Sen. Bennett (R-UT) (Image from AP/Susan Walsh)

After 1 a.m. this morning, as the Senate considers a slew of Republican amendments — many “poison pills” — to the House’s health care reconciliation “fixes,” Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) had his anti-LGBT, anti-federalist amendment considered.

The amendment would have stopped marriage equality in the District until a popular vote on the matter could be held.

By a little past 1:30 this morning, however, the amendment was defeated. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), presiding over the late-night session, announced the roll call vote: 36-59.

At least one Republican, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) was reported by the clerk to have voted no on the amendment. [A second Republican, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), also voted against the amendment.]

The entire process of considering all these amendments — deemed #votearama on Twitter — is being detailed by CAP’s @wonkroom.

Some of the first same-sex weddings to be legally recognized by the D.C. government took place at the Equality Forum on the first floor of the Human Rights Campaign's building in Washington, D.C.

Here are my reports at Metro Weekly from day one of D.C. same-sex weddings.

First, the couples:

”There are no spectators here today,” Rev. David K. North, pastor of Holy Redeemer Metropolitan Community Church in College Park, said. ”All of us have responsibilities to ensure the success of this joint endeavor.”

With those words – common to weddings everywhere but especially poignant on Tuesday morning, March 9 – North began the first of three same-sex wedding ceremonies held today before more than 100 guests and almost half as many members of the media at the Equality Forum, a community space on the ground floor of the Human Rights Campaign’s headquarters in Washington.

Then, the politics on display on Tuesday:

The Campaign for All D.C. Families hosted three of the first legally recognized same-sex marriages in the District on Tuesday, March 9, but the reason for the success of the marriage equality effort here was present in the faces of the attendees – and on the tongues of the many politicians and political strategists at the event.

Michael Crawford, the newly hired director of new media at the New-York-based Freedom to Marry and the head of D.C. for Marriage during the District’s successful effort, noted, “D.C. will be the first majority-minority jurisdiction where we have marriage equality, and I think that bodes well for our efforts to win marriage nationwide.”

Looking at the Campaign’s highlighted first weddings – three black couples – and the “majority-minority” assembled guests, the strong effort made in D.C. to ensure that all of Washington – and not the stereotype of the gay community as a white monolith – was represented was clear.

At 6 a.m. this morning, March 3, Angelisa Young and Sinjoyla Townsend arrived at the Carl Moultrie Courthouse where, nearly three hours later, they would exit the front doors as the first same-sex couple to register for a marriage license in the District of Columbia since the new law granting marriage equality took effect.

By the time the processing began at 8:30 a.m., more than 60 couples had arrived on the fourth floor of the courthouse, where the applications for such licenses are submitted. It takes three business days for the District to process applications. These first-of-their-kind licenses are expected to be granted Tuesday, March 9.

Although Young and Townsend, a D.C. couple, were first, Townsend, taking in the day, said, ”It didn’t matter where we fell in line.”

Check it out!

Jackson (Photo via PFAW.)

My newest at Metro Weekly covers “Jackson’s Last-Minute Effort” at the Supreme Court:

Bishop Harry Jackson, along with others opposed to marriage equality coming to Washington, filed a last-minute request at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, March 1, seeking to stop the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009 from becoming law on March 3 so that he can proceed with his referendum effort.

Aided by lawyers from the national organization Alliance Defense Fund, Jackson filed a request for an immediate stay of the law with Chief Justice John Roberts, who is responsible for hearing appeals coming from the District. Roberts has the ability either to make the decision himself or to turn the matter over to the full court for a decision.

If Jackson’s request were granted, the stay would halt the effective date of the marriage law – putting off marriage equality until the full Supreme Court could resolve the underlying issues Jackson has presented to it.

A copy of the application for a stay can be found here (pdf), care of HRC’s Michael Cole (who has been helpful above the call of duty throughout this flurry of legal action).

[UPDATE: The District of Columbia government has filed an opposition to the application, which I have made available here (pdf) at Law Dork. I'm reviewing it and have an update at MW. Here's my favorite part:

The District also argues that the stay sought by Jackson – a stay as to the effective date of the law – is actually irrelevant because the referendum period ends when an act becomes law, not when it becomes effective. The District’s lawyers further argue that the entire legislative process would need to be stalled to keep the bill from becoming law in order for Jackson’s stay to have its intended effect of allowing the possibility of a referendum to continue past March 3. And that, they conclude, is a position that has no support in the ADF filing or in law, so far as the District’s lawyers were aware.

Totally interesting argument.]

[UPDATE 2: Before hearing from the Supreme Court, the same marriage equality opponents have filed a Sec. 1983 civil rights action in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asserting a violation of their due process rights and seeking an injunction keeping District officials from moving forward with marriage applications for same-sex couples beginning at 8:30 a.m.

The Complaint is now available here (pdf) at Law Dork.

It is unclear whether the District Court will take action at this time.]

[UPDATE 3: In an opinion posted to the Supreme Court's website after 5 p.m. Tuesday, Chief Justice John Roberts, acting alone, rejected the request of marriage equality opponents that he stay the effective date of the District's marriage equality bill. He wrote: "Without addressing the merits of petitioners’ underlying claim, however, I conclude that a stay is not warranted."

The Chief Justice specifically noted the argument advanced by the District that the Supreme Court generally defers to the local D.C. courts for "matters of exclusively local concern." Roberts also noted the fact that Congress did not act to disapprove of the law during the 30-day review period and the remaining availability of the initiative process in reaching his decision not to grant the stay.

The opinion is available here (pdf) at Law Dork, and my updated story, "Roberts Rules," is up at MW.]

[UPDATE 4: As same-sex couples began applying for marriage applications, I received word that the last last-ditch effort, the Sec. 1983 TRO claim filed in federal court, was rejected by another Roberts -- U.S. District Court Judge Richard Roberts.

In the opinion, Roberts determined both that Bishop Jackson and the others did not meet their burden of showing irreparable harm -- in large part because of the initiative process that they are pursuing -- and that the lawsuit -- claiming a violation of marriage equality opponents' due process rights -- was itself unlikely to succeed. He wrote:

[P]rocedural due process is satisfied when “an appropriate hearing has been provided at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” . . .

The plaintiffs’ procedural due process right to be heard has been satisfied by their filing a motion for preliminary injunctive relief in Superior Court, and their subsequent opportunity to appeal after the Superior Court denied the motion.

The opinion is available here (pdf) at Law Dork.]

While most of the Washington, D.C., area was checking the time for the next snowball fight or their fridge to see how much milk was left during this past week’s double-snowstorm, the federal government – by and large – was closed for business, with the Office of Personnel Management closing federal offices in the capital area for most of the past week.

Unfortunately, the government slowdown meant that movement on any issues – LGBT equality issues included – was hampered.

Check it out!

Rep. Chaffetz (R-UT)

In Metro Weekly — “Utah Congressman Takes Aim at D.C.” — I take a look at U.S. Rep. Josh Chaffetz’s effort to stop the District’s efforts at marriage equality:

The ranking Republican member of the House Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia filed legislation on Tuesday, Jan. 26, disapproving of the District’s passage of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009. According to the District’s own delegate in Congress, however, the bill will not be moving forward.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), introduced the bill as the first formal step in the congressional process for overturning the marriage-equality bill passed by the District of Columbia in December 2009. In order to be overturned, Chaffetz’s bill would need to be passed by both the House and the Senate – where no such bill has been introduced – and signed by the president.

D.C. Superior Court Judge Judith Macaluso ruled this afternoon, Jan. 14, that the initiative sought by Bishop Harry Jackson on behalf of the Stand4Marriage D.C. Coalition to limit marriage in the District to one man and one woman is not an allowed topic for a ballot measure.

The ruling upholds the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics (BOEE) decision this past fall that District law prohibits initiatives that would have the effect of violating the D.C. Human Rights Act (HRA). As Macaluso today wrote for the court, ”the initiative would deprive only same-sex individuals of the legal status, rights, and privileges they enjoy as married persons.” Because that is a clear violation of the HRA, the court found, ”The Board properly rejected the proposed initiative on this ground.”

Judge Macaluso’s ruling is available here (pdf).

[UPDATE: Counsel for the Stand4Marriage coalition, the Alliance Defense Fund, issued a statement Thursday stating that they would appeal the ruling.  “The people of D.C. have a right to vote on the definition of marriage, and the D.C. Charter guarantees that right,” said ADF Legal Counsel Timothy J. Tracey. “We will continue to fight for the people’s right to participate in a legitimate democratic process in the district.”]

The passage of the marriage equality bill by D.C. City Council on December 15 and signing of the bill by Mayor Adrian Fenty later that week may have been, as longtime District LGBT equality advocate Bob Summersgill said, ”the easy step” in reaching D.C. marriage equality.

In the past week, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009 was transmitted to Congress for review, a judge heard arguments on whether same-sex marriage can be subject to an initiative in the District and a referendum effort was filed by equality opponents. After all that, marriage equality is still moving forward – but there are several hurdles remaining in place before the D.C. Clerk of Courts signs the first marriage certificate.

[UPDATE: Be sure, also, to read my update about the D.C. Superior Court ruling upholding the Board of Elections earlier decision that same-sex marriage is not an appropriate subject for an initiative.]

Also, check out my other article in this issue about the courts!

Time and again over the past decades, the District has been held back from implementing measures that some in Congress don’t like, from needle-exchange programs to medical marijuana to domestic partnerships and beyond.

Congressional oversight of the D.C. budget has allowed Congress to pass ”riders” that are attached to the annual appropriations bill, stopping the D.C. government from acting on measures passed by D.C. Council or, in one notable case, by District residents. . . .

With Sunday’s passage by the Senate of the omnibus appropriations bill, though, the District was a step closer to having the most onerous riders wiped clean from the budget. The House passed the measure a few days earlier, and President Obama is expected to sign the bill this week.