RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM finally admitting that marriage amendments are, in fact, bans » Kentucky's big anti-LGBT org hopes to pray away a fair court ruling on civil marriage » Iowa's governor sponsoring anti-gay Family Leader summit? » Head of Virginia's top anti-gay org: One mean email proves 'the left' is sexist, intolerant » Video: Ohio should be so lucky to have married couples as adorable as George Henry » GLAAD: Q&A with former 'ex-gay' activist Yvette Schneider: 'I’ve never met an 'ex-gay' man I thought was not still attracted to men' » Head of Virginia's anti-equality org: 'open season to discriminate against anyone who believes that children deserve a mom and a dad' » Force behind Virginia's marriage ban ably demonstrates animus behind it » NOM to show rest of world its impressive ability to exacerbate loss » Bryan Fischer: Marriage equality supporters are like baseball's legendarily winning team  

« 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