1. Do you support legal recognition of marriages between persons of the same-sex?
A. In a recent edition of Ann Landers column this same issue was addressed. I believe that she expresses my sentiments best, and I quote: "I believe same-sex couples should be entitled to the legal rights that married couples enjoy, including: gaining immediate access to a loved one in case of an emergency, sharing insurance policies at reduced rates, owning property together and filing joint income tax returns. I also believe that same-sex couples should be free from discrimination in housing and employment, and should have legal protection against harassment. But that is as far as I want to go. I define marriage as a union between a man and a woman." Ann Landers captured the sentiment of many of us who support gay rights, however, we are still limited by our own understanding and support for cultural and traditional family life that we have known during our lifetimes. I support the legal registration and recognition of domestic partners.
2. Will you oppose efforts by Congress or other parties to stop the District of Columbia from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in Hawaii or other places?
A. As an elected councilmember, I would oppose any effort by Congress to impose any law on the citizens of the District of Columbia by which the overwhelming majority of the population does not support. The will of the citizens of D.C. is what is important. Hopefully, that will would be based on some principles, values, and/or doctrines of fairness. I would recommend hearings to gauge the sentiment of D.C. residents.
3. Do you oppose efforts by Congress or other parties to outlaw or restrict adoptions by unmarried couples in the District of Columbia?
A. While we all -- as a nation, as a village -- should have some input into the lives and welfare of our most precious children, I do believe that the District of Columbia can address this issue. I oppose efforts by Congress to outlaw or restrict adoptions by unmarried couples in the District of Columbia. It is not my interest to be politically correct. My only interest, my only concern is the welfare of the individual child. I will entertain no one else's interest because I am an advocate for children and they didn't ask to be brought here. Love alone won't raise a child and those child care specialist would have to make a case by case determination, based on public policy, which parents would best serve the child's interest. Congress doesn't need to delve into our business unnecessarily. The citizens of the District of Columbia must make and abide by their own laws and Congress should respect D.C. rights.
4. If Congress ever repeals the D.C. Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992 that established the registration of domestic partnerships, will you vote to reenact the same law?
A. I represent the citizens of Washington, D.C., not Congress or any other locality. I will continuously fight for what the citizens want, whether it is the registration of domestic partnerships or anything else, I respect the citizens of the District of Columbia and I serve their interests. Based on my understanding of what citizens want, I would vote to reenact the law.
5. Do you support the re-establishment of the Office of Human Rights as an independent, Cabinet-level agency whose Director has direct access to the Mayor?
A. I support the mission and efforts of the Office of Human Rights. I support having a director with access to the mayor. I am not so sure that this needs to be a cabinet-level agency. When I become a councilmember, I would like to see a major overhaul of the District of Columbia government. At this point, government is envisioned as getting smaller, less bureaucratic, and less costly. I believe we can accomplish our goals for Human Rights for all citizens without another agency. Human Rights still must remain a priority for all the people in our city, region, country, and world, and with the oversight it can remain so in the nations capital.
6. Do you agree that the Boy Scouts of America is violating the D.C. Human Rights Law's ban on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by excluding gays from participating either as scouts or as leaders?
A. Yes.
7. Will you vote to repeal the Armstrong Amendment, which allows religiously-affiliated private educational institutions in the District to discriminate against student clubs that promote equal rights for lesbians and gay men?
A. I do not support discrimination in any form.
8. Will you oppose efforts by Congress or other parties to abolish or restrict the right of our public school students to form clubs that promote greater understanding between gays and others?
A. I will oppose efforts by Congress to interfere with actions sanctioned by D.C. residents. I believe that there should be a greater understanding of all people and different cultures and lifestyles.
9. Do you support the designation of a third party to act as a fiscal agent for the distribution of federal AIDS money, such as the system recently adopted by the Financial Control Board?
A. I can support a third party designation onlyif it is a temporary -- a very temporary -- arrangement. There is no reason why federal money can't be funneled through the D.C. government efficiently and effectively. The D.C. government needs to do what's necessary to make their system more amenable to the populations they serve. My concern is whether other municipalities handled their funds this way and what has been learned from their practices. D.C. can and should do things right with the funds if local government has traditionally been the best, most efficient means of disseminating funds. Maybe it is as simple as hiring the qualified person that can make it happen and firing the one who can't. All avenues and options need to be examined, but D.C. should be in control and should function optimally. If its broke, let's fix it instead of completely circumventing the system.
10. Do you agree that our own elected officials, past and present, bear much of the responsibility for the District's current financial plight because of their reluctance to make tough budgetary decisions, to establish priorities, and to demand maximum efficiency and productivity (rather than political loyalty) from all District government agencies and workers?
A. There is enough blame to go around in the District of Columbia and Congress must accept a share as well. D.C. pays approximately $300 million dollars a year towards the unfunded pension liability which was kindly transferred to D.C. D.C. is prohibited from taxing government and non-profit land. D.C. is prohibited from levying taxes on commuters that use our streets and services on a daily basis. D.C. has to pay for functions and services that are normally associated with states that contribute to the cost. D.C. receives an inadequate annual Federal payment that supposedly serves as compensation for services. D.C. is prevented from collecting almost $1 billion dollars in income from commuters who work in D.C. but take the money back home to improve their own neighborhoods and to fill their own state's coffers. Congress has set up its own set of obstacles for D.C. to overcome and no amount of management or efficiency can correct it unless all services are cut out.
Washington, D.C. further serves a significant proportion of the region's poor. The needs of the poor and the temporary down and out have severely impacted on the District's budget. The drug epidemic has caused crime to increase. These social ills have also contributed to the rise in the budget. Society has a part to play in these problems as well. These problems are not unique to the District of Columbia, but are affecting many urban centers and are finding their way to the suburbs as well.
However, yes, there are some (past and present) in leadership positions that have made poor decisions. Whatever the decision, there are those that will disagree with it. If I support increased AIDS funding there will be others that say that I should make the tough decision and cut it. There are combined reasons for the plight of the District and my goal is to focs on how to get is out of this situation. It is up to the voters to keep our elected officials accountable and vote out those they deem unworthy. This year is, though, the opportune time to get new leadership on the City Council without recycling politicians or playing musical chairs. This new leadership must prepare us for the 21st century.
11. Do you support the condom availability programs that have been established in the District's public schools and prisons?
A. I support condoms for conjugal visits in prisons. It is my understanding that the Commission on Public Health was instrumental in developing the guidelines for condom availability programs in schools. While I encourage abstinence in youth, I do recognize that there are those who will do otherwise. I would prefer for those that are mature enough to engage in sex be mature enough to spend the few dollars needed to go to the drug store to purchase condoms. Recognizing that condoms help prevent AIDS and pregnancy, I can support having condoms available in schools. That is a brave child that is going to go to the school nurse and ask for one.
12. Will you support legislation that will establish an effective civilian complaint review system for our Metropolitan Police Department?
A. Yes. It should have never been abolished.
13. Do you support sensitivity and community relations training for all elements of our public safety system (police, fire department, etc.) that includes strong recognition's of gay and lesbian community concerns, so that the District will never again tolerate the kind of insensitivity and incompetence reflected in the Fire Department's handling of the Tyra Hunter case?
A. Yes, I support sensitivity and community relations training for all elements in the public safety system. There are probably some other areas of government that this training should be extended to, including elected officials. No matter what one's bias, he or she must be trained to do his/her job appropriately, without malice, and with some sensitivity. In jobs dealing with the public, the worker must learn to work with people from all walks of life and those with alternative lifestyles.
14. Do you oppose legislation or initiatives that would authorize organized prayers in our public schools, thereby encouraging the harassment of individuals who choose not to participate?
A. Although I understand some of the apprehension concerning school prayer, I am not opposed to prayer in the schools. Prayer does more good than harm. The adults will probably do more harassing than the students. There may need to be some discussion in the schools as to what religion and spirituality are about and that, even though America was founded on religion, there are those who choose another road to follow. I would have to strongly oppose devil worshipping or something of that nature solely based on my own belief system.
15. Do you oppose efforts to abolish or drastically curtail the powers of our elected Board of Education?
A. I adamantly oppose any and all efforts to abolish or curtail the powers of our elected Board of Education? The School Board was our first elected body before the City Council was even a thought. In D.C., we have so few elected offices and democracy seems to be only symbolic. With this unelected Control Board, we have less power that is gradually disappearing. Elected officials in Washington, D.C. need to be empowered. We may need to replace some of the members on the Board, however, we should keep it. A good board member will help bring strong representation for his/her ward and constituents. The board can help equalize services and develop public policy of concern to the citizens and in the best interest of all children.
Signed,
Kathryn A. Pearson-West
August 2, 1996