWC Executive Director Don Blanchon for alleged financial mismanagement. Blanchon has yet to testify; he's sitting in the chamber as Catania grills pro-WWC witnesses, most of whom say they were asked to testify by the clinic.

Most witnesses seemed unaware that the hearing was focused on the clinic's finances rather than the care it delivers. Catania called it "strange" that the clinic wouldn't have sought assistance from District government before considering drastic layoffs.

Said one witness, "If what you say is true, it's not strange. It's alarming."

UPDATE, 3:45 P.M.: Catania is really laying in to Blanchon, a truly virtuoso performance of witness badgering. At one point, Catania started hammering Blanchon for not approaching the government for assistance. "This is a dereliction of you responsibility!" he said. Blanchon asked if he could comment. Replied Catania, "I'm not sure it's going to do you any good, but give it a shot."

Later Catania referred to the December firings this way: "It was a putsch! A classic Stalinesque tactic!" Blanchon was not able to respond after being compared to a mass murderer. "No, you may not respond," Catania said. "Just sit back and make yourself comfortable."

Jim Graham, who led the clinic for 15 years before becoming Ward 1 councilmember, has just entered the hearing. Graham has pretty much stayed out of clinic affairs since joining the council, but told LL yesterday that he was very concerned about the layoffs.

UPDATE, 4:30 P.M.: If Blanchon was hoping Graham was going to throw him a lifeline, it isn't happening. He's particularly peeved about the circumstances of the December firings of senior staff, just before Christmas with no severance. "How would you feel" being fired under those circumstances, Graham asked. Said Blanchon, "I would feel horrible."

"You know there's this thing called karma...," Graham said.

UPDATE, 6:15 P.M.: LL's column on the matter has just been posted.

Catania closed the hearing at about 5 p.m., after personally attacking Blanchon's credibility and leadership. "I feel like I've been duped," he told Blanchon at one point. "I don't trust you." He went on to criticize the clinic's declining financial health, saying, "Structurally, you have a deficit that is not going to be fixed by you.

Blanchon briefly mustered a defense of his tenure, speaking up for his employees and board, but it only set Catania off on another extended rant.

Before closing, Catania held out the possibilities of subpoenas and/or depositions. He then essentially called for his resignation: "I don't have confidence in your leadership of the clinic," he said. "I feel duped. Gerry Connolly [the former chair of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, now congressman] feels the same way, other members of this council."

Blanchon had no comment after the hearing.

From the GMCW release:

This is the first time in American history that the GLBT Choral Movement will be represented at an inaugural ceremony. 100 GMCW members from the larger chorus of more than 250 singing members will perform with featured celebrity entertainers to be announced. Both President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden will be in attendance. An audience of 800,000 is expected at the Lincoln Memorial.

Oh please say they are backing Beyonce.