Same-sex marriage (SSM) in Washington, DC

The board's ruling on the first petition
for an initiative.   Reactions.   Lawsuit.

Sponsored link.

The story so far:

2009-JUN-15: The Board's ruling:

The District of Columbia's Board of Elections and Ethics rejected their request to hold an initiative. The board wrote that they were prevented by law from authorizing the initiative:

"The referendum instructs that '[a] NO vote will continue the current law of recognizing only marriage between persons of the opposite sex. Notwithstanding the incorrect statement of existing law, it is clear that the Referendum's Proposers would, in contravention of the HRA [Human Rights Amendment], strip same-sex couples of the rights and responsibilities of marriage that they were afforded by virtue of entering into valid marriages elsewhere, and that the Council intends to clearly make available to them here in the District, simply on the basis of their sexual orientation. Because the Referendum would authorize discrimination prohibited by the HRA, it is not a proper subject for referendum, and may not be accepted by the Board. ₁

In a footnote, the Board stated:

"The Proposers and supporters of the Referendum have requested that the Board accept the Referendum and thereby allow voters to be heard, for what they say would be the first time, regarding the desirability of the Act among the electorate. The Board, as an entity responsible for ensuring the integrity of a very critical aspect of the democratic process, is particularly sensitive to issues of fairness and due process. However, the Board must also act in a manner which adheres to its statutory obligations."

What the Board has basically said is that basic human rights cannot be submitted to the public for a vote. Rights are rights and they apply to everyone. Unless someone changes the laws governing initiatives, the experience in California and Maine -- where very slim majorities of the public overturned marriage equality -- will not come to Washington DC.

If the referendum had been accepted, public opinion surveys indicate that most of the public would vote "YES," would reject the referendum and thus preserve the law recognizing SSMs performed outside of the District. If the referendum had passed, it would almost certainly have triggered a lawsuit arguing that the referendum conflicted with the HRA.

Still, proposers of the referendum would certainly receive much support and acclaim from that part of the public who were opposed to SSM. Only time will tell whether they were on the right side of history.

Reaction to the Board's decision:

Those critical of the decision complained that the Board deprived the public of the opportunity to deprive recognition of the marriages of same-sex married couples.

Pastor Walker may not be aware that at the time of the incident that triggered Dean, same-sex marriage did not exist anywhere in the U.S. The court's ruling was based on the status of SSM at that time. At the time of Walker's statement it existed in all 10 provinces and 3 territories in Canada and 6 states in the U.S. There were, and are, also almost 20,000 married same-sex couples in California.

Court petition:

Petitioners to the Board of Elections and Ethics filed a petition with the District of Columbia Superior Court. They sought a writ "in the nature of mandamus" to compel the board to overturn its decision and accept the proposed anti-SSM referendum. ₃

The court considered the petition. They concluded that the 1995 case "Dean v. District of Columbia" which held that the Human Rights Act (HRA) did not apply to marriage, is no longer controlling. They determined that if the initiative were approved by the voters, it would violate the HRA.

Since the petitioners' initiative had been refused by the Board, and the writ was refused by the Superior Court, there was nothing to impede the implementation of JAMA on 2009-JUL-07. Loving, committed same-sex DC couples could marry in other jurisdictions, return to DC and have their marriages recognized.

References used:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlink is not necessarily still active today.

1. "Memorandum Opinion and Order," District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, 2009-JUN-15, at: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/This is a PDF file.
2.  Mike DeBonis, "D.C. Gay Marriage Referendum Rejected by Elections Board," Blog, Washington City Paper, 2009-JUN-15, at: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/
3. "Civil Action #2009 CA 008613 B," Superior Court of the District of Columbia, 210-JAN-14, at: http://www.dccourts.gov/

Copyright © 2009  & 2010 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
First posting: 2009-DEC-12
Latest update: 2010-JAN-18
Author: B.A. Robinson

Sponsored link

Go to the previous page, or go to the Washington DC SSM menu or choose: