The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

The fight for a referendum on recognizing same-sex marriage in D.C. likely came to an end today.

After a ballot petition from traditional marriage advocacy coalition Stand4MarriageDC was rejected by the district Board of Elections on June 16, the group filed an appeal in Superior Court, hoping to preempt a measure passed through the D.C. City Council that would recognize same-sex marriages performed outside the district. I have a piece about the leaders of Stand4MarriageDC and the ballot initiative up on the main site today.

Superior Court Judge Judith Retchin handed down a court order (pdf) earlier today, reaffirming the Council's finding that a referendum on marriage violates D.C.'s 1977 Human Rights Act (pdf) and dismissing the appellants' contention that an earlier case already proved that a vote on marriage was not a human rights violation.

In 1995, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in Dean v. District of Columbia that gay couples could not find legal provision for same-sex marriage within the DCHRA, and reaffirmed the districts 1901 marriage statutes, saying they clearly did not intend for marriage to be extended to same-sex couples.

But that finding is no longer valid, Judge Retchin decided, because "Dean involved a different factual scenario and presented a different legal question" and "seven of the eight gender-specific provisions in the marriage statute cited by Dean have been amended to make them gender-neutral." Also, the language of the DCHRA has been changed since 1995 to prevent discrimination based on an individual's "actual or perceived" membership in a protected class, further confusing the issue.

Perhaps most strangely, the ruling makes a distinction between 1995 and now because same-sex marriage actually exists in states and countries worldwide today, but was "a factual impossibility" 15 years ago and thus could not be approved in court. Judge Retchin does not, however, mention Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court case that effectively created same-sex marriage in that state, although it had not factually existed in the U.S. prior to the ruling.

The Alliance Defense Fund, who has legally represented Stand4Marriage, released the following statement in response to the ruling: 

"We are disappointed with the court’s ruling but will proceed immediately with an initiative which will preserve marriage between one man and one woman in D.C.  District residents today find themselves disenfranchised, unable to vote on an important public policy matter because political elites would rather serve a radical agenda than the people they represent," said Brian Raum, ADF Senior Legal Counsel.

"Marriage redefinition activists will advance their agenda by any means necessary, even if that means snuffing out fundamental rights like the right to vote.  ADF will continue to defend the right of District residents to exercise their right to vote, because their elected representatives and this court have refused to do so."

The Massachusetts Goodridge decision also noted that "In a real sense, there are three partners to every civil marriage: two willing spouses and an approving State." Perhaps D.C. marriages should make room for two partners, the approving state, and the state's alternate personalities?

View all comments (4) | Leave a comment

shadow_man| 6.30.09 @ 6:37PM

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

ds80| 7.1.09 @ 11:27AM

shadow_man: "Homosexuality is not a choice."

So what? Homosexual acts are. And they are contrary to natural law.

John D| 7.1.09 @ 5:39PM

What shoddy journalism:
"...Council's finding that a referendum on marriage violates D.C.'s 1977 Human Rights Act..."

It was actually the Board of Elections that found this, not the DC Council.

I also find it interesting that the author and those supporting the referendum are now changing their tune and seeking relief in the courts that they once deemed "activist" for supposedly overturning the will of the people through their elected representatives. The DC Council voted for this 12-1. It wasn't a "squeaker" vote. DC law clearly states that no referendum can be brought up on items that are covered by the DC Human Rights Act. This was found to be true by two different panels. It is obvious that the good Bishop and his compadres don't believe they have any chance appealing this.

Oh and by the way, one note that is not mentioned. Even if they do try to bring this issue back up by an initiative, that too cannot go against the Human Rights Act. Since it has already been ruled upon twice to violate it, I don't think that this is going to work either.

Bishop: Go back to Maryland. Leave us DC residents alone.

hateb| 7.1.09 @ 11:25PM

nice post...quite interesting....american singles

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

More Blog Posts by Hope Hodge

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/06/30/superior-court-rejects-marriag

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Gallup: Veterans Prefer Romney

W. James Antle, III | 5.28.12

Markos Moulitsas is Scum

Quin Hillyer | 5.28.12

Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Memorial Day Edition

W. James Antle, III | 5.27.12

An Honor Flight Story

TAS Staff | 5.26.12

WaPost Criticizes Romney's Lack of Rhythm

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.12

Tom Coburn on the Debt 'Disease'

Vivien Chang | 5.25.12

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer | 5.25.12

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick | 5.25.12

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker | 5.25.12

The Great Debate

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.24.12

Markos Moulitsas is Scum

Quin Hillyer | 5.28.12

ADVERTISEMENT