Marriages void ab initio--In general.
The following marriages are prohibited in the District of Columbia and shall be absolutely void ab initio, without being so decreed, and their nullity may be shown in any collateral proceedings, namely:
(1) Repealed.
(2) Repealed.
(2A) The marriage of a person with a person's grandparent, grandparent's spouse, spouse's grandparent, parent's sibling, parent, step-parent, spouse's parent, child, spouse's child, child's spouse, sibling, child's child, child's child's spouse, spouse's child's child, sibling's child.
(3) The marriage of any persons either of whom has been previously married and whose previous marriage has not been terminated by death or a decree of divorce.
(D.C. Statutes section 46-401)
Recognition of Marriages from Other Jurisdictions.
A marriage legally entered into in another jurisdiction between 2 persons of the same sex that is recognized as valid in that jurisdiction, that is not expressly prohibited by §§ 46-401 through 46-404, and has not been deemed illegal under § 46-405, shall be recognized as a marriage in the District.
(D.C. Statutes section 46-405.01)
Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (D.C.
1995)
This decision by the District of Columbia’s highest
court ruled that there is no fundamental right to same-sex
marriage.
(Jackson I)
A public hearing was scheduled on Bill 18-482, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, for October 26, 2009. The purpose of the bill was to amend the law to permit same-sex couples to marry in the District of Columbia. The Bill was passed by the Council of the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Review of Agency Decision. Motions for summary judgment followed, but the Court ruled against Petitioners. No appeal was filed.
and Ethics (Jackson II)
An initiative seeking to define marriage in D.C. as being only between one man and one woman was filed with the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics on September 1, 2009. The subject of the initiative was denied by the Board. A complaint was filed by Proponents. Motions for summary judgment followed, and the Court ruled against Proponents. The decision has been appealed.
and Ethics (Jackson III)
A referendum was filed on behalf of the Proponents Bishop Jackson, et al. "Referendum on the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment of 2009." A hearing was held regarding the referendum. The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics issued an opinion and order that the referendum was received but not accepted as it would cause discrimination in contravention to the HRA and therefore is "not a proper subject of referendum." Plaintiffs filed a complaint, but ultimately dismissed the case after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a motion to stay.
and Ethics (Jackson IV)
Referendum Proponents filed a federal lawsuit asserting that their rights to due process were being denied by the Distict of Columbia because the District has in place a system for review but Proponents' right of referendum and right of appeal will be forever extinguished at the point at which marriage licenses are issued.
