The result means that the National Organization for Marriage will be unable to ever eliminate D.C.'s marriage equality law. This is also an excellent affirmation of the idea that the human rights of others should not be up for a vote, a principle of law in the District of Columbia since 1979.
Chris Geidner over at PoliGlot has the call:
With no comment, the court decision (pdf) puts an end to Jackson's effort to stop the 2009 marriage equality law in D.C. Today's court action in Jackson v. D.C. Board of Elections, however, provides no precedent for elsewhere and represents no view on the merits of the request.
[...]
For D.C., though, the action puts an end to the legal questions remaining for marriage equality here.
Jackson had been appealing the D.C. Court of Appeals ruling in July upholding the decision by the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics that Jackson's proposed marriage initiative was an improper subject of an initiative.
In the July 5-4 decision, the court then held that the Human Rights Act (HRA) limitation in District law, which prohibits initiatives or referendums that would violate the HRA, is permissible. In light of that ruling, all 9 judges of the D.C. court agreed that the proposed marriage initiative would violate the HRA and is, thus, not permitted.
Calling the issue a "relatively obscure matter of law," longtime District gay rights activist [and MadProfessah friend] Bob Summersgill told Metro Weekly, "This was not about the merits of marriage, it was whether the council in 1979 had the authority to restrict initiatives and referenda from violations of the Human Rights Act."
[...]
Summersgill said that the reason for the HRA limitation is that "DC's original council was, by and large, made up of civil rights activists. They firmly believed that a human right is not something that should be subject to popular vote."
No comments:
Post a Comment