Opinion ID: 2011334
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legislative History of the Marriage Statute

Text: On March 3, 1901, Congress enacted the first District of Columbia Code. See An Act to Establish a Code of Law for the District of Columbia, 31 Stat. 1189, ch. 854 (1901). That Act read: [A]ll acts of Congress by their terms applicable to the District of Columbia... in force at the date of the passage of this act shall remain in force except in so far as the same are inconsistent with, or are replaced by, some provision of this code. Id., ch. 1, § 1, at 1189. Chapter 43 of the Code addressed marriage; [2] Chapter 22 dealt with divorce. [3] The current marriage provision, D.C.Code §§ 30-101 to -121 and, for the most part, the present divorce provisions, D.C.Code §§ 16-901 to -924 (1989 & Supp. 1993), are essentially the same as those enacted in 1901. [4] The only significant changes in the marriage and divorce provisions since 1901 occurred in the Marriage and Divorce Act of 1977, D.C.Law 1-107, 1977 D.C.Stat. 114. See generally Samuel Green & John V. Long, The Real and Illusory Changes of the 1977 Marriage and Divorce Act, 27 CATH.U.L.REV. 469 (1978). [5] Before that Act was adopted, however, Councilmember Arrington Dixon had introduced substantially different legislation, Bill No. 1-89, the District of Columbia Marriage and Divorce bill, which would have completely repealed and redrafted D.C.Code §§ 30-101 to -121 (1973) (marriage) and §§ 16-901 to -924 (1973) (divorce). See The District of Columbia Marriage and Divorce Act, Bill 1-89 (May 6, 1975, with amendments proposed July 7, 1975) (hereafter Original Bill 1-89). In particular, Bill No. 1-89 would have changed § 30-101 to read: A marriage between two persons which is licensed, solemnized and registered as provided in this Act is valid in the District of Columbia. (Emphasis added.) Id. During a public hearing on Bill 1-89, Councilmember Dixon explained that the bill would permit marriages between persons of the same sex. See Councilmember Arrington Dixon, Opening Statement at Public Hearings on Bill No. 1-89 2 (June 7-8, 1975). Although the language of the bill did not directly authorize same-sex marriages, proposed § 30-112 expressly referred to such unions and thus indirectly acknowledged their validity: (a) The court shall enter its decree declaring the invalidity of a marriage entered into under the following circumstances:       (2) a party lacks the physical capacity to consummate the marriage by sexual intercourse, and at the time the marriage was solemnized the other party did not know of the incapacity; provided that this clause shall not apply to married persons of the same sex. Original Bill 1-89, § 30-112 (Emphasis added). If Bill 1-89 had become law, same-sex marriages clearly would have been authorized in the District. Because of the fervent debate generated by Bill 1-89, [6] however, Councilmember Dixon moved to substitute for original Bill 1-89 another bill proposed by the bar associations. This substitute bill was the one Council enacted as the Marriage and Divorce Act of 1977. See 1977 D.C.Stat. 119. Rather than entirely repealing and redrafting D.C.Code §§ 30-101 to -121 (1973) (marriage) and §§ 16-901 to -924 (1973) (divorce), the 1977 Act merely amended existing code provisions. See COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY AND CRIM.LAW, REPORT ON BILL No. 1-89, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ACT, at 1-5 (June 24, 1976). The 1977 Act contained no reference to same-sex marriage. In fact, it made only the following two changes in the long-standing marriage chapter: Sec. 113. (a) Section 1291 of the Act of March 3, 1901 (D.C.Code, sec. 30-110) is amended by striking names, ages and color and inserting in lieu thereof names and ages.[ [7] ] (b) Section 1296 of the Act of March 3, 1901 (D.C.Code, sec. 30-116) is repealed.[ [8] ] [O. 7] 1977 D.C.Stat. 119. In sum, the 1977 Act made no change germane to the issue before us; we are left to interpret marriage as understood by the Congress that enacted and codified the marriage statute in 1901 and, later, as understood by the Council that implicitly reconfirmed existing provisions of that statute while amending others through the 1977 Act.