Supreme Court says “yes” to DC Marriages

Timothy Kincaid

March 2nd, 2010

capitolOpponents of marriage equality in the District of Columbia have been trying everything they could think of to stop marriage license from being issued to same-sex couples tomorrow. Unable to persuade city council members from choosing discrimination, they sought to get a congressional veto.

Recognizing that their congressional efforts were simply a clown show, they went to the courts and demanded that they be allowed to vote by initiative. After the District Courts all declined their demands, they made a last ditch appeal to the Supreme Court. (AHN)

Efforts by conservatives to overturn the law have continued. A group of conservatives including clerics Harry Jackson and James Silver filed papers Monday asking the Supreme Court to stay the law.

“The D.C. Council violated the congressionally authorized process for amending the D.C. Charter and, as a result, the citizens of the District are being denied the right to refer the act to the people,” the group said in its petition.

The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled against Jackson’s group last week. Jackson and Silver, members of a coalition of community leaders and pastors called Stand4MarriageDC.com, also tried to seek approval last year from the D.C. board of elections for a ballot initiative on whether marriage should be between persons of opposite sexes.

Today Chief Justice John Roberts declined placing a stay. (AP)

The Supreme Court has refused to stop the District of Columbia’s gay marriage law.

The court on Tuesday turned down requests from gay marriage opponents to stop the law, which will take effect on Wednesday.

This is good news for DC and Maryland residents.

But it may possibly also be good news for California gay couples and those around the nation. Were Justice Roberts an anti-marriage advocate, he may have been willing to lean towards granting the stay. It is, of course, far too soon and far to speculative to assume that this is a forerunner of his position on Perry v. Schwarzenegger, but it certainly weighs on the side of hope.

Gary

March 2nd, 2010

Perhaps the plaintiffs really didn’t have a strong case, and the Courts’ “yes” has no relevance at all to their opinion on the issue at hand.

Burr

March 2nd, 2010

It could just be that Roberts knew that the claim that “The D.C. Council violated the congressionally authorized process for amending the D.C. Charter” was a load of bull..

occono

March 2nd, 2010

This in no way says anything positive about Roberts: Is a refresher on how he has voted in past gay rights cases needed? SCOTUS is not going to get involved in the murky standing of D.C.’s independence: this has nothing to do with a pro-gay view of the Court.

But still: Happy news.

Ray

March 2nd, 2010

Yes, it was a load. I believe the major influence on Roberts was that Congress did not act. Roberts did mention that he didn’t weigh any underlying issues in making his ruling.

John

March 2nd, 2010

It’s good news for DC but tells us nothing about the Roberts Court. I do not believe the Perry case has a chance to get more than 4 votes when it reaches SCOTUS. It’s one thing for the Court to rule against a legislature that has approved of SSM, it’s quite another to strike down state amendments/laws that have likewise been approved by various legislatures. I just don’t see that happening at this time. 50 years from now? Sure. Yet not now. I fully expect a Plessy-type ruling that will take decades to undo with another Brown.

AJD

March 2nd, 2010

I’m glad about this ruling as well, but I’m kind of with John.

I think we’re completely on the right side of reason, logic and facts in our case, but I don’t have full trust in the Roberts court to side with any of those.

I guess I’ve just learned to be pessimistic and expect nothing better than itsy-bitsy baby steps in our favor. With any luck, we’ll have gay marriage by 2100…

David C.

March 2nd, 2010

Supreme Court says “yes” to DC Marriages

Well, let’s just say they didn’t say “no”. Yet.

ebohlman

March 3rd, 2010

Gary, David: You’re correct. This is nothing more than the SCOTUS refusing to grant a preliminary injunction. It sets no precedent at all. If the SCOTUS had in fact granted such an injunction, it would have been a display of judicial activism that would make Bush v. Gore look like a model of judicial restraint.

Ryan

March 3rd, 2010

Roberts also basically invited the Protect Marriage people to challenge the DC Courts to put the issue on the ballot, and heavily implied that they would hear that appeal, when the time came. We’re not getting five. No way, no how.

Bill Ware

March 3rd, 2010

The court was just saying that the DC law prohibiting a public referendum when the subject is minority rights had been properly applied in this case. It had nothing to do with what minority right, in this case gay marriage, was at issue.

David

March 3rd, 2010

If Justice Kennedy meant the words he wrote in the Lawrence v. Texas ruling, it will be very difficult for him to reach a negative opinion about equal marriage in Perry v. Schwarzenegger — and if he is in favor of equality under the law, as he said in Lawrence, he would be the 5th vote. The only reason there is any doubt about his view is that the identity of the court’s right wing has changed since Lawrence, and Kennedy has to deal with a more aggressive right-wing bloc, who will be trying to find a way to persuade him to distinguish the Lawrence case from the equal marriage case. No one knows what will happen, but there are good reasons to hope it will be 5-4 for equality.

RCM

March 3rd, 2010

Well I’m a bit confused about the American law making process here, but congratulations to all the same sex couples in D.C. and Maryland who wish to utilize the new law.

Timothy Kincaid

March 3rd, 2010

Bill,

I agree. But wouldn’t Roberts’ decision suggest that he sees same-sex marriage as being both a “minority right” and a “civil right”? Or at least that he is willing to accept the DC courts’ defining it as such?

Fred in the UK

March 3rd, 2010

More of a question that a comment.

Might Chief Justice Roberts view same-sex marriage as a minority/civil right that the D.C. council was perfectly entitled to bestow upon its citizens, but one that was beyond the those required by the Constitution?

Ryan

March 3rd, 2010

“If Justice Kennedy meant the words he wrote in the Lawrence v. Texas ruling, it will be very difficult for him to reach a negative opinion about equal marriage in Perry v. Schwarzenegger”

Kennedy agreed with the other four right wingers that cameras shouldn’t be allowed during the Perry trial because it was “very likely that irreparable harm” would come to the Prop 8 defendants as the hands of the gays. That’s what you call a “tell”. We’re done, the rest is just biding time.

John Culhane

March 3rd, 2010

With respect, I think the view that the denial of the stay in this case bodes well for marriage equality in the long term is naive. The better portent, unfortunately, is the Supreme Court’s willingness, in the Perry case, to block the televising of the Perry case. There, the Court stuck its nose into a debate that it should have avoided, and bought the most specious arguments of the anti-marriage forces (esp. the idea that the pro-Prop 8 witnesses, who were already quite well known for their views, would be intimidated by having to testify). The decision was “per curiam” (translation for non-lawyers: “By the Court”), but I strongly suspect that Roberts wrote it. I blogged about it on my site: http://wordinedgewise.org/?p=718

BobN

March 3rd, 2010

Reading SCOTUS tea leaves is something best left to the experts. The law was so clear here that it would have been astounding for the Court to have granted a stay. We should look to those familiar with HOW stays are granted, with how much and with what sort of comment they are issued, to discern Roberts’ intent.

I’m no expert, but a three-page stay strikes me as unusual. That it mentioned other cases that, legally, have absolutely nothing to do with the petition at hand, fills me with foreboding.

Burr

March 3rd, 2010

I wouldn’t make such a big deal about the cameras in the court thing. It was mostly decided on the fact that it was unprecedented for a federal court case and that the rules were changed with little time before the trial. It’s not necessarily because they bought the pro-Prop 8 arguments hook, line, and sinker.

I believe Roberts made the point that Congress could have stopped it in his writing.

Burr

March 3rd, 2010

Err.. I should say about the writing declining to put a stay on D.C. marriages.

Timothy Kincaid

March 3rd, 2010

In reading Roberts’ decision, we see that he decided this on the merits of the argument, which was:

Petitioners argue that this action was improper, because D.C. Council legislation providing that a referendum is not required cannot trump a provision of the D. C. Charter specifying that a referendum is required.

In other words, the Council back in 79 exempted Human Rights issues from the referendum process stated in the Charter. But that the Council had no authority to override the Charter’s provisions and thereby usurp Congress’ power. That being the case, referenda which violate the Human Rights Act – no matter how egregious – are perfectly legal and allowed.

Roberts said that “This argument has some force.” But he also noted that Congress had an opportunity to veto the Human Rights Act and it’s usurptation on its power and chose not to.

He also noted that Congress chose not to act at this time, implying that if it felt that the Human Rights exclusion violated the intent of Congress it could have remedied the situation.

He also noted that the issue wasn’t over because there is an appeal for an initiative (as opposed to a referendum).

Joey

March 3rd, 2010

Great day for gays, and I’m happy about that. Unfortunately, it’s a lousy day for kids who need to be adopted. Catholic Charities of DC has said that they will have to shut down their adoption operations in DC, just like in Boston and SF. That’s really too bad. Only the children will suffer.

Unfortunately, we seem to live in a zero sum world. It’s hard to make compromises between gay rights and religious freedoms. I, for one, think that there are realistic compromises that accommodate both sides, if only both sides were willing to meet in the middle. Sadly, that’s not the case.

So we have a mixed blessing here.

I don’t want to force Catholics to act in an un-Catholic fashion. I think they should be able to be Catholic till the cows come home, just as I should be free to be gay till the cows come home.

Timothy Kincaid

March 3rd, 2010

Joey,

You needn’t worry about the children. Catholic Charities has not “shut down operations” but has instead transferred operations to the National Center for Children and Families.

So the taxpayer funded adoptions will continue, they just won’t be administered by the Catholic Church any longer.

The Catholic Church may continue to be Catholic and discriminate all they like on whatever issue they want, just not with the public’s funds.

Ben in Oakland

March 4th, 2010

Joey: if by “religious freedom” you mean freedom to discirminate on the basis of religious belief, you are correct.

Except that we have laws at every level of government which forbid such discrimination… and iwth good reason.

The question for you to answer is this:why is this particular form of religious discrimination a good idea, while all the other forms of religious discrimination are not?

Answer: maybe it’s really about plain old bigotry, given a very thin veneer of respectabilty by being disguised as religious belief.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1970: New York Times Looks At "Homosexuals In Revolt"

Today In History, 1977: "The Advocate" Reports Another FBI Document Dump On Gay Rights Groups

Today In History, 1977: Houston Klan: "We Endorse and Seek the Execution of All Homosexuals"

Today In History, 1988: Canada's Largest Protestant Church Accepts Gay Ordination

Born On This Day, 1917: Chuck Rowland

Born On This Day, 1957: Stephen Fry

Activists Urge Indonesian Court to Criminalize Homosexuality

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.