Civil Rights

Your D.C. Gay Marriage Waiting Period May Now Begin

|

In D.C., getting gay married is now almost exactly like buying a handgun. Like handgun ownership, gay marriage was illegal until very recently, and both require massive amounts of paperwork and a waiting period. But today was the first day D.C.'s gay couples could apply for a license, and apply they did!

Photo by Matt Dunn

Meanwhile, Catholic Charities is getting out of the foster care business in the District, since they will no longer be allowed to discriminate against (married) gay couples looking to foster a kid. (Presumably they were previously discriminating on the basis of marital status, but that technicality has now been removed). Cases like this are another reminder that it would be great to have government out of the marriage business entirely—since the D.C. government says who is married and who is not—and who gets protection from discrimination—it's an all-or-nothing situation that provokes all-or-nothing responses along the lines of the Church's "I'm taking my foster care program and I'm going home!"

But failing the realization of a libertarian utopia in the nation's capital, it's great that D.C.'s gay families now have the option to get the legal recognition the rest of us already enjoy.

(Disclosure: I had the legalities of my straight marriage performed in Virginia, despite having the wedding festivities in D.C.'s Dupont Circle and being a resident of the District. This was largely because I was annoyed at the city's three-business-day waiting period and mandatory syphilis test. Next up: Making it possible for all of D.C.'s gay citizens to celebrate the right to get married by refusing to get married in the District because the process is ridiculously bureaucratic. I'm looking at you, Virginia.)

I wrote about the D.C's gay wedding bling options here.

UPDATE: Hey look! The "God Hates Fags" Richmond protesters from Matt Welch's post this morning made it to D.C. for today's festitivies as well.

NEXT: Two Steps Forward, No Steps Back

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Congrats on gettin’ hitched, Katherine!

  2. Would George Washington have imagined such a thing happening?

    1. Back in my day I was also known as the Felcher of America.

  3. Good to see Catholic Charities is more concerned with hating the gays than helping the kids.

    1. The sins of the fathers have to be visited upon every child. And the mothers too, apparently.

    2. They don’t want kids to catch teh ghey. You’re not against children’s health, are you?

    3. And you bitches call yourselves Libertarians.

    4. Yeah! Fuck their principles!

      How can we be a free society if someone acts according to a belief that I disagree with?

    5. I applaud the Catholic Church on this one. They can not sanction gay marriage because it is not in their belief system. Just because they don’t approve or condone of homosexuality does not mean they hate gays. That is something that non-libertarian cultural leftists believe.
      There are other charities who can help the sexually-confused kids that had the (mis)fortune of being adopted by a gay couple.

      1. I have many friends that were raised by gay couples and not one of them is particularly sexually-confused.

        1. Yeah, but you’re just a nobody… 😉

      2. Your implied homophobia aside, there is little doubt that the Catholic Church does, in fact, hate the gays.

        1. And who gives a rats ass if they hate gays? It’s their goddamned right. And if the result of that is that they don’t wanna participate in the adoption system in DC because they’d be forced to consider gay couples now, so what? Its their goddamned right. You can think its stupid all you want, the same way I think the Klan is stupid, but they have a right to act or not to act based on such decisions however they damn well please. And that is worthy of a “good for them” in my opinion. Good for them that they’re using their freedom of disassociation the same way I believe teh gheys are using their freedom of association in a good way.

          1. how is their disassociation being used in a good way if it is abandoning kids because of their bigoted beliefs? I don’t really see anything good in that.

          2. “whe gives a rats ass if they (catholics)hate gays?” uh, maybe the guy who they are supposed to be following. Christianity, though it hasn’t had a very good track record in history, is a religion that was created to reveal God’s love to all people in the hope that they would return to God. Hatred has not place in it and the Catholic Church is clearly adding to the poor performance record once again…shame

          3. You know, I’m all for anyone’s right to be bigoted, but that doesn’t mean that it’s okay. Being a libertarian doesn’t make one a moral relativist, opposing gay equality is immoral, so even though I support the Church’s right to discriminate I also feel it is fully compatible with libertarianism for me to call their discrimination reprehensible.

        2. Thom, Your implied lack of intelligence aside, there is little doubt that the you do, in fact, have sex with sheep.

          My proof is better than your proof… My proof is better than yours…

        3. That is the stupidest thing I have ever read here. The Catholic Church is lousy with queers. I personally know gay priests. FTR, I’m not Catholic.

          1. Yes, tons of gay people in the RCC.

            But more money for my kid’s school! woohoo! Plus the feds will pick up the orphanage slack. It’s a win/win!

      3. Da’ pope prolly needs one of dem new gold plated shitters. So, dey could save da money and buy im one of dem.

      4. Ben, I understand the CCs position and agree with it as well. What pro-gay community doesn’t address is the fact that same-sex unions (when it comes to the “sex” in same-sex) is not natural, and hence abnormal. It is not natural in the sense of morality from most (if not all) of the major religions and it is not natural in an Darwinian sense either. What same-sex marriage promotes is that same-sex partnerships are normal, which they clearly are not.

        The legal contract pros and cons of such union (as compared to a traditional marriage) are a different matter altogether and could be dealt with under normal contract law.

        1. You don’t choose to be gay. You do choose to be a scientifically illiterate bible thumping ignoramus.

          1. Tony,

            Please see my reply to dumbass. Same applies to you. CHOICE has nothing to do with it. People born with other defects don’t CHOOSE to have them, but the still aren’t normal.

            I’m sure you closed mind won’t understand the difference though between my assertion that homosexuality is not normal and your inference that I disapprove of homosexual behavior among 2 consenting adults. Your post makes that obvious.

            1. I love it when someone who has such a parlous mental state that he believes a 2,000 year old Jewish zombie wants him to eat his flesh and drink his blood refers to others’ “defects.”

            2. There is no scientific basis to call homosexuality a defect.

              The only way homosexuality isn’t “normal” is in the same way that being African American isn’t “normal,” i.e., not a majority of the population.

              1. Given that sexuality is the species way to propagate itself, how is a condition which causes an individual to be exclusively sexually attracted to other members it cannot possibly procreate with not be described as some kind of genetic or developmental defect?

                At the most favorable explanation, homosexuality is a condition like to albinism or autism, not a member of a particular race.

                1. The question you should be asking is why such an apparent genetic dead end persists throughout time across many species.

                  The answer is your understanding of genetics is shallow. That’s not to say the question is totally answered, but there is evidence.

                  In humans, a gay uncle need only contribute vitally to the survival of two nieces or nephews in order to make up for not having one direct offspring, genetically speaking. There is also evidence that homosexuality and high fecundity in women are genetically linked. It’s just math; inevitably there will be a certain portion of the population that is homosexual. Since it occurs so naturally and does not disable you in any way (actually we’re superior in fabulousness), it cannot be considered a defect or abnormality. Sexuality and genetics are just more complex than you think they are.

                  1. And since I asked a question for you I’ll offer a rebuttal on your behalf.

                    Why do societies seem to suppress homosexuality so violently if it’s so “natural”?

                    Good question. The answer to any question about reconciling human social behavior and trait selection is usually found in our natural homes: small familial units. The best evidence of how humans interact “naturally” is found by observing extant tribal societies. In them, in many cases homosexuals are not only accepted but play the role I described above–aiding the survival of relative children. What’s “unnatural” is the global society we live in, not homosexuality.

                  2. And sickle cell disease gives greater resistance to malaria, which is useful if the organism lives in in an area especially prone to malaria, otherwise it’s a dangerous defect. A trait can be useful under certain circumstances and a defect in others. All genetic and developmental defects are occur in nature, so being “natural” does not cancel being a defect.

                    An impaired interest in procreative sex is a disability. The difficulty is that this trait has the opposite effect in females than it does in males, so the increased sexual interest in the females is driving the continued existence of the trait. That does not mean that it is not a defect that impairs proper biological function in males.

                    All it comes down to your Orwellian corruption of the language to stamp out any descrptor of homosexuality that has negative connotations.

            3. I fail to see why whether it is a biological condition or a choice is relevant aside from academic interest. There is nothing immoral about homosexuality either way. Plenty of things are frowned upon by most major religions and don’t seem to have any obvious evolutionary function, big deal.

          2. You don’t choose to be gay a pedophile.

            FIFY

        2. Hetero unions could also be dealt with under normal contract law, leaving you and your major religion buddies free to spend your time looking up the definition of the word “normal”.

          1. oncogenesis (otherwise known as dumbass),

            OK, here you go for YOUR benefit.

            1.
            conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
            2. serving to establish a standard.
            3. Psychology.
            a.
            approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment.
            b.
            free from any mental disorder; sane.
            4.
            Biology, Medicine/Medical.
            a.
            free from any infection or other form of disease or malformation, or from experimental therapy or manipulation.
            b.
            of natural occurrence.

            Note especially 1 and 4b, which apply here. Seems like you and your ignorant buddies should do some looking up…

            1. 4.b. of natural occurrence

              Are you trying to claim that homosexuality doesn’t occur in nature?

              1. Tony,

                Two-headed calves occur in nature. Does that make them normal?

                1. Not a valid comparison. Homosexuality is present in stable proportions in thousands of species, and has a genetic and selective basis. The only thing unnatural here is your religiously-based bigotry.

                  1. “Homosexuality is present in stable proportions in thousands of species, and has a genetic and selective basis.”

                    If you cite references to this claim I will gladly read them. I’d like to understand if this is the case or simply a way to “justify” homosexuality in humans as “normal”

                    “Not a valid comparison.”

                    And why wouldn’t it be? It certain fits with your assertion in your second sentence. Other than the fact that 2-headed calves aren’t found in thousands of species. Just species of cows. (substitute snake, lizard, etc)

                    “The only thing unnatural here is your religiously-based bigotry.”

                    You are inferring something that isn’t there in order to bolster your argument, which it doesn’t. But at least it makes you feel superior.

                    “There is no scientific basis to call homosexuality a defect.”

                    I never called it a “defect” but used a genetic defect as a comparison. To try and illustrate the difference between “normal” and “abnormal”, which you can’t seem to grasp.

                  2. there’s nothing like reading Hit and Run to give you an appreciation of Hitler’s ideas about population control.

                2. Many fish eat their young.

                  1. BTW, I favor gay marriage.

  4. Would George Washington have imagined such a thing happening?

    Who knows, but it seems like he did have a few problems occupying his time, I’m going to guess that the subject of who could marry whom where 230 years into the future was an idea that would have had a short half-life inside his brain.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  5. Who knows, but it seems like he did have a few problems occupying his time, I’m going to guess that the subject of who could marry whom where 230 years into the future was an idea that would have had a short half-life inside his brain.

    Washington’s attitudes on the matter are a matter of historical record.

    1. And I bet he would have hated Twitter and Lil’ Wayne, too. Who gives a fuck?

      I no more worship Washington than I do any other god or man.

      1. Who the fuck doesn’t hate Lil’ Wayne?

        1. WHAT!!?? YAIS!! EWWWWHAT??!!

    2. I would still maintain it’s likely he didn’t spend much time thinking about the future evolution of homosexuality in American society. He was a man of his times in his opinions on this subject, clearly.

  6. This was largely because I was annoyed at the city’s three-business-day waiting period and mandatory syphilis test.

    Something to hide Katherine? I know, I know. The chancre sore goes away after a few days, never to be seen again. Why go looking for trouble like that when we can just claim ignorance and avoid the potentially troublesome pre-marriage fight?

  7. I applaud the Catholic Church on this one. They can not sanction gay marriage because it is not in their belief system. Just because they don’t approve or condone of homosexuality does not mean they hate gays. That is something that non-libertarian cultural leftists believe.
    There are other charities who can help the sexually-confused kids that had the (mis)fortune of being adopted by a gay couple.

    Okay, so two loving gay parents is worse for a child than an orphanage. Were you born that stupid or have you been practicing?

    1. He was probably raised by stupid parents! That shit rubs off.

    2. Two sentences, two false dilemmas. Pretty good batting average.

  8. My imaginary friend hates your imaginary friend.

  9. It took Reason until this late in the afternoon to blog an ecstatic post about this? You’re slipping…

  10. My question is what happens if you fail the syphillis test – do they refuse to marry you? Chances are pretty good your would-be spouse would already have it, so wouldn’t it be best for the state to declare that both your STD-ridden genitals should solely be in contact with each other in the future?

    1. Fortunately they have a cure for this whole syphillis business… so presumably they just shoot you up w some penicillan in advance of the ceremony.

      1. It’s one of those archaic laws that stems over from another era (before it could be cured, I presume). Pennsylvania had this same test 30 years ago. Not sure if they still have it.

        I’d make a law that in order to make a new law 5 laws must be removed from the books. hehehe

    2. It’s none of the dtate’s god damn business if someone applying for a marriage license has the clap.

  11. That would suck to have two gay parents. That’s like a double dose of the molestering.

    1. Cross posted at free republic?

      1. 😉

        (Sshhhhh. I know it isn’t obvious that it’s sarcasm, but given that it’s posted here and not at Free Republic….”molestering” is the other clue)

        1. There’s nothing funny about being molestered. 😉

          1. Was it Chester? He is very droll, in his own way.

        2. I just hope bigbigslacker’s post about shooting up his dilapidated house whacked out on ethanol and non-approved intoxicants is not sarcasm. That shit was funny, if true.

  12. Homophobia is gay.

  13. ITT: anti-religion bigots and homophobes

  14. “Catholic Charities is getting out of the foster care business in the District, since they will no longer be allowed to discriminate against (married) gay couples looking to foster a kid.”

    Catholic Charities will no longer be allowed to make rational choices about who gets to adopt the children in its charge.

    Social libertarians apparently have no use for freedom of conscience.

  15. I got married in DC in 2009, and the Syphilis test was no longer required as of 2008. The 3 day waiting period is still required, however, and they still require that a member of the clergy officiate the wedding, even for atheists like us. We found a member of the Washington humanist society to perform the ceremony.

  16. On Bastille Day 1995 I tried to get married in Minnesota. They had (perhaps still have) a 30 day waiting period. Unfortunately, North Dakota (which for those of you on the coasts is the next door neighbor to MN) had no waiting period at all. We called the courthouse in Langdon, got them to call the judge back from the county fair, and were married in 3 hours. If North Dakota had a waiting period (or if I were gay) I’d be a rich man today.

  17. you’re just a nobody

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.