D. C. United States Court of Appeals Upholds DC Marriage

While paling in comparison to the huge victory in today in Argentina, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has upheld a District Court ruling that rejected the efforts of gay marriage foes to put the Washington, C. C., gay marriage ordinance up for popular vote. It is pathetic that these supposed Christians and defenders of "family values" always want to play to mob bigotry as a means to deprive LGBT citizens of equality under the civil laws. One can only hope that history will view them as they deserve and that their legacy will be viewed as akin to that of the segregationists and KKK. The photo above shows a couple that met 60 years ago, have remained together since that time, and only recently were able to marry in the District under the law that the gay-haters would rescind. Both men are now well into their 80's. If this couple can make it together for 60 years, it seems to me that these supposed supporters of "marriage" might do far better to see what these men have done right as opposed to seeking to void the legal recognition of their relationship. Here are highlights from the Washington Post:
*
The D.C. Court of Appeals narrowly sustained same-sex marriage in the District in a 5 to 4 vote Thursday. The nine judges were asked to determine whether the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics acted lawfully when it rejected an initiative by opponents of gay marriage to have the matter voted upon in a referendum.
*
In an 81-page decision released Thursday, the five affirming judges -- Phyllis D. Thompson, Vanessa Ruiz, Inez Smith Reid, Noel Anketell Kramer and Anna Blackburne-Rigsby -- disagreed with that argument, saying that the board was within the law in making such a decision.
*
The judges said they were convinced that the council would not have authorized "any initiative" that would have discriminated against residents and violated the Human Rights Act. The judges also wrote that the board "correctly determined that the proposed initiative would have the effect of authorizing such discrimination." . . . Based on that conclusion, the judges ruled that the board acted lawfully in refusing to accept the Jackson initiative.
*
Peter D. Rosenstein, a gay and lesbian rights activist, hailed the ruling as a "victory for decency and civil and human rights."
*
Because all nine judges heard the case, Jackson's attorneys have no further course of appeal unless they take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court and the justices choose to hear it. After the ruling, Jackson said he and his attorneys are planning such an appeal.
*
The four judges who sided with Jackson's attorneys said they primarily questioned the board's interpretation of the law that allowed them to reject the referendum and specifically indicated that they were not ruling against same-sex marriage.
*
Can you imagine how many poor, unemployed, hungry and/or homeless individuals could receive needed care if the Christianists used their moneys to follow Christ's directives rather than persecute other citizens? WWJD?