Gay Marriage | News | Washington DC

Supreme Court Refuses to Block D.C. Marriage Equality

The Supreme Court refused to recognize the request made by marriage equality to halt the law from taking effect in the District of Columbia tomorrow, the AP reports:

Snow_capitol  "Opponents of gay marriage in the nation's capital had asked Chief Justice John Roberts to stop the city from issuing the licenses on Wednesday while they appealed. They argued that D.C. voters should have been allowed to vote on the issue. Local courts have rejected the opponents' arguments. 'It has been the practice of the court to defer to the decisions of the courts of the District of Columbia on matters of exclusively local concern,' said Roberts, writing for the court. He also pointed out that Congress could have voted to stop the city government from putting the law into effect and didn't. Opponents have also asked city courts to allow a voter referendum on gay marriage, and they 'will have the right to challenge any adverse decision ... in this court at the appropriate time,' Roberts said."

The relentless bigots are not giving up either, HRC Backstory reports:

"Today, opponents filed an unusual 'motion for clarification' in the D.C. Court of Appeals to request that it revisit last week’s decision denying them a preliminary injunction. Then late this afternoon, opponents also filed a frivolous complaint in federal court seeking a temporary restraining order, naming as defendants D.C., the Mayor and the Chief Judge of the D.C. Superior Court. Opponents claim their Fifth Amendment due process rights have been denied because they 'have not yet had a meaningful opportunity to brief the merits of their claim… or an opportunity to be heard.'"

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. The momentum is on...

    Posted by: Mark | Mar 2, 2010 7:24:53 PM

  2. >>will have the right to challenge any adverse decision ... in this court at the appropriate time,' Roberts said<<

    Sounds to me like the SCOTUS doesn't want to intervene in DC because of congressional oversight of the district. However, that statement alone suggests they are fully prepared to take on marriage equality when the right case gets to them. My bet is that Roberts and the rest of these legal frauds have already made up their mind, regardless of the arguments being presented to them.

    Wait and see...

    Posted by: Keith | Mar 2, 2010 7:54:58 PM

  3. Keith

    Unfortunately that seems to be the case, at least as far as the Chief Justice concerns.

    Posted by: Rafael | Mar 2, 2010 8:00:04 PM

  4. Where do these evil bigots get the $ to pull this crap?

    Posted by: Lucifer | Mar 2, 2010 8:13:13 PM

  5. I'm honestly suprised, I thought they would stop it. I suppose they are waiting to decide against us at the federal level with Olson/Boies thing and turn marraige equality back nationwide in one fell swoop.

    Posted by: Jersey | Mar 2, 2010 8:25:27 PM

  6. I'm in agreement with Jersey, as much as I would try for hope. This Supreme Court's "legal conservatism" will be exposed as fraud. A truly (legally) conservative decision would unequivocally side with the freedom to marry; to rule against such would be a progressive and very liberal interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution is on OUR side, not the bigots. So let's go ahead and draw the line.

    Posted by: Tom | Mar 2, 2010 8:35:11 PM

  7. did he really say this was an issue of exclusively local concern? obviously it is, but I was afraid these completely political ideologues would forget that. I think it is encouraging that the Chief Justice finds marriage a local issue. if that is the case, the states will decide. AND the 10th amendment would require that states give full faith and credit to the laws of other states. this is the true conservative position, untainted by politics. Does John Roberts know this? seems maybe he does.

    Posted by: Mark | Mar 2, 2010 9:11:52 PM

  8. Congratulations to all my people in the DC area. I know y'all are keeping Catania's cupcake in the freezer til you die. Have a beautiful day tomorrow, and best of luck with all the planning! ugh.

    The hubby and I got married in DC in the eyes of everyone but the law in June 08, and we may return to do the legal deed on our own good time when it suits our convenience, but only maybe. Because the first one is the only one that mattered.

    Posted by: JeffRob | Mar 2, 2010 9:23:01 PM

  9. So um... When did the public get to vote on rights for blacks? For women? For Hispanics? For any other minority?

    Posted by: Steve | Mar 2, 2010 10:34:39 PM

  10. Antonin Scalia subscribes to a belief in "originalism", that is, that the workings of the Federal government should be in accord with the way the original founders of the nation saw the constitution as working. The original idea was that the nation would be a republic, with elected people making the decisions. The idea of initiatives and r3efernda is relatively new, only about 100 years old.

    The issue that is contested at the moment is not whether same-sex marriage is good or not, but whether the people have a right to demand a vote rather than allowing the DC Council to make the decision.

    It has been a 35 year push for marriage equality in DC. This might be instructive:

    Posted by: Charlie | Mar 2, 2010 11:12:55 PM

  11. Look at NBC Nightly News' Brian William's news logo for same sex marriage in DC and the Supreme Court. It's available at See for yourself.

    Call them out on their scare tactics. Especially all you politics, journalism, communications, and art types--and I know there are plenty. Write NBC and tell them how fear-mongering they are.

    The logo Same SEX Marraige (with SEX in huge red prominent highlighted HUGE, tall capital font against a foreboding back drop); the graphic artist could've done it in a new times roman or script font, like marriage usually is. But he/she chose to make it like a red alert and something straight out of the 50s communist scare. Graphics matter. They sway us in our emotions.

    I say write NBC News and call them out on their bullsh-t. NBC hardly is a gay-friendly newscast. Remember Brian Williams' "in an age where marriage is under attack" from awhile ago?

    Posted by: Ben | Mar 3, 2010 12:28:24 AM

  12. well...i think it makes perfect sense that they denied them because as Justice Roberts pointed out...Congress could have stopped it and didn't. So, it is almost like...why are you bothering us with this nonsense.

    Posted by: Paul | Mar 3, 2010 6:17:01 AM

  13. Absolutely amazing that they can spend so much time and effort on this when people are starving, jobless, and homeless. Where is the church when it comes to things they're supposed to be doing. Oh yeah, pulling out because god forbid they might accidentally help a gay person.

    Posted by: jakeinlove | Mar 3, 2010 9:30:39 AM

  14. It's the 'phobes that hiave been driving the Marriage issue. Back in the day this wasn't anywhere near being on the Gaydar. We wanted to to end the closet, and live openly and honestly. Well we've pretty much won that fight. Kids today grow up, discover their sexual selves and live, Live LIVE! (as a Wise Old Queen we all know and love put it.)

    Marriage is what SOME of us want desperately, for reasosn too numerous to mention. Others may be less-enamoured of it, and still others don't care for it at all. But THEY want to keep us from having it with a passion that defies reason. Why? Because it means our standing as the last minority it's acceptable to despise is fast disappearing. If we cna marry we're "just as good as them." And they can't stand that.

    GO TEAM!

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Mar 3, 2010 9:33:13 AM

  15. NBC's e-mail seems to be Thanks for the heads up, Ben.

    Posted by: guywithaclue | Mar 3, 2010 11:50:15 AM

Post a comment


« «MUSIC NEWS: Groove Armada, Peter Gabriel, Alphabeat, John Barrowman« «