Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Over DC Same-Sex Marriage Law

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from opponents of same-sex marriage who want to overturn the District of Columbia's gay marriage law.

The court did not comment Tuesday in turning away a challenge from a Maryland pastor and others who are trying to get a measure on the ballot to allow Washingtonians to vote on a measure that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Bishop Harry Jackson led a lawsuit against the district's Board of Elections and Ethics after it refused to put that initiative on the ballot. The board ruled that the ballot question would in effect authorize discrimination.

Last year, Washington began issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples and in 2009, it began recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere.

Comments

[reddy52]

08:56 PM on 02/20/2011

What right does a court have to overturn thousands of years of tradition?

[VelenoSangue]

06:18 PM on 02/23/2011

Marriage and the reasons for it have actually changed quite a bit over time and vary from place to place. Simple examples: there was a similar debate over interracial marriage, marriage for love is a relatively new concept, arranged marriages are still are still common in some cultures, etc.

[BeninOakland]

07:37 PM on 01/21/2011

"Allowing gay couples to marry doesn't change the definition of marriage -- heteros can marry as they always have. It merely expands access to marriage."

The most cogentstatement on the subject that I have read. I've said many things that were similar and making that point, but that summed it up. Allow me to expand it a bit further....

Allowing gay couples to marry does not change the definition of marriage -- heteros can marry just as they always have, to the opposite gender person of their choice. It does not affect and has never affected, in any way demonstrable by logic, fact, or experience, and in any jurisdiction where it is legal, the rights, status, and responsibilities of any heterosexual marriage. It merely expands access to marriage.

However, those anti-gay heterosexuals (allegedly) and churches can continue to define, to their hearts delight, marriage as God given,sanctified, and hetero. They can continue to deny our marriages as being real, orour families, faiths, and loves as real and everybit asimportant as theirs. They can exclude and shun us all they wish, and tell everyone that according to their religious beliefs, our marriages and families are counterfeit.

No problem. Stupid, wrongheaded, and bigoted, smallminded, ignorant, and ultimately on the wrong side of history. But no problem.

BECAUSE IT AIN'T ABOUT YOU, YOUR RELIGION, OR WHAT YOU "THINK".

It is about how our government treats us,and our freedom of religion, our equality before the law.

Your alleged superiority is whollly imaginary.

[WheelsOnFire]

07:38 PM on 01/22/2011

Brilliantly said.

It's interesting to note that when those opposed to gay marriage are asked to list how allowing gay marriage would harm their own marriage, they always come up empty.

Says it all, doesn't it?

[buhhdaluvsallbutyou]

12:47 AM on 01/20/2011

Anti-discrimination law refers to the law on people's right to be treated equally. Some countries mandate that in employment, in consumer transactions and in political participation people may be dealt with on an equal basis regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality and sometimes religion and political views.

[LynnW49]

12:37 AM on 01/20/2011

One by one.

"Can we be like drops of water falling on the stone
Splashing, breaking, dispersing in air
Weaker than the stone by far but be aware
That as time goes by the rock will wear away
And the water comes again."
— Holly Near, "The Rock Will Wear Away"

[TurnToTheLeft]

08:54 PM on 01/19/2011

This is good news. I do not trust the 5 of the Supreme Court Justices who gave us Citizen's United - they are partisan. The Constituti­on Originalis­ts do not believe the Constituti­on is a living document. Justice Scalia even advised and agreed with conveniently editing parts of the Constitution when read at the opening session of Congress. They like to glossed over that originally Women were not be able to vote, Slaves should still neither be considered free or citizens or even to be counted as a whole human (only 3/5)..­. These 5 scary men would overturn a woman's right to choose if they had the chance. I do not trust them to listen to the spirit of the law with regards to Gay Marriage. Oh and by the way to the Constitution originalists, the founding fathers were the best and brightest men of the Age of Enlightenment - They believed in a complete separation of church and state.

[Douglas Campbell]

06:20 PM on 01/22/2011

100% agreement

[Mr Jake]

08:34 PM on 01/19/2011

I am in no way, shape or form surprised. I knew at least one conservative would come to their senses to vote to deny an appeal. This just goes to show how bi-partisan equality can be for some.

I can't wait for Perry to reach the SCOTUS. We're going to have marriage equality for ALL!

[TurnToTheLeft]

04:24 PM on 01/19/2011

This is good news. I do not trust the 5 of the Supreme Court Justices who gave us Citizen's United - they are partisan. The Constitution Originalists do not believe the Constitution is a living document. Woman should not be able to vote, Slaves should still neither be considered free or citizens... These are scary men who would overturn a woman's right to choose if they had the chance.

[Ioan Lightoller]

05:04 PM on 01/19/2011

Fanned and faved. In a heartbeat. This is why we cannot rest and trust our freedoms are being protected. This country has a nasty history of wanting to remove rights when it can be gotten away with.

[NO WAY BARRY]

05:54 PM on 01/19/2011

Voting rights and slavery were addressed by amending the Constitution. These things are PART of the Constitution.

Don't you see the contradiction in what you say? You are concerned that some of the SC justices will impose their views on you, but you apparently don't like the idea of strict construction and prefer to emphasize the notion of a 'living document', where the current members of the bench, whomever they happen to be at a particular time, have greater to discretion to restrict your rights arbitrarily, according to their views of the subject.

I would prefer not to trust my fundemental rights to some loose interpreation from the mind of a pot smoking 60's child [or whomever comes next to the SC], an interpretation that can change as easily as the wind. That is why a loose interpretation of the idea of a 'living document' should be shunned. Under this view, rights are only as strong as the next old man's or woman's 'feelings' about the matter.

[dnb310]

06:01 PM on 01/19/2011

It seems as though you only want you rights decided by people who think the way you do. Sorry, you don't get to have that in a democracy.

[LeftRight]

07:18 PM on 01/19/2011

Of course, never mind that most teabaglicans, including Justice Scalia seem to think that the only portions of the Constitution which apply are the original, and SOME of the first ten amendments...

[SarahCuda2]

02:52 PM on 01/19/2011

If a homosexual is free to marry someone of the opposite sex then explain how exactly their right was in any way 'denied' by defining marriage as being between the two complimentary genders?

There is a wide variety of reasons why people do not want to get married so what makes a homosexual's reason for objecting to having to marry someone of the opposite gender so 'special' that it deserves exception where the other reasons do not?

[Jason N]

03:04 PM on 01/19/2011

"If a homosexual is free to marry someone of the opposite sex then explain how exactly their right was in any way 'denied' by defining marriage as being between the two compliment­ary genders?"

You all tried this nonsense with interracial marriage. It didn't work then either.

[TBJ]

03:06 PM on 01/19/2011

If a person who's highly allergic to peanuts is free to eat peanuts, then explain exactly how their right was in any way denied by defining lunch as being only peanut-butter sandwiches?

Not the strongest of analogies, but the point: Saying that gay people are free to do something they cannot and will not do is just trying to win by semantics. Which doesn't work.

If same-sex marriage is allowed, then straight people can marry people of the same gender; though I sincerely doubt that any of them will.

[LeftRight]

07:22 PM on 01/19/2011

Some might, not because they want the sex, but because they want the benefits and can only find their best friend to share those with...

[SarahCuda2]

02:12 PM on 01/20/2011

Something they cannot and will not do? "Cannot"? Ever hear of Jim McGreevey? Many homosexuals marry someone of the complimentary gender proving that NOTHING stopped them from doing it.

That they ~prefer~ some other arrangement is not a restriction on the SAME right afforded everyone else. Some people would ~prefer~ to drive on the lefvt side of the road but they manage to force themselves to drive on the right side in this country. Are their rights being denied?

[Michael Ludin]

02:27 PM on 01/19/2011

One more down!

[PWM]

02:12 PM on 01/19/2011

Marriage is a right:
*Loving v. Virginia (1967) SCOTUS ruled: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men..."

*Universal Declaratio­n of Human Rights (ratified by the USA): Article 16 "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationalit­y or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolutio­n."

[z3ncat]

12:26 AM on 01/20/2011

And the SCOTUS has also ruled (not that I can remember the case off the top of my head) that being GLBT is a class, not a behavior - behaviors can be discriminated against, but a class of people cannot.

[Scent]

01:37 PM on 01/19/2011

Even our highest court sometimes gets SOMETHING right. - They failed often enough.

[JeremiahA]

01:23 PM on 01/19/2011

For SCOTUS, same sex marriage appears to be a dead issue until California's constitutional issue comes before them. The denial of review of the pro-voter/support marriage group's argument will thrust D.C. citizen's to the back of the bus, leaving them as second-class citizens until this wrong side of history, hopefully, corrects itself.

[Ioan Lightoller]

06:46 PM on 01/22/2011

YOU DO NOT GET TO VOTE ON CIVIL RIGHTS. What part of that do you not understand? No wrong has been done. The wrong is done by people like yourself who think that you should have the priviledge of voting on the lives of people who will have no effect on your life. More of the over-the-to entitlement attitude of homohaters.

[contrarian48]

07:07 PM on 01/22/2011

of course civil rights are the result of representative democracy, they are voted into existence. the constitution was not written by god

[Nasberry]

12:54 PM on 01/19/2011

They say self-righteousness is a substitute for happiness. If you cant be happy then might as well be a bigot.

[Steven Duane Newcomb]

12:16 PM on 01/19/2011

I think that, ultimately, gay marriage will be decided at the high court level. The current case against Proposition 8 in Ca is working it's way up the system. More than likely that will be the game changer.

[Ioan Lightoller]

05:22 PM on 01/19/2011

Fanned and faved. I sure hope so. Striking down Prop H8 will indeed be a game changer...it will say that no one has the right to either deny or vote away the civil rights of others. This is critically needed in a country where so many believe that rights are subject to the voting process.

[xenas mom]

06:27 PM on 01/19/2011

Maybe, but Prop 8 faces a very serious question of standing. The appeals panel has kicked that question over to the California Supreme Court. No word on the timeline (if any) of that decision. The Massachusetts case is possibly a better shot at the supreme court because the issue of standing isn't there and, unlike Prop 8, it is a direct challenge to DOMA.

[Cool Canuck]

09:13 AM on 01/19/2011

The fundamental question in this whole debate is whether or not the Federal government was within it's rights to endorse, or more precisely, legislate any definition of marriage.

Marriage, at least as we know it in the west, is a christian institution, or at very least a derivative. The Federal government merely adopted this generally accepted definition in their attempts to legislate marriage for contractual purposes. Does this now give them the right to change the definition of marriage?

If the Vatican accepts or endorses the US criminal code, do they have the right to alter it?

The truth of the matter is, the government had no right to meddle in the "sacrament" of marriage in the first place. Proponents of same sex "marriage" continually cry for a separation of "church and state", and I concur,....the state can join in "union" any persons they choose, but cannot interfere with matters of the church. ie. marriage.

This solution would not be agreeable to most on the left because "equality" is in truth not the driving force behind the same sex marriage movement, rather it is an attack on the religious institutions who do not endorse homosexuality and as such is no place for the Federal government.

[Pablo-C]

09:21 AM on 01/19/2011

Well said, although you will be attacked for this post. I agree with you.

[Cool Canuck]

10:09 AM on 01/19/2011

Love me or hate me, just don't ignore me!!

[LeftRight]

07:23 PM on 01/19/2011

Poorly stated, incorrect in everything he said, and you come up with THIS?

[LeftRight]

09:22 AM on 01/19/2011

First of all, even in the west, marriage is a CIVIL institution and always has been. The Christian church only took it up centuries later when the civil authorities were very weak.

Second, yes, the government has EVERY right to redefine civil marriage if they so choose (read:if WE so choose!) because they are the ones who define what's allowed in a contract (which is all that civil marriage is!)

Third, you ask WHY is the federal government involved in it? That's simple, it's called social engineering. You see a behavior out there that benefits all of society. You would like to encourage that behavior. You set up benefits to those who act in the way you want them to. In the case of marriage it's tax benefits.

[Cool Canuck]

09:35 AM on 01/19/2011

Tax benefits are not at issue here, they could be extended to same sex couples within a legal union.

There is a reason why a "legal union" with all the legal protections of a "marriage" is not satisfactory to some same-sex couples, they hope to undermine the "churches" who do not endorse homosexuality, with the aid of the "state".

The federal government (SCOTUS) must legislate the qualifications for legal unions, and recuse themselves from the "marriage" debate, if they truly want a clear "separation of church and state"