This has to be the most extremist abuse of judicial activism ever. The court decides that the citizens of a democracy do not have the right to vote in a referendum on the definition of marriage.
Is there no recourse for the citizens against a dictatorship by the court? This is very alarming. Read this news excerpt. More of my commentary below.
People Have no Right to Vote on Gay ‘Marriage’ Rules D.C. Appeals Court
By John Jalsevac
WASHINGTON, July 15, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a 5-4 decision, the D.C. Court of Appeals held today that the residents of Washington D.C. do not have the right to vote on the issue of same-sex “marriage,” and that allowing a vote on the issue would amount to allowing “discrimination.”
The decision is the latest in a lengthy battle by Stand 4 Marriage DC, a coalition of the federal district’s religious leaders led by Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church, to put the issue of gay “marriage” to a vote by the people.
In May of 2009 the 13 members of the D.C. City Council voted to recognize same-sex “marriages” that were performed in other U.S. states, after which Stand 4 Marriage appealed to allow a referendum on the issue.
However, their efforts have been blocked every step of the way, with local bureaucrats and judges repeatedly deciding that putting same-sex “marriage” to a popular vote would violate the human rights of homosexuals.
In June 2009, the capital district’s Board of Elections and Ethics ruled “that the Referendum does not present a proper subject of referendum because it would authorize discrimination prohibited under the Human Rights Act.”
On December 15 of last year, the city council voted 11-2 to pass a bill that would legalize all same-sex “marriages” in D.C. in addition to those contracted in other states. The law went into effect on March 3.
In January the D.C. Superior Court agreed with the city’s ethics board, saying that, “The fact that the proposed initiative, if passed, would violate the Human Rights Act provides an independent basis for upholding the Board’s decision.” (Source)
A vote on the definition of marriage would be “discrimination”? By whose standards? The so-called “Human Rights Act”? And exactly who defined the “Human Rights Act”, which the bureaucrats and courts hold as so sacred that you’d think the Governor received it written on tablets of stone from atop a mountain? If it’s an Act, it must have been passed by the State legislature, right? Doesn’t that mean a vote? Er, yeah! So why is a vote in favour of gay “marriage” considered okay, but a vote that could overturn such a provision becomes intolerable?
What kind of one-way democracy is this? Is anybody paying attention?