The Supreme Court has refused to stop the District of Columbia's gay marriage law.
The court on Tuesday turned down requests from gay marriage opponents to stop the law, which will take effect on Wednesday.
Opponents of the law had argued to Chief Justice John Roberts that D.C. voters should have been allowed to vote on the issue. Local courts have rejected the opponents' arguments. Local courts have rejected the opponents' arguments.
The city has said Wednesday probably will be the first day same-sex couples can apply for marriage licenses. Couples still will have to wait three full business days for their licenses before exchanging vows.
The Supreme Court was a last ditch effort of opponents for D.C. marriage such as Pastor Harry Jackson:
Bishop Harry Jackson, along with others opposed to marriage equality coming to Washington, filed a last-minute request at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, March 1, seeking to stop the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009 from becoming law on March 3 so that he can proceed with his referendum effort.
Aided by lawyers from the national organization Alliance Defense Fund, Jackson filed a request for an immediate stay of the law with Chief Justice John Roberts, who is responsible for hearing appeals coming from the District. Roberts has the ability either to make the decision himself or to turn the matter over to the full court for a decision.
Now that he has lost, maybe Jackson will stop trying to exploit the lgbt community in pursuit of the limelight.
Of course, who am I kidding with that wish?
Isn't it delightful. I hope old Harry goes apoplectic over this one and pops an artery.
ReplyDeleteThat said, here in RI the hearing on the One Man One Woman ballot issue has been postponed. I have to wonder if our openly gay house Speaker had anything to do with that.
Batshit Jackson: Pack up your bigotry in your carpetbag and go back to Maryland, please.
ReplyDeleteAfter hearing Jackson say it should be put to a public vote I sent his church a little email so they could forward it on to him.
ReplyDeleteI asked, should we have voted in Brown v. Board of Education, or had a direct public vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or better yet the Emancipation Proclamation.
You'd think someone who is already a minority would think about using his power to deny another minority rights. It's mind boggling.