Skip to comments.D.C. board turns away ballot initiative (gay "marriage")
Posted on 11/18/2009 12:50:05 PM PST by markomalley
The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics ruled Tuesday that a proposed ballot initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman cannot go forward, reaffirming an earlier ruling that such a vote would be discriminatory.
The board cited the city Human Rights Act, which bans discrimination against gay men and lesbians. The board decision, which will probably be challenged in court, means the D.C. Council can move forward with its plans to vote on a bill next month to legalize same-sex marriage. The council on Tuesday scheduled a vote for Dec. 1.
"We have considered all of the testimony presented to the board and understand the desire to place this question on the ballot," said board Chairman Errol R. Arthur. "However, the laws of the District of Columbia preclude us from allowing this initiative to move forward."
Bishop Harry Jackson, who is leading the effort to get a public vote on the issue, called the ruling "outrageous and a slap in the face of every resident of the District of Columbia."
"To deny the people their fundamental right to vote on such an important issue as the definition of marriage in our society is simply appalling," said Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
(Is it possible that DC could throw off their Dhimmicrat taskmasters over this?? -- no, I'm not holding my breath)
As usual if the people get to vote, the nonsensical same sex marriage laws get voted down.
“The board cited the city Human Rights Act, which bans discrimination against gay men and lesbians. “
WTF?!? Aside from the fact that it is NOT discrimination to defend traditional marriage, this point is absurd - they cannot even amend their own laws via initiative? What about a referendum attempt to modify said HUman Rights Act, say by including red-heads? forbidden? If not, why not this?
Unless there is some restriction on what the scope of initiatives can cover, any judge would have to overturn this nutty decision.