RECENT  POSTS:  » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices » NOM to lasso the White House with a rosary. Or something. » NOM's new plan? To beat up its org-crushing loss until it becomes a win. » By the time you read this headline, we'll be ten more seconds beyond stagnant anti-gay 'culture wars' » Video: America cannot wait—to purchase American Family Association radio equipment? Huh?! » Huckabee 2016: 'cause church and state aint gonna marry themselves » EEOC does wonky, under-radar thing that could lay groundwork for definitive nondiscrimination protections » Maggie Gallagher, now that you've lost on marriage, might you lose these deceptive ways as well? » Crowdfunding discriminatory business owners: Perfect statement on anti-gay movement's current affairs » The religious anti-gay crowd: They never understood the marriage fight; now they don't understand their loss  

« 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