D.C. Councilmember Advocates Marriage Equality

As Georgetown’s LGBTQ community fights for a safe environment on campus, Georgetown alumnus and D.C. Councilmember David Catania (SFS ’90, LAW ’94) is leading the fight for marriage equality in the District. On Oct. 6, Catania introduced the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, which would effectively legalize same-sex marriage in the District. Catania spoke with The Hoya about his political experiences, the fight for equality, the recent hate crimes on Georgetown’s campus and his future plans.

Why did you enter politics?

I lived in the District since 1986 and was a successful lawyer in the city. In 1997, when an opportunity came up through the tragic death of the chairman of the council, the individual who had the seat I currently [have] ran for council chairman, and she was successful which meant there was an opening in the at large seat. So in 1997, while an attorney I decided to run for council.

I had been connected with my community for some time in my neighborhood in Sheridan-Kalorama. I was at the time an elected Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner and was very interested in helping the city emerge from what was a very dark time in our past. We were in the midst of a financial control board, people were still leaving the city in large numbers, and at the time, the individuals who were stepping up to run for this office, really had in my opinion been part of the problem, not architects of a solution for a brighter future. And I don’t mean to be unkind towards the people who stepped forward, it was just these were individuals who had been involved to one degree or another in local government, I just didn’t seen any fresh perspectives or ideas. So I decided based on the success I had working in my community, that I had something to say and was eager to say it. And as it turns out, I was successful in that election, and have won three since. So I have won four.

Were you interested in politics as a student at Georgetown?

Well I was on the academic council in my freshman year in the SFS. And I had worked on the Hill for a US senator. You know, I was curious about the process of politics. I found it to be fascinating and interesting. I found the possibility to shape the future in an active way as opposed to a passive way, I found it interesting.

So when I went to law school I didn’t have any ambition to run for elected office but it just kind of happened. I ran first in 1996 for Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner in my neighborhood because I had been active in my neighborhood, and I saw that as an opportunity to make an additional contribution. It just didn’t dawn on me ever that I would have a career in elected politics.

Why did you introduce the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009? Why does D.C. need it?

We’re very lucky in this city because this city has had a long and well documented tradition of being an inclusive, progressive city. As early as 1996, excuse me 1976, the first same sex marriage bill was introduced to this council. It was just ahead of its time. It was not ultimately successful, obviously that’s why we are here today. But the District did have, in fact does have, one of the most comprehensive human rights ordinances in the country. We lead the nation in a whole host of matters, with respect to sensitivity towards minorities.

So with respect to marriage equality there has been for some time a majority of this council in support of marriage equality, but the timing wasn’t right not because the city wasn’t ready or because the elected leadership was unwilling, it had more to do with federal relations with the District. You know we have just come out from under a period where we either had a Republican president or a Republican House or a Republican Senate. And in some time over the last decade we had all the above. Because of the relationship that the District has with Congress, it becomes complicated when the District actually exercises its local democracy and has policies that reflect the will of the people. If that will conflicts with the ideology or the dogma of either the president or leadership or the majorities in the House and the Senate, and we’ve had all manner of interference from Congress throughout the history of home rule that have frustrated the ability of the District to really legislate in a way or deliberate it through popular moral values. In any event, with the election of President Obama last fall and with the increased majorities in the House and the Senate on the democratic side, it really opened up an opportunity for us to pass marriage equality and gave us at least a fighting chance to defend it in Congress.

In the way this works Congress, under the home rule charter, delegated the authority it has to govern the District to the council and the mayor. Congress reserves the right to review our legislation for thirty days, in order to reverse the Council action. Now in the history of home rule, since it has been required that both houses of Congress must act on it and the president must sign it, we’ve never had an occasion where one of our laws is reversed. But what happens, typically in an appropriation process, is a member of Congress will attempt to circumvent our local law but not allowing us to spend money on implementing a particular policy. And it has happened with everything from medical marijuana, to domestic partnerships, to needle exchange.

So in any event, I think we are well positioned and out to defend the bill before Congress, although there are no guarantees. And so that’s why we decided to do it now. To the the issue of why do it, for me its an essential human right. The right to marry is a human right. There is no good public policy reason not to afford civil marriage equality to our residents regardless of gender. And that’s the reason I decided now and the reason why. We obviously have a very big GLBT community in this city, but this isn’t solely for the GLBT community that I decided to go forward with marriage equality. I think marriage equality is important for the GLBT community obviously but it is as important for the heterosexual community, especially our young people. You know, anything we can do to send the message that we are all equal, and that message resonates even at times when we are uncomfortable with that proposition does tend to create a world where we don’t view each other differently, and where we don’t feel a sense of privilege or sense of burden from one community to another. And I think that is ultimately healthy. I don’t think it is healthy for one community to feel superior and another community to feel dismissed. And whether you are talking about race, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or national origin, it just doesn’t matter. Ans so that is the why and the when.

Have you had any indication that Congress will attempt to circumvent this bill?

Nope. In fact, this last spring the council moved a measure through the legislature that [allowed] same sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions to be recognized here. And that was kind of the first test to see what type of congressional interference we would confront. Aside from a lot of saber rattling and threats, ultimately nothing happened. And you know there are those who think we can get away with that, but now this is going to be a bite too big for Congress to swallow. I disagree. If Congress inserts itself into this issue, you know one has to wonder about the priorities of those who would initiate such an action. We have spent months trying to crack national health care reform, we have two wars, we have an economic melt down. We have all kinds of things that are afflicting this country. And for the Congress of the United States of America to waste a second on a municipal ordinance in the District of Colombia seems to me bizarre at best and malfeasance at worst.

Currently including you there 11 members of the DC council who have indicated support…

So there are two who have as of now, not stated their intention to vote for nor frankly against, although I think both Councilman Barry and Councilman Alexander are leaning against supporting the measure. I take their opposition with a bit of a grain of salt. Obviously, I would prefer this to be a unanimous vote there is no question about it. I think it has a greater moral authority when it is unanimous. That’s been our history in these kinds of decisions on civil rights. In any event I want to say in the defense of the two of them, while I disagree with their position on same sex marriage, in their own way both of them have been enormous supporters of the GLBT community in the past.

In fact, Councilmember Alexander voted for the measure to recognize marriages from other jurisdictions. So just because these two are not supportive of marriage equality, I don’t want to give the impression that they’re not friends of the GLBT community and that they’re not supportive. They are just not as far along on this issue as I would like them to be, and as I think they should be, but that again is a decision for them to make.

Currently there have been numerous hearings from the council and the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics. Do you think there should be a public vote on this issue?

I think when you say this is a democracy, let people vote. Yes, this is a democracy and it is also a republic. As a republic We elect representatives to represent us and make decisions, easy and hard. I can see this is a hard decision. This is hard. We are taking on an issue where there is some division within the community. but I disagree with the notion that we should put this up for an initiative or a referendum, and its not because I don’t trust the people. On principle I don’t believe the issues of human rights or civil rights are proper issues for ballot initiatives. There is a long tradition in this country with putting the rights of minorities up to the popular vote and it’s a recipe for division, a recipe for demonization, its a recipe to divide, it’s a recipe that frankly often leads to hate and to violence and I mean that. The fact of the matter is When you look at initiatives and referendums nationally, that they pass about 30 percent of the time, and These are just general initiatives and referendums, but when they are initiatives and referendums that attempt to strip the rights away from a minority, they pass about 80 percent of the time. Because they prey and peoples fear, they prey on peoples intolerance and They speak to the lesser angels among us. And that’s why they succeed If we are going to start giving up which of our rights we put up for public vote, well where does it stop? Why not put the rights of religious minorities up for a vote, or racial minorities, or people form national origins, or immigration status, or gender. Where does it stop? These are issues where we have to have a covenant with each other, that we just don’t go there. We don’t put each other’s rights up for a vote. There is also a really ugly tradition in this country …We’ve done it in a whole host of areas, dating back to the early 19th century We had referendums and initiatives that prevented free blacks from moving to Indiana and Oregon and Illinois.

We had frankly an advisory referendum in this city, on December 21, 1865 as to whether or not free African males should be permitted the right to vote. It of course went down in flames, 99 plus percent.

We’ve had initiatives and referendum that do things like Burden certain minorities the ability to immigrate: the Chinese to California, or the ability of the Japanese to own property in California.

In our modern era we’ve had all sorts of initiatives and referendums on issues of fair housing, on immigration, on English only, etc., etc.

These are ugly efforts that prey on people’s fear and intolerance. And I would never support one as a voter and I'm not gonna support one as an elected official.

Putting such a decisive proposition on the ballot, just not going to fdo itsuch opposition on the ballot

If the voters ultimately decide that they do not like the actions of the 13 members of this council, it is their right to no vote for us when we are up again and to elect people who have their own point of view to change the world.

Are you aware in the past week there have been three bias related incidents at Georgetown?

It’s just heartbreaking.

What are your thoughts on that? Is there anything that you think Georgetown students can do to change the culture?

First I want to say that the Georgetown community has transformed in the last twenty years. I graduated in 1990, I was there from 86 to 90, which was a very contentious, a very contentious part of the history of the university with respect to the GLBT community. You know, I, had the opportunity speak this year at the GLBT graduation and now there’s a GLTB office and the level sensitivity that Georgetown now shows and demonstrates towards the GLTB community was unthinkable twenty years ago. I just think, you know, anytime you have social change that challenges certain people’s wrong-headed but settled belief of superiority, they’re going to act out, and violence happens in every human rights struggle. I think the university’s reaction and the community’s reaction in particular to come out in mass and reject it, you know, is just the right thing to do. Look, we cannot go into the heads of people who are sick. You can’t, you can’t get into their heads, and anticipate the person walking down the street, and guess which one among us is the lunatic. Ok?

Yeah.

But the university’s reaction thus far I think has been very appropriate. Look we have to look out for each other. And I think that’s what the university is doing.

Alright. Last question, then we’ll wind this up. If I’m not mistaken, you are up for reelection next year. Do you plan on running?

You know I, I’ll make my mind up this December or probably January. You know I never, and I understand why people do it, but I never been interested in long drawn out campaigns where my focus is directed more towards getting the job than doing the job. You understand?

Oh I understand.

And so, I just think that often if you’re primarily focused on reelection it colors the way in which you govern. People deny this to themselves and I think they have to, the obvious truth is it changes the way you govern if you’re constantly obsessed with getting reelected. I really do trust the population, if I decide to run again I’ll go [to] them, I’ll attempt to make the case for what I’ve done and for what I’ll continue do, if I’m privileged enough to get reelected, well that’s a decision for them to make. I’ve had four elections and I’ve won each one, and in each one I’ve gotten more votes than the one before. So you know I don’t know if I’ve hit voter fatigue yet but I guess we’ll see next year.

And any thoughts about running for a different office or national politics or something different someday?

You know I’m not closing the door on anything, but I don’t get up every day and measure the drapes in the mayor’s office. It’s just not something I’m interested in doing, who knows what opportunities will present themselves in the future, but for now my principal goal, and I made it, I made a commitment, to have universal access to health insurance in the city. I, you know, understand things happen and the course of events, may collapse, and I certainly don’t need to have it on a time frame, but I want to this year, you know despite, the economy, the decreased revenue, we are still going to expand our publicly supported health insurance system to another 12,000 people. And I hope the economy turns around in the later part of this upcoming year and we are able to keep up the trajectory. People talk, what do you want your public service to have been about, I would be very proud to have been the person who presided over the elimination of this issue in the city. The country could learn from us, it really could. We often don’t get the credit we deserve.

— Interview by Shane Hickey