RECENT  POSTS:  » GOP pollster Luntz to Heritage Foundation's Anderson: 'Gay marriage is harmless' » Read: Federal court judge rules against Colorado's discriminatory marriage ban » You guys, will you please pipe down so Sen. Rubio can dismantle your deserved freedoms? » 'Mask is coming off' LGBTs, says man who vowed to export and/or criminalize LGBTs » Exxon, infamous holdout on fair and decent employment protections, could be running out of options » Oregon baker who refused same-sex wedding cake bakes for 'ex-gay' org » PFOX rebrands; into group play, seemingly » Audio: Listen to this ADF spinmeister and his anti-gay spin » Report: US District judge won't deny justice to gay Coloradans; might delay it, though » AFA to POTUS: End your 'love affair with homosexuality,' give anti-gay Christians entitlement instead  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

11/18/2009

But, but, but, but, but --- what about the right to mob rule?!

by Jeremy Hooper

If you follow the so-called "culture war," it should come as no surprise that the reliable homo-hostile Alliance Defense Fund is challenging the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics' ruling against putting marriage equality to a ballot initiative. But just as with so many of our opposition's indefatigable attempts to undermine our lives and loves, the consistency does not lessen the annoyance of their actions:

WASHINGTON — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed suit Wednesday against the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics for precluding the right of citizens in the district to vote for or against the definition of marriage. The board determined Tuesday that a citizen initiative that would allow voters to either uphold or reject the longstanding definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is not a proper subject for the ballot because of a law passed by the D.C. Council. ADF and Stand4MarriageDC attorneys argue that the board’s reasoning is invalid.

“The people of D.C. have a right to vote on the definition of marriage,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks. “The D.C. Charter guarantees the people the right to vote, and the council cannot amend the charter for any reason, much less to deny citizens the right to vote. ADF will defend the right of the residents of our nation’s capitol to participate in a legitimate democratic process in the district.”

ADF joins legal battle to defend rights of voters in DC [ADF]

Well of course these folks aren't going to understand why the Board ruled the way they did, since they refuse to accurately assess their discrimination as being what it is. But those of us who do understand that civil rights should not be put to a majority vote, and who do talk in human speak rather than "pro-family" code wording, fully get why the Board unanimously ruled as it did. And in fact, we would argue that a major silver lining of both CA's Prop 8 and ME's Question 1 is that more and more Americans are learning just how wrong it is to put people's civil equality up to a public vote.

Unless they are able to change the D.C. Human Rights Act, the makeup of the Elections and Ethics Board, and the fundamentals of representative democracy, The ADF and the D.C. anti-gays have no legs to stand on here. And even straw men need some sort of fundamental support in order to not get blown away.

*For the particularly wonky/bored, here are both the D.C. Board's ruling and the ADF's new suit:

Board of Elections and Ethics ruling:

ADF Lawsuit:

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Why do they have a 'right' to vote on whether gay people can get married?

Considering how often the opposition says gay people don't have a right to marry, or they already do, just not to who they want to.

It seems the considerable schizophrenia around invoking rights, is the obvious reason WHY the public SHOULDN'T DEMAND the 'right'.

Does the Constitution say it?
Does the Bible?
Does the Bill of Rights?

The Constitution says more FOR the protection of gay people on the assumption of their citizenship and humanity, than the opposition says it has the opposite 'right' to take them away.

Right?

Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Nov 19, 2009 3:38:31 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails