D.C. sued for blocking vote on marriage

U.S. Capitol building

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."

The case brought by the ADF on behalf of a citizen in the district follows the decision by the elections board earlier this week that D.C. voters would not be allowed to decide on the definition of marriage.

(Story continues below)

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.

In the D.C. case, the council already approved recognition of same-sex "marriages" from other jurisdictions and is considering a plan to allow the district to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Get "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"

The initiative was proposed after the board authorized recognition of same-sex "marriages" from other districts.

But 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.

"The council cannot legally erect additional barriers to the people's exercise of that right," Mitchell said. "The D.C. courts have upheld that principle in prior cases, and we are confident that we are on solid legal ground in arguing that the denial of this petition is unlawful and must be reversed by the court."

The lawsuit seeks a court declaration that the proposed initiative should be on the ballot.

According to the D.C.-based Institute on Religion and Democracy, the council is planning to adopt a bill recognizing same-sex relationships from within the district as "marriage." But that measure would cause significant difficulties for the district, since Catholic Charities, the largest nongovernmental provider for citizens in need, could be eliminated from participating in programs because of its advocacy for traditional marriage.

The IRD noted council member Mary Cheh called the church "childish" for its biblical stance.

Council member Tommy Wells said, "It's a dangerous thing when the Catholic Church starts writing and determining the legislation and laws of the District of Columbia."

"The demand for same-sex marriage has gone from toleration to tyranny," said IRD Vice President Alan Wisdom. "The D.C. government is prepared to force Christians to violate church teaching and become complicit in behavior that the Bible calls sin.

"This is just the kind of abuse against which opponents of same-sex marriage have been warning," he said.

"All those who value their religious freedom should be up in arms at this attempted coercion of consciences. If Catholics are not allowed to be Catholic, none of us can rest secure in our liberty," he said.

The lawsuit explains people of the District of Columbia "reserved to themselves the sovereign right of initiative."

The plan to vote on a definition of marriage was approved as to form in October, but the board rejected it Tuesday.

"The lone substantive limitation on the people's right of initiative provided by the Charter Amendments Act is the exception for 'laws appropriating funds,'" the lawsuit said.

The Human Rights Act is no impediment, the lawsuit said, because "this court and the court of appeals have both ruled that the 'city council consciously chose not to make the language of the Human Rights Act applicable to the regulation of the marital relationship.'"

Related special offers:

"The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"

"Betrayed by the Bench"

Previous stories:

Churches targeted by 'gay' intimidation campaign

'Gay' blogger calls church-bomb threat a 'joke'

83 pastors challenge IRS to investigate

Dozens of pastors challenge IRS rules

IRS investigation of church 'closed'

IRS loosens grip on Christian church

Pastors called to defy IRS censorship rules

Pastors accuse Barry Lynn of 'intervening in campaign'

Church's pro-life advocacy earns IRS audit

IRS probes minister for backing Huckabee

Group sics IRS on Mormon critic

Activist's church mixes politics, religion

IRS to church: Shut up. Church to IRS: No way