“The demand for same-sex marriage has gone from toleration to tyranny”
Homosexual activists and their liberal allies have thus far been able to sway public opinion anywhere, based on the merits, to gain voter support to change the definition of marriage. In every state (few) where it has been approved it was forced upon the people by the judiciary or legislature. Now in DC the Board of Elections have refused to allow the people the right to vote on this critical issue.
A lawsuit has been filed in Washington, D.C., challenging a decision by the city’s Board of Elections and Ethics not to allow citizens to vote on the definition of marriage, as had been proposed by an initiative.
“The people of D.C. have a right to vote on the definition of marriage,” said Austin Nimocks, a senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. “The D.C. Charter guarantees the people the right to vote, and the council cannot amend the charter for any reason, much less to deny citizens the right to vote.”
Such a vote already has taken place in 31 states, and 31 times voters have approved the biblical one-man-and-one-woman definition for marriage. Most recently, after voters in Maine came to that conclusion, churches whose leaders had supported the biblical definition became targets of homosexual activists.
The D.C. board decided this week an initiative to uphold or reject the traditional definition of marriage would not be put to voters. The board suggested the proposal authorizes “discrimination” that is banned by its own Human Rights Act.
But the ADF said no act unrelated to expenditures passed by the D.C. Council can preclude the right of the citizens to vote as guaranteed by the D.C. Charter, which serves as a constitution for the federally managed enclave.
”The people of the district have the same right as the D.C. Council to propose legislation on any subject not related to appropriations,” said Cleta Mitchell, counsel to Stand for Marriage DC, a proponent of the Marriage Initiative of 2009.
Even those who have no problem with gay marriage have said it should be up to the states, but I doubt they meant the voters in those states should have no voice in the matter. Yet, time after time the voters are being denied their rights on this issue.
