RECENT  POSTS:  » Read: Fed. judge strikes Alabama marriage ban; no stay on ruling » Derisively remembering when full equality was in 'Jeopardy!' » When all else fails, demand your letters are capitalized » Major Iowa caucus player calls on next President to 'politely reject unjust SCOTUS opinions' » Photo: Supreme Court's Thomas poses with NOM's cofounder, major equality opponent » Wait, even NewsMax is now pushing back against anti-gay spin?! » Deflating the anti-gay right's latest 'gotcha!' » POTUS hails marriage equality in State of the Union speech » Well I expected this headline from NOM eventually... » Bret Baier: Legatus Magazine's anti-gay 'cure' doesn't 'seem to line up with the loving, accepting Church that I know'  

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

11/17/2009

PROPerly Repudi8ed

by Jeremy Hooper

AbeGood news, fans of fairness. The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics have again struck down anti-gay attempts (led by the National Organization for Marriage and Bishop Harry Jackson) to put marriage equality to the whims of a majority:

The Board, which is charged by law with determining whether a referendum or initiative is eligible for the ballot, unanimously determined that a vote on whether the District should recognize same-sex marriages would improperly authorize discrimination under the Human Rights Act, one of the prescribed subject matter limitations.
DC Elections Board Rules Against Prop.-8 and Question 1 Style Ballot Initiative [HRC BackStory]

That means if D.C. gets the joyous civil right, they won't have it tyrannically rolled back a few months later. Or as heterosexuals refer to such a situation: Common, everyday existence.

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


Your thoughts

Geez, that's what we have always thought... a VOTE on SSM is against the Civil Rights Act.

Come on Judge Walker get with it, what are you dawdling about?

Posted by: LOrion | Nov 17, 2009 4:42:10 PM

Now, why can't/ doesn't every state with a Board of Elections and Ethics rule similarly that one cannot put up the civil rights and liberties of a minority to the ballot via a tyrannical democracy?! Maybe I should contact my local Board here in Iowa about that?!

Still, I can sleep great tonight knowing that Mags is probably FUMING!!! XD

Posted by: Wade | Nov 17, 2009 5:06:11 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails