Comments on: D.C. Gay Marriage Referendum Supporters Petition Court

By: ADF Alliance Alert » “D.C. gay marriage referendum supporters petition court”

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:14:04 +0000

[...] DeBonis writes at the Washington City Paper’s City Desk blog: “The lawyers for the referendum proponents—Steven H. Aden, Austin R. Nimocks, and Brian W. [...]

By: sigmund freud

sigmund freud — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:59:44 +0000

This clownish lawyer representing the 6 clowns sends a summons to Robert Spagnoletti , Corporation Counsel -- get with the program -- it is Peter Nickles and it is now called Attorney General.

By: Fenty Suffering from ‘Donor Fatigue’: Loose Lips Daily - City Desk - Washington City Paper

Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:00:55 +0000

[...] IN CASE YOU MISSED IT—”D.C. Gay Marriage Referendum Supporters Petition Court” [...]

By: KCinDC

KCinDC — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:03:08 +0000

Q, what clearing of legislative calendars are you talking about? The marriage recognition bill was not controversial within the council, so they spent very little time on it and had no hearings. The other issues you mention (with the possible exception of your vague reference to the 2nd Amendment) are congressional issues the council can't do much about, yet they still had hearings about them.

I don't see see how avoiding spending the small amount of legislative or judicial time being spent on marriage equality would have somehow allowed for more progress on voting rights, statehood, or whatever it is you want to happen related to the 2nd Amendment.

By: Mike DeBonis

Mike DeBonis — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:40:47 +0000

If Retchin declines to intervene, the referendum proponents would likely go to the D.C. Court of Appeals. This is where the final word on whether Dean v. District (a) applies to this case and/or (b) stands as good law will have to come from---this is the court that ruled on Dean in 1995.

In case you're wondering: LL looked up the DCCA makeup yesterday: Only two of nine active judges were seated in 1995, when Dean was decided. (Neither of those two participated in the Dean panel.) Of the nine sitting DCCA judges, four are Clinton appointees and five are Bush appointees.

Would SCOTUS hear the case? Almost certainly not. The issues at work here involve an interpretation of District statute---the Human Rights Act of 1977. No constitutional questions or questions of federal law are at play.

By: Q

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:57:29 +0000

Now Now LL, just because we have a Democratic Republic with representatives voting 12-1 doesn't mean there is a consensus of the populace. LOL! Legally this issue is done as this Judge will not want to make a name for herself by issuing an injunction of a Congressional Review. However, strategically, the issue of same-sex marriage is far from over.

Once again, it is amazing the priority and clearing of legislative and now judicial calendars that this issue has generated. I wish DCHRVA, statehood or even the 2nd Amendment issue got this swift justice.

LL, if Jackson & Company fail, what's next -- the Appellate Court? Will Sotomayor (if she is confirmed) eventually get to hear this?

By: Mike DeBonis

Mike DeBonis — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:42:02 +0000

Uh, a 12-1 vote of a duly elected legislature seems darned close to consensus...

By: SC Guy

SC Guy — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:36:57 +0000

I sure hope that the court does the right thing and allows democracy to prevail. Clearly there is no consensus on the issue, so the people need to referee the decision.

By: DCBob

DCBob — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:36:17 +0000

Dean is based on a number of sections of the D.C. Code, all of which were systematically changed over the past 10 years. This day was expected and planned for. For a nice list of how the law has been changed to invalidate Dean, read Brian Flower's testimony to the BOEE http://dcboee.org/pdf_files/BrianFlowers.PDF

By: JohnD

JohnD — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:03:10 +0000

I love how the proponents of the referendum keep going back to the Dean decision, which was based on the laws in DC in the early 1990s. Don't they realize that the laws since then have changed and that all gender references in the marriage laws that Dean was based on have been changed to be gender neutral? I also find it interesting that they are using the courts (or to use their language "activist judges") to try to overturn a law passed 11-1 by the legislature of the District of Columbia. Isn't that what they always complain that the "left" does? Should this action go against their principles? I guess principle goes out the window when it is convenient.