8/14/2019 Brian K. Flowers, GC for D.C. Counsel, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning the Jury and Ma

1/11

OHCE OFTH GENERAL COUNSELb t rth.ltrkt ttCmua50 hH7: hH .W `WLbl,EC 19004(102)7101 6

June,,2009

BY FACSMILE AND HAND DELIVERYKenneth . McGhic,GcneralCounselDstrict of ColumbiaBoardof Elections ndEthics4414thStrcct, .W.,Suitc250Washington,.C. 20001-2745

Rc: Rcfcrendum n Jury andManiagcAmcndmcntAct of 2009DearMr. McGhic:

Sccrion6(cX3) of theDistrictof ColumbiaElcctionCodcof 1955, ffcctiveJunc7, l9?9(D.C. aw 3- ; D.C.Official Codc$ l-1001.16(cX3)),llows hc Boardof Elections o consuftwiththisofficc to cnsurchat rcfcrcndumncasurcsrr in thcpropcr cgislativc orm. In addition, ouhaveaskcd f thc proposedmeasures thc propcrsubject or a rcfcrcndum. have cvicwcd heproposedefcrcndumorcompliancewith thcrcquircmcntsf District aw, ncluding hc nitiative,Refercndum, ndRecallChancrAmendmcnts ct of 1977, ffectivcMarch 10,1978 D.C.Law2-46; D.C. OfficialCodc$ t -204.101 rsag.),hc nitiativc,Refcrendum, ndRccallProccdurcs ctof 1979, ffcctivcJunc7, l9?9 (D.C. :w 3-l; D.C.Official Codc$ l- l0ol.01 passiz), heDistrictof Columbia HomcRulc Act, approvcdDcccmbcr 4, 1973 87 Stat.813;DC Official Coder-201.01$ l seq.) "HonrcRulcAct"), thc HumanRighlsAct of l9?7, effcctivcDccembcr13, 9?7(D.C. law 2-38; D.C. Official Code$ 2-1401.01 t seq.) "HumanRithts Act"), rnd judiciali ntcrprotationsf thcscatatutca.

Bascd n my rcviewof thc authoriticsitcd bovc, it is myopinioa hatascurrcntlydraftcd,rheproposals not hcpropcr ubjector a rcfcrendum ndcrDistrictawbccausct wouldauthorize,or would havc the effcct of authorizing, iscrimination rohibitedby thc Human RightsAct.Bccauschisproposals lcgallyobjcctionable,t shouldnot bc ccrtificdas hcpropcrsubjccror arcfcrendum.

8/14/2019 Brian K. Flowers, GC for D.C. Counsel, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning the Jury and Ma

2/11

DISCUSSIONOn May5, 2009, heCouncil f theDistrict f Columbia pprovedheJuryandMamageAmendmentctof2009.Thatmeasuremendedistnct f Columbiaaw oprovideha tmariageslegally nterednto n anotherunsdiction y2 personsf thesame exshallbe ecognizedn theDistnct fColumbia. heac twas igned y heMayor nM ay6,2009. See D.C'Act l8-701 6DCR3797). t was ransmittedo CongressnMay I l, and s projectedo becomeaw on July6,2009.Accordingo the summary tatementubmitted y theproposer,heproposed easure,entitledA ReferendumoncemingheJuryandManrage mendment ct of 2009",wouldlAllow thevoters f theDistrictof Coiumbiaheopportunityo decidewhetherheDistrict f Columbia ill recognizes alidamarliageegally nterednto n anotherjurisdiction etween personsf thesame ex .A"No" vote o he eferendumil lcontinuehe current aw of recognizingnly mamagebetween ersons f theoppositeex .

The egislativeextof heReferendumsks:shouldSection of heJuryand arriage mendmentAct of 2009beapproved?" he measurehensets orth he ext of section of the actTheBoard's eviewof Intitiative ndReferendum easuress govemed y he nitiative,Referendum,ndRecallChaner mendmentsct of 1977, ffective arch 0, 1978 D.C. -aw2-46 ;D.C.OfficialCode l-204.l0l etseq.l and he nitiative, eferendum,ndRecallProceduresAc t of 1979, ffective ,,ne7, 1979 D.C.Law 3-11D.C. OfficialCode$ 1-1001.01assln)(Referendumcts).Withcertain pecific xceptions,he eferendumrocess aybeused o suspendcts f theCouncil f theDistnctof Columbia rior o theactbecomingaw,accordingo theprcvisions fsection 04 of theHome Rule Act . The Referendumcts provide hat he Boardshall efuse oaccept measuref theBoard inds har:it is nota proper ubject f referendumnderhe erms f title V of theDistrict fColumbia omeRuleAct,or . . . "[t]hemeasureuthorizes,rwouldhave heeffectof authorizing,iscriminationrohibitednderheHumanRightsAct."r

rD.C.Off ic ial ode 1-1001.16bX1)(C). heprovis ionrohibir ingnit iat ivesndreferendumsha tviolateheHumanRightsAct wasan outgrowth f proposalsy rheGayActivists lliance."SeeCommitteenGovemment perationstaffDraftCommittee epofiNo. I onBill 2-317, he nitiative, eferendum,ndRecallProceduresct of 1978, t 1(Council f theDistnctof Columbia pri)28 ,1978). t is designedo "ensurehatno nitiatedmeasure ill establishnaffirmative olicy n favorof discriminationn thiscommunity."

8/14/2019 Brian K. Flowers, GC for D.C. Counsel, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning the Jury and Ma

3/11

The qHlon presented undcr the statutoFy scheme is whether aPProval of the refeFendumwcuid authoze,or have effect of authoing di3minaon Ptthibited by the Hunan RtghtsA c I I f i t w o u l d , t h e B o a r d m u s t r e f u s e t o a c c c P t t h e m e a s u r e

l, THE PROPOSED MEASuttE,IF APPROVED, WOULD HAVE THEEFFECT OP AUTHORIZING DISCRIMINAT10N PROHIBITED BV THEHtlMAN IuGHTS ACT AND IS THUS AN INIPRO ER SUBJECT FOR AREFERENDllM

m e H u n n a n R i g h t s A c t o f 1 9 7 7 s t a t e s t h a rt is the intent of the Council of thc I)istrict of Columbia,in enncg th:sa,tosecHre an cnd in the Distrlct oF Columbta tt discttmination for any reason otherthanthat of individual meit,inc!udin3,but notiimito,dischmination by reason of.

sex, . Sexual onentation,gender identtty or exPression.ThHunan Rtgh Act has been bed tt a broad reditt statute,to be 3enerouttyconstrued.M"r s,,?J,S rMa ,715A2d873,889 ,C.1998Sj, r rrmaPB R ,597A.2d392,398o.C." 1)The DoCCouROfAPP s hasttso deschbed the Human Rightt Acta3 aOwerful,a xib,and fareacHng

prohibition against dischnination of many klnds.tt San Stt6R C?`,74,A`2d724,732oO C 2000)(Citation and in nat quctations onitted).2,22P71a"ABas'A,rCOrH",444F.3d673.685 oDoC.Ctr.2006)

T h r e a t s t t w o s e c n s o f t h e H u m a n R i 8 h t t A c t t h a t w o d b e V i o l a t e d b y aof the referendumection 231(DoC Ofrtciai Ce s 2402.31)(PrOhibig dscinan inPubllC accomIBodations); and Section 273 oD C` Offlal Code s 21402.73)(Prohibitin3d i s c t t m i n an t o l i m l t o r r e f u s e t o p r o v i d c D i s tt 3 0 V e m m e n t b e n). A n y P r a ce w h i c h h a sthe effect or consequencof violatin3 any oF the prvisions of the Act is deemed an uniawfuldiscninatory Prac[ice 3

Committee on Govemmcnt OP tions Commttee Report No l on B:112-317,thc lnitiative,Referdum,and RecaH Procedures Act of 1978,at 10(CounCi!Ofthe Dis ot of Oolunbia May3,1978).Th Cou of APPettS has conddered two chttlenges bttught underthe proons,reJechng one(HesSCy v.Burden,615A2d562,579 C1992)),and deciding the other onaltemate BrOuhds,see,C6m7nittee for Voluntary Prayer v.Wimbedy,704A`2d l199,1203(DC.1997)(PttPOSed init!ative vtolated First Amendment)2D.C.Offlcial Code s 2140101

3D C Ofrtcial code s 21402.68

8/14/2019 Brian K. Flowers, GC for D.C. Counsel, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning the Jury and Ma

4/11

The D.C.Courtof Appeals asheld hat his"effects lause" f the HumanRightsActimportsnto heAct "theconcept f disparatempact iscriminationevelopedy theSupremeCourt n Griggs . DukePowerCo."GayRights oaI. ,Georgelown niv.,536 .Zd1' 29 (D.C.1987). Thus, t is not necessaryo showdiscriminatoryntent f the practice t issuehasadiscriminatoryffe t.Ramirezv.Distict of ColumDla,,000U.S.Dist.LEXIS4161 D.DC' Mu27,200O):eealsoGayRightsCoal.of Georgetownniv. 'aw Ctr.,536A.2d I' 30 (D.C 1987)(Theeffects lause f theDCHRAprohibits nintentionaliscriminationswellas ntentional.).

Section31of heHuman ights ctmakest anunlawful iscriminatoryracticeo,whollyor partialfyor adiscriminatoryeason ased n theactual rperceived:. . sex, . . marital tatus,. . . sexual rientation.enderdentity r expression:(l) To deny, irectly r indirectly, nypersonhe ull andequal njoyment f thegoods,ervices,acilities, nviieges,dvantages,ndaccommodationsfanyplaceof public ccommodatlons.Section73of theHumanRights ctprovideshat t isaviolation f theHumanRights ctfo | theDistrict ovemmento:refuseo provideany acility, service, rogram, t benefit o any ndividualoa thebasis f an ndividual'sctual rperceived:ace, olor, eligion, ational rigin, ex,age,marita.l tatus, ersonal ppearance,exualorientation, enderdentityorexpression,amilial tatus,amily esponsibilities,isability, atriculation,oliticalaffitiation,ource f income, r place f residencer business,Emphasisdded).4Therearesignificant ighrsand esponsibilitieshat nure o marriedpersonshataredeniedby ailure o recognjze nout-of-statemarriage.5 hus, or theDistrictgovemmento denypersons

thebeneflrslowing rom marriage n thebasis f theirsexual rientation r genderdentity rexpressions contraryo theprovisjonsf theHumanRightsAct.

"D.C.OfficialCode$ 2-1402.73.Significantly,ection 73wasaddedo theHumanRightsAct after heDean ecision. ee, ection (g)of theHumanRightsAmendmentct of2002, ffective ctober, 2OO2D.C.Law 14- 89; 9DCR 6523).sSee,e.g.,Marriage:w in theDistrict f Columbia, LAA (noting ver200 ighrs nd

responsibilitiesn theDist ct, andmore han1,000ederalights nd esponsibilitiesf civilmarriageha tarcno tavailableo domesticartners.)http//www. laa.org/archive/2004/glaamarriagereoort.odfee lsoVarnum .Brien,'163N.W,2d 62,903 lowa2009) Plaintiffsdentify ver200 owastatutesffected ycivil-marriagetatus.).

8/14/2019 Brian K. Flowers, GC for D.C. Counsel, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning the Jury and Ma

5/11

ln Dcan v. District of Columbia,65J A.2d 307,319-20 D.C. 1995), hcD.C. Court ofAppcalshold hst the HumanRightsAct did not requirc hc SuPcriorCourt to gr.nt a manirgeliccnsc o a samc-sex ouplc. Thc mattcrpendingbcforc hc Board s distinct rom thc m&ttcrconsidcrcdn Dean ln Dcon, hc courtconsidcrcd hctherhe District coulddcclinc o crcatcorcclebrate samc-oex arriagc, ut did notconsidcrhccvcnmorccxtnordinaryactionn which hcgovernmcntor in this casc, hc clcctoratc) rcaks p an existing egal clationship, r rcfuscsorecognizehc cgal ightof pcrsonso rcmainmanied olclybclusc fthcirscxualorientation.hiscrucialdisrinction ctwecn jurisdictiondcclining o crcatcor cclcbratc same-scxmarriagc ndrcfusing o recognizcmarriagcsalid n othcrstatcs asbccndctcrmincd y at castonc othcrstate' .to constitutca violation of that statc's aw prohibitingdiscriminationon the basisof scxualoricntation.6Thc sslient casoning mplolcd n Deanwas h.t al$oughthc gcncralprohibitions f thcHumanRightsAct against iscrimination ascd ponscxual ricntation ould apply o thc rfusalof thcDistrict o issue marriagcicensc o a samc-sexouplc, hc courtwasnot going o ptrsumcthc Council ntcndcdo effcctsucha "dramatic hangc" n thc aw withoutan cxprcss rovisionnthc HumanRightAct rcflcting hat ntcnt.(W)ecannotoncludchat heCouncilevcr ntendcdochangc heordinarymcaningof thcword"marriagc"simplybycnactinghc HumanRightsAct. Had hcCouncilintcnded to cffcct such a major definitionsl chrnge, countcr to commonundcrstanding,c wouldexpcctsomcmcntionof it in theHumanRightsAct of atlcast n its lcgislativchistory . . Wc thcrcforctnnot concludc hat thc Councilintcndedhc HumanRightsAct to changc he undamcntal efinitionof marriage.

Dean,65JA2d ar320.Here, owcver,hesame easoning ictateshatthcgcncral rohibitions ftheHumanRightsAet against iscrimination aseduponsexualorientation houldapply bccausct shouldnot b

Sge Martinczv. Counry f Monroe 20O8NY Slip Op 9@, I (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dcpt2008),appcal ismisscd 89N.E.2d496 2008),n which hc SuprcmcCourt ofNcw York,AppcllatcDivision,distinguisheshc Ncw York cascof Hernandez . Robles, N.Y. 3d 338(2006) which oundno right or same cxcouplcso marry n Ncw York statc),andhcld that herefusal o rccognize amc cr marriageshat weresolcmnizcdn otherurisdictionswa$aviolationof thc Ncw York HumanRightsLaw (NY CIS Exec$ 296).

8/14/2019 Brian K. Flowers, GC for D.C. Counsel, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning the Jury and Ma

6/11

presumedhat heCouncil ntendedo "effect ucha dramatic hange" s efusingo recognizemaniageshathave een egallynteredntoand ecognizedy other unsdictions jthout avingexDresslvtatedts ntent o do so .B. District aw hashistoricallvecognized arriaseshatarevalid n theplace f their

celebration.Existing istnct aw equireshe ecognitlonf marriagesha twere alidat heirplace fcelebration.ince t east 90i, heDistricl as ecognizedarriagesalid n the taten which heywere olemnized,nlesshemarriage asbetweenersonsomiciledn theDlstrict t he imeofthemardage nd he marriagewouldhavebeen xpresslyrohibited y oneof theprovisionscontainedn D.C.OfficialCode$ 46-401 hrough 6-404, r themarriages n violation f the"sr;'ongublicpolicy"of theDistrict. Hitchens. Hitchens,4T . Supp.73,74 (D.D.C.1942)(validity f marriage eterminedy law n thestatewherehemaniage ccured); cConnell .McConnell,99 . Supp,493,494 D.D.C.1951); District f Columbia. hodes . Rhodes,,68App.D.C. 13,96F.2d7151938); arrv. Tarr,D.C., 2F.Supp.3981949);Gerard.iv. erard.i,

D.C. 69F.Supp.96 194q.7TheDistnct oes othavo "strong ublic olicy" gainsrame exmarriages,ecausesdoes othave policy tall. None f theexpressrohibitronsn theManiageAct applyo asame-sex arriage,nd ourts onotmake ubJic olicy.sln Martinez,t wasaJlegedha ta previousourtdecision pholding refusalo ssuemarriageicenseo thestate'sesidentseflectedhepubljc olicyof thestate,hecourr easoned:Hernandez,oesotarticulatehepublic olicy or which t is citedby defendants,but nstead oldsmerely hat he New York StateConstitution ,oes otcompelrecognitionf same-sex an'iagesolemnizednNewYork.TheCounof Appealsnotedhat he gislarure a)enact egisJationecognizingame-sex arriagesnd,in ourvievr',heCouftof Appealsherebyndicatedhat he ecognitionf plaintiffsmarriages notagainsrhepublicpolicy f New York. t is alsoworthnoting hat,unlike heoverwhelming ajonty f states, ewYork hasnotchosen, ursuantothe ederai efensef Marriage cr 28USC 1738q, to enacregislarionenying

TThisis consistent ith hegeneralndapparentlyniversallycceptedule hat hevalidity f a marriages to bedetermlnedy he awof theplace f thecelebrationf themamage,r the ex ocicontractus.2eale, onflict f Laws, p.703,704;35Am.Jur.,Sec.67er f . ,p.282.8Theoneprovisionharwas itedby rheDean ounaspotentiallypplrcableasbeenrepealed,S'ee,sect ion2oftheManiageAmendmentActof2008,ef fect iveSeptemberl l ,2(D.C. aw 7'7-222:D.c.fficial codeg 46-403), hichefiminated provisionhatmadellegal"(a)nymamage rther f thepafiieso which hall e ncapable,romphysical auses,fenteringnto hemarried tate-"

8/14/2019 Brian K. Flowers, GC for D.C. Counsel, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning the Jury and Ma

7/11

full faithand redit o same-sex arriagesalidly olemnizedn another tate.eDean,ikewise, otedhat heCouncil ould nactegislationecognizingame-sex arriages.hus,theapplicationf thatcourt's easoningo he nstantmatters apparent.

In Evans . UnitedStates,862 .zd 644 1996),hecourt,applying hereasoningofDean,rejected claim ha t heHumanRightsAc t prohibitedheexercise f peremptoryhallengesojurorson the basisof age, The courtexplained hat the specificstatutoryanguage ermittingperemptoryhallengesouldnot be negatedy general umanRightsAct languagerohibitingdiscnminationn "publicservice."we note ha! here s no specificanguagen theDCHRA or commenta ryn itslegislativeisroryimjtingperemptoryhallengesased n age r indeed, ased nany characteristicrohibitedn the DCHRA. ndeed,here s no mention t allregardingjuryelectionr peremptoryhallengesn theDCHRA . . Thus, enerallanguageorbidding iscriminationn "public ervice"s tooambiguousmandateto be nterpretedo clea rly nclude limitation n statutorily-glantederemptorychallenges. . We adopt hecourt's easoningn Dean, hatwithoutanyspecificmentionor referencen the anguage f the DCIIRA or legislativehistory o thespecific ctclaimed o beprohibited y theDCIIRA,we cannot ssumehat heCouncilntendedocutback n hepreviously-existing,tatutonly-permittedracticeof exercisingeremptoryhal)engesn hebasis f age."

Evans, 62A.2d at 648-649.Here,by starkcontrast,he existing tatutonly ermitted racticen the District s tharmarriagesegally nterednto n and ecognizedy anothertatewill be ecognizedn theDistrict

asmandatedy theFull FaithandCreditClause f theConstitution. he onlyDistrict statutoryprovision ertainlngo recognitjonf marriageselebratedn otherurisdictionsefusesoextendthis ecognitionnl y o thosemarriageselebratedn otherurisdictionsetweenpersonsavingand etainingheirdomicilen theDistrict" hatwouldhave een xpresslyllegal f celebratedn

'TheGovernorubsequentlyssued nExecutive rder o mpJementhi sdecision.Following fegat halJenge,heOrderwasupheld.Golden . Paterson,2008YSlipOp28546, (N.Y.Sup.Ct.2008) "Recognrzingame exmarriageserformedutside ewYorkneithel ncroachesn thatpower, orconflicts ith priorcourt]hoJdingha tNew York s notrequiredo icenseame exmarriages ithin hestate,"). heAttomeyGeneral f Rhode slandhasalso oncludedhatunder rinciples f comityand ull faithand redit, Rhodeslandwillrecognizenymarriagealidlyperformedn anotherate nlesst wouldbeagainsthestrongpublicpolicy f thisstate o do so." A copyof the ettermaybe eviewed t:hnp://ti yurl.corn/RI-AGooiionFeb2007

8/14/2019 Brian K. Flowers, GC for D.C. Counsel, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning the Jury and Ma

8/11

theDisrricr,D.C.OfficialCode$ 46-405.r0There s no statutory rovisionn theDistrict hatexpresslyrohibitshecelebrationf same-sex arriages,nd ,even f therewere, t wouldno tprohibit he Districtfrom recognizinghemarriages f persons f the samesex hatwere egallyenteredntoand ecognizedyajurisdictionha tpermits elebrationf same-sex arriages.Therefore,he eferendumetng ought ere eallywill be putting o a votewhetherhisexisting tatutonlyermittedractice f theDistrict ecognizingarriagesegalJy nteredntoandrecognizedyanother tatewill notapplyo mamagesf 2 personsf thesame ex.Since heresno expresstatutory rovisiono thecontrary,hegeneral rohibition f theHumanRightsActagainst iscriminationn thebasis f sexual rientationhould ovem.n sum, he easoningfDean, selucidatedy Evans, ictateshac hisundoing f a longstanding,tatutorily etmittedpracticeasedoleiy n hesexual rientationf thepersonseekingo be ncluded ithin tsscopewould onstitutedrscrimrnatoryctunderbeHumanRights ct. To holdotherwise ouldbe oassumehat he Council ntendedo cut backon the broadprotectionsgainst iscnminationafforded y heHumanRightsAct to allow or contraventionf anexpress tatutory rovision hathasextendedull faith and credit to marriagesegallyentercdnto and recognized y otherjur isdict ionsince 901.Theres no reasonor theDistriclgovernmento refuseo recognizesame-sex arriagevalidly nterednto n anotherj risdiction henunderhesame ircumstancesitwould ecognizea heterosexualamage unlesst is attnbutedo disparatereatment r discrimination. .C.OfficialCode 2-1402.31a)stateshatwhendone whollyor partly or a discriminatoryeasonbased n he . , sexual rientation. . of any ndividual,"t is "anunlawful iscnminatoryractice. . . to deny . . anypersonhe u ll andequal njoymentf thegoods, ervices,acilities, rivileges,advantagesndaccommodationsf anyplace f publicaccommodations,As stated reviously,theHumanRightsAct hasbeenmade xpresslypplicableo theDrstrict ovemmentnderD.C.OfficialCode$ 2-1402.73.

C. The aw in the Districtof Columbiahas undamentallv hansed inceDeanwasdecided.TheDistrict'saws ave een ystematicallynd omprehensivelyhangedinceDeanwasdecided4 years goso hat he common nderstanding"f theword marriage"hat hecoungleanedromexaminingheDistnct's tatutorychemes t existed t he imeand elied pon osupporttsholding as eenundamentallynd ntentionallyltered.orexample,even f the ightstatutory rovisionsha l he Deancourtcitesas supportor thepropositionhatmarriage as

10D.C.OfficialCode$46-405 tates:If anymarriageeclaredllegalby heaforegoingsectjonshallbeenterednto n anotherurisdiction yprsonsaving nd etainingheirdomicilen theDistrict f Columbia, uchmamage hall edeemedllegal, ndmaybedecreedto bevoid n saidDistnct n thesamemanner s f it hadbeen elebratedherein."

8/14/2019 Brian K. Flowers, GC for D.C. Counsel, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning the Jury and Ma

9/11

gcndcr-spccific,D.C.Codc 6-ml,9l1,912,913,916,46-601,nd16?18),hrvebecn mcndcdby tha Councilto rcmove he gcndcr-spccificcfercnces spartof a rystemiccffort to cmploygcndor-neutnlrnguagehroughoutheD.C. OfficialCodcstatutcs crtainingo marriage nd herights, bcncfits,and obli8ations ncident to maniagc. Thus, thc "conoborativc" statutoryundcrpinningsf thatdccisionarcgone."

Thc chrngcs ncludean amcndmcnto thc HumanRighlsAct thatcxprnds hescopcandcoveragcf theait, amcndmentso thcManiagcAct hateliminetc casonsor voidinga manirgc,12amcndnpntsothedivorccaws,r3 ndamendmcntso numcrousthctstatutcshatcliminate cndcr-specific istinctions f spouscs. he Report ntheHumanRightsAct ndicatcd hat hcAct should"bc readn harmonywith andassupplernentinglhr ewsof thc Dstrict."r{The HumanRightsAct hasbcenamendcdn a numbcrof significantwayssincc 1995,rrScction 3 (D.C.Official Code 2-1402.31, hichwasat ssuc n Daan,hasbecnanrcndcdo addthc angu8gctctual or pcrccivcd," o hat apcrsonwould bc includcdwithin a protcctcd lass frhcywerperccivcdo bc a membcrof theclass.Scction273 (D.C.Official Codc$ 2-1402.73),whichexprcsslymadehcprovisionsofthcHumanRightsActrpplicablc othcDistrictgovernmcnt,wasno-t vcn cnactcduntil 2002,scvcnyearcaflerDcan.Thcrc amcndmcnB lafify that hc actcoversh. Districtgovemmcnt'sssuancesf I censcs,hat hc aetapplics o notonlyactual, utalso"pcrccivcd"mcmbershipn aprotectcd lass, nd hat heact applics o discrimination ascd pon

rrDcan,at 309-310, ncithcrCongress, or hc Councilhaschangcd endcr-spccificlanguage).Orc rcmainingprovisionn theManiagcAct thatwsscitcd n Daan,D.C. OfficialCodc46401, wouldbc changed y the JuryandMarriagcAmcndmcnlAct of 2009.'}I'hcManiageAmendment ct of 2008,cffcctivcScptembcr l, 2008 D.C. :w

17-222)55DCR 8295),eliminated ertaingroundsor voidingmarriagcs,nd rcpealshcrcqulrcmont f a prcmarital lood est.rThc OmnibusDomcsticPanncnhipEqualityAmcndmcntAct of 2008,cffectiveSeptembcr2,2008 D.C.Law 17-231), mended itle 16of thc District of ColumbiaOfficialCoda o rcmovegender pccific cfercnces.r'Scc,Reportof thc Committccon PublicScrvices ndConsumcr ffain on Bill 2-179,lhc HumanRightsActof 1977, a3 (Councilof thc Districtof Columbiauly 5, 197?).riAnrndmcntsinclude he HumanRightsAmendmcnt ct of 1998, ffcctivc Aprit 20,1999 D.C.Law 12-242); hc HumanRightsAmcndmcnt ct of2002,effctivcOctobcr , 2002

(D.C.L,aw14-189);he DomcsticPanncrship rctcction mcndmentAct of 2004,cffcctiveApril 8,2005 D.C. ,aw 15-309); he HumanRightsClarificationArncndmcnt ct of 2005,cffcctivcMarch8, 2006 D.C. :w 16-58); nd hc Prohibition f Discrimination n theBasisofCender dcntityandExprrssionAmcndment ct of 2008,effectivcJunc25, 2008 D.C.kw l7-177).

8/14/2019 Brian K. Flowers, GC for D.C. Counsel, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning the Jury and Ma

10/11

sexualdentity ndexpression. everal f these rotectionsid noteven xist n 1995whenDeanwasdecided.WhenDecnwasdecided,ostate ad egalizedame-sex arriages,o he ssue f Dtstnct

recognition f out-of-state arriages etween ersons f the samesex could not havebeenconsidered.ron contrasto hestate f rhe awat hat ime,anumberof tates ow ecognizeame-sex mamiages,rtheras a resulrof judicial decision r legislative ction. seeKerriganv.Commissioner f Public Health 95'l A'.2d 407 (Conn. 2008) (statute imiting marriage oopposite-sexouples iolates tate onstitutioni Vamum .Brien763N.W.2d862)(Iowa 009)(same); oodridge . Department fPublicHeahh798N.E.2d941) Mass. 003) same); ermont,(state egislatute mendedhat state'smarriage tatute o permitsame-sexmarriage ver agubematoriateto) Vt .Act No.3,S. 115 2009-2010*gis. Sess.,ff .Sept. ,2009),Maine statelegislaturelso ecentlyamendedhatstate'smarriage tatuteo permitsame-sex oupleso marryXMe.L.D.No. 1020, .P.No.384 L24rh,eg., st Sess.,nacted ay 6,2009); nd n Califomia,marriagesnteredntoprior oConstitutionalmendmentrevalid.

TheDistrict as doptedoliciesha thave ontinuedo move n thedirection f confemnggreater quality pon ayand esbian ouples swellasothers hoqualifyasdomesticannersnacts,ncludingheDomestic artnershipquality mendmentct of2006,effective pril 4,2006(D.C.Law 16-79). nd he OmnibusDomestic artnershipqua)ity mendment ct of 2008,effectiveSeptember 2, 2OO8 D,C. Law 17 23D.t7 The DomesticPartnership udicialDeterminationf Parentagemendment ct of 2009, igned y heMayoronMay21,2009 D.C.Act l8-84; 56DCP'4269),equalizesreatmentf spouses nddomestic artners nderDistrict awbyprovidingega! ecognitionf theparent-childelationshlporchildren om odomesticartners.Thecommitteeeport or theDomestic afinershipudicialDeterminationf ParentagemendmentAct of 2009, tated lainly hat Thepurpose f this egislations to formallyacknowledgehatloltwasnoted n Dean, hat heSupreme ourtof Hawaii, n Baehrv.Lewin,74Haw530,852P.2d 4 (Haw.1993), ad ecentlyeversedtrialcourtdecision arring ame-sexmaniages. ean, t316.rTTheOmnibus omestic artnershipquality mendment ct of 2008was ntroducedasBill 17 - 35, hePreventionf ChildAbuse ndNeglect mendment ct of 2007and enamedtheOmnrbus omestic artnershipquality mendment ct of 2008. t incorporatedheprovisionsf Bill l7-136, heDomestjc artner laimof DeadBodies rom heAnatomicalBoardAct of 2007andBill l7-183, heOmnibus omestic artner roperty mendmentctof2007, ndBill l7-331, heDomestic artnernheritanceaxFaimess ctof2007. Thecommitteeeportor Bill l7 -135, tatesha tBill l?-135wouldamend umerousectionsf the

Drstrict f Columbia odewith he ntento extendhe ights nd esponsibilitiesf domesticpartners,ringinghestatus f domesticartnershipsore quallyn linewithmarried pouses,andupdating utdatedanguagen the Codewith regard o gender pecific erms.Reportof theCommjtteen PublicSafety nd heJudiciaryn Biil 17- 35, heOmnibus omesric artnershipEquality mendment ct of 2008 Council f theDistrict f ColumbiaMarch11,2008).10

8/14/2019 Brian K. Flowers, GC for D.C. Counsel, Legal Comment on the Proposed Referendum Concerning the Jury and Ma

11/11

frmiliescrcrtcdby sanrc-scxouplcsrc not dittinguishlblcmm lny othcr emilyculrcntlyrecognizcdndcrDistrict aw."rlCONCLUSION

Bccauscheproposaluthorizesiscrirnination,t violatcshe nitiativc roccssndcrD.C.OfficialCode$ l-l@1.16(a), nd,hcrcforc,s not apropcr ubjcctor rn initiativc.For hoseseprratc,dcquate,nd ndcpcndentcasons,hisproposedcrsurs lcgrllyobjcctionrble.

cc: HonorrblcVinccntC. Gray,ChrirmanMcmbcrs f thcCouncil

rrRcportof the Commiltecon PublicSafety nd hcJudiciaryon Bill l8-66, DomesricPartncrchipudicialDctcrmination f ParcntagcmcndmcntAct of 2009,at I (Councilof theDistrictof ColumbiaMarch 10,2UD).

Bhan K.Flowers

Ceneral CounsCouncil oFthe DistAct of Conbia