START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
818,826 people care about Civil Rights

Supreme Court Dismisses D.C. Gay Marriage Law Challenge

Supreme Court Dismisses D.C. Gay Marriage Law Challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined a challenge brought against D.C.’s 10-month-old gay marriage law which has upset anti-gay marriage groups who argue that the District council’s refusal to allow a public vote on same-sex marriage violates their rights.

This will likely mark a shift in how the law is challenged, with those opposed to gay marriage now looking for Congress to intervene.

From The Washington Post:

“This represents the end of the judicial road for opponents,” said D.C. Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), the author of the city’s same-sex marriage law. “They have a political remedy that I suspect they will pursue.”

Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, one of the organizations that had asked the Supreme Court to consider the case, said he and fellow activists will “look at what the best route is” to have Congress intervene to try to force a referendum.

Marriage equality opponents including the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and a Maryland minister named Harry R. Jackson Jr. have been riled by the fact that, due to D.C.’s 1977 Human Rights Act, marriage equality legislation that was passed by D.C.’s City Council and signed by Mayor Adrian Fenty in December, 2009, could not be subject to a referendum as this would potentially allow for a change in the law that would codify discrimination, something that the District’s Human Rights Act prohibits.

The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics made the original decision to deny a referendum and upheld that decision upon appeal. This was then challenged and narrowly upheld by the D.C. Court of Appeals by 5 votes to 4. Still, marriage equality opponents vowed to push the fight in Congress and to have the law blocked during the 30-day congressional review period.

At the time, Congress failed to intervene, which led to marriage equality opponents petitioning the Supreme Court. However, a move for congressional action may be more successful this time given that the House is now under Republican control. Of key concern will be those lawmakers charged with District oversight.

More from The Washington Post:

But a new Republican majority in the House has gay-marriage supporters concerned about new attacks – most likely through “riders,” or restrictions placed on city spending during the appropriations process.

Two members of Congress with key roles in District oversight – Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.), chairwoman of an appropriations subcommittee, and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), named Tuesday as chairman of an oversight subcommittee – declined requests to comment.

[...]

Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), the District’s nonvoting delegate, said she and Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) plan to meet next week with Emerson and Gowdy to deliver a “hands-off” message. She also called on District residents to refrain from lobbying the Hill for intervention.

“No self-respecting resident of the District of Columbia would ever want to ask the Congress of the United States to overturn local laws, any more than any Baltimorean or Virginian would ask the Congress to overturn local law,” she said.

One could be cautiously optimistic that, with a slim Democratic majority in the Senate, a move to overturn the law would be discarded by the upper chamber. Also, as pointed out above, if gay marriage opponents press for congressional action, the discourse could be elevated to a larger discussion of D.C.’s self governance, a contentious topic and one that would not be invoked lightly.

Care2 Related Reading:

Read more: , , , , , , , , ,


Photo used under the Creative Commons Attribution License, with thanks to -Marlith-.

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

40 comments

+ add your own
12:10PM PST on Feb 24, 2011

I have long been disgusted and appalled at how the country (Congress) treats D.C. residents. And I'll bet most people don't know that the citizens of D.C. are denied civil rights, and treated as children "to be looked after" by the Congress.

NOT RIGHT.

6:35AM PST on Jan 26, 2011

What exactly is the difference between denying people civil rights because their actions don't agree with your religion and following Sharia law? Your religion is correct and therefore morally right? The Taliban agrees with you - just with a different religion.

Look at yourselves, O Christian Right, the comparisons between you and those that run countries according to their religion is more apt than you want to see.

1:14PM PST on Jan 24, 2011

Donald,

Your pro-gay efforts do nothing to sway the minds of anyone who has still got some moral compass left.

The only thing that surprises me these days is anything in government that opposes the abomination and ungodly act of homosexuality.
The world has become as Sodom and Gomorrah delighting in and upholding depraved lifestyles. So be it, but judgment is guaranteed no matter what this sick world endorses.

10:57PM PST on Jan 23, 2011

noted

6:36PM PST on Jan 22, 2011

I thought these idiots wanted less government.

7:57PM PST on Jan 20, 2011

Bravo to the five members of the DC Court of Appeals who upheld the gay-marriage law, and boo to the 4 who want to make laws like fashion trends -- what goes (i.e., is in style) depends on which politicans (prejudices) are in office.

2:31PM PST on Jan 20, 2011

" Supreme Court Dismisses D.C. Gay Marriage Law Challenge "


They all have computers, and they aren't stupid...they see what we are saying about them on forums like this.

They are very sensitive to public opinion in these times.

Otherwise they would have buried the gays on this issue.

Regards...

2:16PM PST on Jan 20, 2011

I love these deceptive group names:

"The National Organization For Marriage" is actually "The National Organization For Discrimination Against Gays".

"The Pro-Life" movement is not really pro-life, they are "Pro Gestation Enforcement".

"Americans For Prosperity" is actually "The Society For The Protection Of Rich People's Wealth"

Marriage is only a "religious" institution if the people involved deem it so. Atheists are allowed to marry. It is not for the procreation of children either. Infertile straight people marry each other as well. Gay or straight, if two consenting adults want to join their lives in a civil union, or under the religious banner of their choice, it is their right to do so. If the two people in question are different races, nationalities, or the same gender, it is no one's business but theirs.

11:21AM PST on Jan 20, 2011

My major objection here is the 4-letter "f" word just below.
Good Grief.

11:17AM PST on Jan 20, 2011

OH yeah..CONSTANTIN LEON.....FUCK YOU...People are born gay. Just because you are not gay does not mean it is wrong.

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

I am not saying that it seems right to me. But then it doesn't matter if I think it seems right or not,…

The FWdis-Service is useless. Bats are an important part of the ecosystem by consuming the insects that…

meet our writers

Steve Williams Steve Williams is a passionate supporter of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) rights, human... more
Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!
ads keep care2 free

more from causes

Animal Welfare

Causes Canada

Causes UK

Children

Civil Rights

Education

Endangered Wildlife

Environment & Wildlife

Global Development

Global Warming

Health Policy

Human Rights

LGBT rights

Politics

Real Food

Trailblazers For Good

Women's Rights




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.