D.C. Board Blocks Gay Marriage Referendum (says letting people choose will violate human rights law)

Christian Post ^ | 6/17/2009 | Nathan Black

[SeekAndFind]

The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics rejected a proposal to allow voters to decide on whether the District should recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

Monday's ruling against a referendum irked pastors and traditional marriage supporters who want the people to be able to decide on the critical moral and social issue.

"The real human rights issue at stake in this decision is whether the people of D.C. will be given their right to vote," Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., told The Washington Post. "We are not going to sit still for allowing an unelected board of bureaucrats to deny voters their rightful say on this issue and, by their action, allow the institution of marriage to be radically redefined."

Jackson and a group of primarily African American pastors along with conservative family groups have been pushing for a referendum since the Washington, D.C. Council voted last month to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

The elections board, however, ruled that a referendum would authorize discrimination against gays and lesbians, which is prohibited by the District's Human Rights Act.

Under D.C. law, referendums cannot violate the city's human rights laws.

"The Referendum's proposers would, in contravention of the HRA, strip same-sex couples of the rights and responsibilities of marriage that they were afforded by virtue of entering into valid marriages elsewhere," the board stated in its ruling.

Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said proponents of the referendum will file an appeal Tuesday in D.C. Superior Court.

Raum has argued that the issue is not whether same-sex marriage is good or bad policy, but whether who gets to decide the issue.

Referendum proponents say the people should decide.

The same-sex marriage bill is currently under congressional review and could become law as early as July if the court does not intervene.

[La Lydia]

That pastor in Beltsville, and his supporters, have been doing all the heavy lifting on this mess. He deserves some kind of basic decency award. The DC Council, which is well stocked with homosexuals, treats him like dirt.

[Gay State Conservative]

The perv lobby here in the Gay State (Massachusetts) has fought a desperate (and successful) campaign to keep homosexual “marriage” off the ballot.They’re doing it for one simple reason...poll after poll here shows that it would lose,and lose *convincingly*.

[Seruzawa]

Scratch a liberal.... find a fascist.

[steve-b]

Well, then, a vote for gun-grabbing or tax-squeezing is also prohibited on the same grounds (and correctly so — the Founders rejected “democracy” precisely because it would allow two wolves and a lamb to vote on the dinner menu).

[FreepShop1]

Our natural allies for 2010/2012 are shaping up. We must reject losers like Mike Murphy and push the gay issue in black and Hispanic blocs, and get as many issues on the ballot as possible to dilute Dem turnout and boost GOP votes.

[SeekAndFind]

We must reject losers like Mike Murphy and push the gay issue in black and Hispanic blocs

The problem as I see it is that most conservatives have a say when it comes to NATIONAL or STATE WIDE elections where we can vote en masse.

But when it comes to local elections -- i.e. members of Congress who are elected by their local constituents but who have a great say on NATIONAL issues, conservatives are relatively helpless. I'd love to see Barney Frank for instance, voted OUT of office. The problem is the man ( or is he ?) belongs to a locality that is LIBERAL through and through and will vote him in no matter how many scandals they see.