The Hill is Home

← →

Robinson Clarifies Position on Same-Sex Marriage

September 2nd, 2010 by Claudia Holwill · 12 Comments · Capitol Hill

Photo by Claudia Holwill

At last week’s candidates forum at the Southeast Library, a few questions drew a bit more reaction with the audience than others, one of which was regarding whether or not Kelvin Robinson would have supported the same-sex marriage bill had he been a Councilmember at the time it was voted on.  There was a spirited exchange, of which you can read below — it has been taken from the transcript I was provided with by the organizers.  Robinson wanted to clarify his position on this topic, since he feels that there is still some confusion regarding his position on the issue, and issued the following press release:

WASHINGTON, DC‐ Ward 6 Council Candidate Kelvin Robinson called for an end to skepticism regarding his stance on same‐sex marriage in the District of Columbia. Robinson supports the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality law and will not do anything to restrict or repeal it.

“We are a Nation and a City of laws. I respect the District’s marriage equality law and support equal rights for all District residents including our GLBT neighbors,” said Robinson. “I have no intentions of imposing a referendum on this law nor asking the Council to repeal the law.”

Robinson’s opposition to the language of the marriage bill came during the debate on the bill last year. As a member of the Board of Catholic Charities during that time he did not believe the bill supported adequate religious exemptions. He pushed for a measure similar to the San Francisco same‐sex marriage law, which he supports, in which the Catholic Church continued to work closely with the city. Robinson hoped the District would have been able to reach a similar compromise.

It has also been reported falsely by many in the press that he had accepted campaign contributions from the National Organization of Marriage (NOM). He has not.

“I have not, nor will I, accept funding from the National Organization of Marriage and I resent the interference of any outside organization that attempts to divide our community and meddle in local District politics.”

And here is the full exchange from the forum, including moderator Mark Segraves reading the question submitted by an audience member.

Mark Segraves: Mr. Robinson, you served as Vice Chair for the Board of Directors of Catholic Charities, which is opposed to marriage equality in the District. Do you support marriage equality, and will you fight in the future not to take away this civil right? And, if I could add to both candidates, if there were ever to be a voter referendum or initiative on this, would you respect the will of the voters on this or any matter if it did go to referendum? As both of you probably know, the DC Council can overturn a voter referendum or voter initiative, and they’ve done it. So, I just add that little. Mr. Robinson.

Kelvin Robinson: So, the short answer is that I support equality. I reject any organization, outside organization, that would come in DC to try to interfere with our local politics, and I will do nothing but adhere to current law and do nothing to overturn it.

MS: And if there were a voter referendum or initiative on any issue, would you respect the will of the voters on any referendum or initiative? Will you take that pledge?

KR: I think we would have to respect the will, but I think in this instance if you’re talking about the rights of individuals, I think sometimes there needs to be a solution where you have to also stand firm, and say that to the extent that it will not provide equality, we should not accept this.

MS: And given the murmur of the audience, I would argue that you haven’t fully answered the question. Had you been on the Council at the time and were able to vote, how would you have voted, yes or no, to support the same sex marriage bill?

KR: As I’ve said in the past, and I’ll say again here, is that the process was flawed because

Audience: Answer the question!

MS: Allow him . . . Allow him to answer the question!

KR: What I’ve said . . .

MS: Please, please. Really. Let the candidate –

Audience 2: Go ahead. Let him answer the question.

KR: What I’ve said in the past and what I’ve continued to say is that I did not appreciate the way the process was the right process. It did not allow for all parties to be together and find a solution that was right for everybody. I would not have voted for that bill because it did not provide a solution that was win-win. It was a solution presented, and it was not accepted, but that does not mean that I don’t support equality. It just means that the result of the bill that came out wasn’t the bill that I would have voted for.

TW: When we went through the process of over 200 witnesses on behalf of saying that this was a basic right of equality, and as we went through that process, I supported same sex marriage from the very beginning, but what became clear to me that I in many ways through benign attention had been supporting taxpayer money for oppressing and discriminating others and realized that not only was same sex marriage an important civil right but also that things like vouchers, where we take vouchers paid by taxpayers that include gay and lesbian taxpayers and then they’re used by organizations and schools that then discriminate on whether women can have full rights in that organization and gays and lesbians can have full rights in that organization made me realize that by not fighting that as well, and I came out strongly against vouchers after the gay marriage/same sex marriage debate because I realized that we were just turning a blind eye and that we were using again against the folks that were testifying saying “This is our civil right”, we were taking their taxpayers to fund organizations who would then discriminate against them, and that’s why not only would I not support a referendum, and if a referendum . . . Just like if a referendum on can you discriminate on race went to the people, I would not support if it went in a way that said yes, we can discriminate. I will not support any referendum that says it’s okay to discriminate against the residents of the District of Columbia.

MS: When you talk about a group that discriminates against women, you’re talking about the Catholic Church?

TW: Yes.

MS: How much money do Catholic charities currently receive in other funds from the District? Why don’t you cut off all funding to Catholic charities?

TW: That was exactly the issue that when I looked at – and I had oversight of Human Services – and they were licensing in a same sex couple only one of those members, and I had not spoken up to that, I did realize the hypocrisy of that, Mark, and that that organization which does in Catholic Charities as an organization allow women to become the Director of that organization, there’s not a built-in discrimination against women. In Catholic Charities as a stand-alone non-profit organization, they did have a policy that said that gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals and couples are to be treated differently. They don’t have a policy there to say that women are treated differently, and so I think you also pose a good question, though, in terms of how our taxpayers moneys are used and is it funding discrimination.

MS: Mr. Robinson, do you want to follow up on any of that?

KR: You know, listen. This issue is already resolved, and there are a lot more issues that we need to address. Catholic Charities is an organization that for the past 80 or some-odd years has been providing, in partnership with the District, some of the most comprehensive social service programs in the region. It is the largest social service agency providing much-needed support to families who need it. This was a situation, quite frankly, not of Catholic Charities prove it and make it. What we did . . . You know, the Catholic Church is one thing. I’m not here to defend the Catholic Church because, quite frankly, you know, they don’t need defending. But the fact of the matter is when you talk about services being provided to needy families, you have to look at . . . You have to look at the great works they do for so many thousands of families, and, quite frankly, that, to me, was a paramount concern when we were having this debate and discussion about how you were going to provide for those families, whether there were going to be strict laws or rules that would preclude us from being able to do that. I thought it was absolutely critical for us not to be fighting for ensuring the continuation of those services to those families who need it. They come to our doors every single day, every night, looking for a place, looking for unconditional love to get their needs met.

Tags:

  • Sam

    I’m sorry, but this doesn’t clarify anything. He still won’t say if he supports gay marriage or not. Saying he “respects the law” and will not impose a referendum does not clarify his stance on gay marriage. If a bill came up (introduced by another councilmember) aiming to repeal the law, would he vote for it? Right now, as a voter, I don’t know the answer to that question, because he will not say “yes, I support gay marriage” or “no, I do not support it.”

  • RD

    Kelvin Robinson has been tempted by NOM with their pot of $$$, they have conversed. Kelvin, last spring announced his run for Council Seat At-Large, he was Anti-Gay, now he’s silent & evasive in his run for Ward 6 Council. NOM is behind Bishop Harry Jackson & Ward4′s ANC Bob King. NOM is “Nation for Marriage”, a disguise for very Hateful Anti-Gay Organization. Google them read their blog, OMG. NOM is HORRIBLE as will be Kelvin if elected. I don’t trust Kelvin at all, I’m sticking with Tommy Wells this election.

  • sebastian

    Kelvin is not anti-gay. He has stated that he respects the rights of every person. It’s fine that you don’t want to vote for Kelvin, or trust him, but don’t spread lies.

  • S

    Plenty of Republicans (and Democrats) heartily claim to “respect the rights of every person” as they vote against gay people having the right to marry, obtain spousal insurance benefits, have end-of-life visitation rights, decision-making or inheritance rights. I know way too many people who ascribe to the “hate the sin, love the sinner” philosophy. If you don’t support civil rights for all people, you won’t hesitate to discriminate against them when given the chance.

  • Stanton

    If there’s anything that Kelvin fails again and again to do is be clear of his support for marriages like mine. I’ve been to forums and asked him directly about the question. Every time I ask the question I get a different answer. Not only that, how disturbing is it when a candidate says that gay marriage isn’t an issue. It may not be an issue he cares about, but it’s very important to those of us who are legally bound to the most important person in our lives as a result of the marriage law.
    It’s pretty sad that Vince Orange, who was totally anti-gay is more openly supportive of marriage equality than Kelvin. Kelvin may not be anti-gay, but he is also not a person I believe will stand up for my rights.

  • Trulee Pist

    We have records of three Ward 6 Councilmember forums–the complete transcript of the forum at SE Library has been posted on this site, the debate on the Kojo Nnamdi show is posted as an audio file on Kojo’s site, and we have extensive video clips from the Ward 6 Dems debate on this site.

    Here’s what I found in the clips from the Ward 6 Dems debate:

    “The question we should be asking is whether the civil law that allows for individuals to enter into a union –that is what was being debated–and there was a law that was passed that allows it. I support that law.”–Kelvin Robinson

    The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act, which expands the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, is the law Robinson supports.

    Are there examples I missed in any of these three forums where Kelvin Robinson says he opposes current law in DC on gay marriage or that proves Kelvin Robinson is less than “openly supportive of marriage equality”?

    I might be wrong, but I have not seen that.

  • mike green

    Kelvin absolutely supports the law and would NOT support a referendum or repeal of this law, as it states in his press release! Stanton, he says it’s not an issue because it isn’t… It’s the law, it’s not being repealed, it’s done and over with… nothing will take away those rights, especially not Kelvin Robinson!

  • Stanton

    Whatever. I don’t trust him or see any reason any gay person should. Vince Orange says he supports marriage equality now too and has, unlike Kelvin, at least responded to the GLAA questionaire. Here’s what they wrote about Kelvin. Democrat Kelvin Robinson earned -1. He was endorsed by NOM when he first ran for the At-Large Council seat. He said at the time that he thought there should be a vote on our right to marry. He refused to say how he would vote. After switching to the Ward 6 race he has not been endorsed again by NOM. He still opposes marriage equality, having recently repeated his call to place same-sex marriage rights on the ballot. He did not return a questionnaire.

  • Ryan Velasco

    At Wednesday’s forum, Commissioner Robinson was provided a second
    opportunity to clarify his position regarding his weak, if not ambiguous, support of marriage equality. As your readers will see from the clip I am including below, he states that he disagrees with the approach that was taken to secure marriage equality in DC.

    That speaks for itself.

    As he clearly stated at the forum, Commissioner Robinson does not support the process that has allowed me to enjoy the same rights (at least at the local level) as my straight married neighbors. In response to the question “Do you think marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman?” he said, “I don’t know” and that it is not a question for elected officials to decide. I assure Mr. Robinson his position on this question is of great interest to me and my community. Such a question is a window into the fundamental thinking of a politician who is asking for my support in his pursuit to govern our city, and speaks volumes as to how he will approach issues of personal importance.

    Commissioner Robinson’s way of thinking is as outmoded as that of the Jim Crow south and Apartheid South Africa and, in deed, will be relegated to the same dust bin of history. Clearly, we aren’t there yet, but the day is coming when such a comment will be impossible for any legitimate politician to make in the public square.

    But that’s just me. You can watch and decide for yourself:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/DefeatPovertyDC#p/a/u/2/RFRxQSf3yE8

  • Kathleen

    Who is the author of “Stanton”? Is that Stanton Development–i.e., the people who have won a contract, thanks to Tommy Wells, to redevelop Hine Jr. High? I’ve said it before and I’ve said it again, if you’re going to leave a comment, let’s have some names please.

  • http://brunchandthecity.wordpress.com/ Claudia Holwill

    @ Kathleen, I do not think that there is any reason to assume that the comment was left by Stanton Development any more than it could have been left by someone with the last name Stanton. Leaving only your first name does not exactly leave any more transparency regarding your identity. As long as comments stay on topic and respectful, we will allow them, anonymous or not.

  • Trulee Pist

    Kelvin Robinson definitely says he supports current DC law, even if he lobbied against it.

    Robinson clarifies by saying he “pushed for a measure similar to the San Francisco same‐sex marriage law, which he supports, in which the Catholic Church continued to work closely with the city. Robinson hoped the District would have been able to reach a similar compromise.”

    I don’t know what the San Francisco provision entails exactly, but I’ll try to find out. I do know San Francisco is a strong gay city, and it is a very Catholic city, so I’m not surprised both Catholics and gays were accomodated in San Francisco, and I’d be interested to see if that San Francisco provision would have been acceptable, or if it was a cop-out.

    Nonetheless, that would be (I think) of only academic interest in this case, if Robinson is really saying he wishes the process had included the San Francisco provision, but it did not, the law is passed, it’s not going to change, and now he supports the law as passed.

    Meanwhile, what is up with Tommy Wells saying “it’s a good question” whether the city should end all financial support to Catholic social services organizations? Is that what he’s saying?

    Whether you like the Catholic church or you think the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, you still have to consider the practical implications. Who is going to serve those served by Catholic Charities if the city keeps withdrawing funds?

    I suspect Wells thinks he saw a political opportunity to pressure his challenger over Robinson’s service as Vice Chairperson of the Board of Catholic Charities, but it’s not as if service to Catholic Charities is something to be ashamed of.

    As Robinson says in this transcript, “But the fact of the matter is when you talk about services being provided to needy families, you have to look at . . . You have to look at the great works [Catholic Charities does] for so many thousands of families, and, quite frankly, that, to me, was a paramount concern when we were having this debate and discussion about how you were going to provide for those families, whether there were going to be strict laws or rules that would preclude us from being able to do that. I thought it was absolutely critical for us not to be fighting for ensuring the continuation of those services to those families who need it. They come to our doors every single day, every night, looking for a place, looking for unconditional love to get their needs met.”

    Are there particular faith-based social services providers in Ward 6 that Wells thinks the city should de-fund, or is he focused only on opposition to school vouchers? Wells’ statement is not clear.