Interesting.
By Tim Craig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 15, 2010; B02
A D.C. Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that same-sex marriage opponents do not have a right to call for a referendum to determine whether such unions should be legal in the District. The decision, a major victory for gay rights activists, makes it more likely that the District will begin allowing same-sex couples to marry in March. In the 23-page ruling, Judge Judith N. Macaluso affirmed a D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics decision that city law disallows the ballot proposal because it would promote discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Macaluso also concluded that previous court decisions outlawing same-sex marriage in the District are no longer valid.
[...] The election board has twice ruled that a referendum on same-sex marriage would violate a city election law prohibiting such a vote on a matter covered by the Human Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination against gays and other minority groups. Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, appealed that ruling to Superior Court. Last week, 39 members of Congress filed a brief in support of Jackson's appeal, arguing that the election board overstepped its authority in denying a public vote on whether marriage should be defined as a being between a man and a woman.
Jackson and his attorneys said Thursday that they will appeal Macaluso's ruling. They contend that that the laws in question were written in the late 1970s, long before same-sex marriage was an issue, and should not prevent a referendum. "We are fighting for justice and defending the rights of the people of the District of Columbia," Jackson said. "We have always anticipated that our quest for voting rights on the issue of marriage would end up in our higher appeals court, and today's ruling confirms that is where the issue is headed."
It's going to be interesting to see what the DC Appeals Court does with this; I would expect another dismissal, myself. And this is as high as you can get in DC without either transferring over to the appropriate circuit court of appeals or the Supreme Court itself. (And I can't imagine that the Supreme Court would touch this case. Apart from anything else, unless the lawsuit alleges a federal constitutional violation and I don't think it does, longstanding doctrine holds that a state's supreme court is the final arbiter of its state constitution. And I think the Court is going to run far and fast from this issue for as long as they can -- which is to say, until the decision comes out of the curent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals trial. If precedent holds true, the 9th Circuit will hold that Prop. 8 was, in fact, a federal constitutional violation, and then the Supreme Court will have to search far and wide for some way to slap down the 9th again. (It's one of their recreational pastimes.) But they're not likely to do anything with the DC issue, since it doesn't have wider implications in and of itself.
.....Despite opponents' plans to appeal, they are running out of time to block same-sex marriages in the District. Congress has begun the required 30-legislative-day review of the same-sex marriage law. City leaders said that, barring intervention by Congress, marriage licenses will be available to same-sex couples around the first week of March.
Well. We shall see, won't we?
Posted by iain at January 15, 2010 12:52 PM
