A (Bad) Marriage Made in Washington

By Doug Carlson
Dec 2, 2009

More than 400,000 residents of the nation’s capital are eligible to exercise their right to vote—but not on marriage. On that issue of far-reaching consequences, District of Columbia voters have been denied a voice, with a group of 11 officeholders taking authority into their own hands today to redefine marriage.

In an 11-2 vote, the D.C. City Council cast its enthusiastic support for legalizing same-sex “marriage” in the District, all but guaranteeing the council will easily approve the measure when the members must vote on it a second time in the coming weeks. That will put D.C. in company with five states—Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont—that have legalized same-sex “marriage.”

All six of these decisions on marriage share a common theme: Citizens have not been granted a say in the matter. Instead, courts and elected officials have effectively declared themselves first and final arbiters, imposing an expanded definition of marriage on millions of people and thereby hammering away at the very foundation of our society. Government, the people are told, knows best.

For months, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission has joined forces with D.C. pastors and congregations of multiple denominations in marriage rallies and in testimony before the council and the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics with a simple message: “Let the people vote.” The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission was among numerous organizations that submitted testimony (PDF) to the D.C. Council and board in October, outlining how same-sex “marriage” “would damage families and communities.”

Such appeals have been quietly dismissed. On Nov. 17, the D.C. board ruled that a proposed ballot initiative stating that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in the District of Columbia” would violate the city’s Human Rights Act, calling the initiative discriminatory. Yet the board’s action itself violates D.C.’s charter, which guarantees citizens the right to vote. That decision is now under legal suit.

Recent history demonstrates that the American public, when given the chance to vote on marriage, overwhelmingly support the institution as only the union of one man and one woman. Traditional marriage is 31 for 31 when placed on the ballot. Thirty states have written the historic definition of marriage into their constitutions, and Maine voters last month overturned a same-sex “marriage” law approved by their legislature. Why not let D.C. voters also decide for themselves?

Still, same-sex “marriage” is not a done deal in the District. Should the D.C. Council cast, as expected, its second of two votes for same-sex “marriage” in two weeks, Congress would have 30 legislative days to overturn the ruling. The problem is that the congressional Democratic leadership, the drivers of the legislative agenda, have signaled no intention of challenging any such law. To their credit, nearly 60 congressmen, led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), are sponsoring the D.C. Defense of Marriage Act (H.R. 2608), which defines marriage in D.C. as “the union of one man and one woman.” But this, too, appears unlikely to receive a vote.

To disenfranchise 400,000 Washingtonians on an institution as fundamental and consequential as marriage is a brash show of disregard for the democratic process. Until the D.C. Council and Congress get the message, they need a continuous reminder: Let the people vote!

To view testimony submitted Oct. 26 by Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, to the D.C. City Council and the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics, expressing opposition to the same-sex “marriage” bill and asking that District residents be given the opportunity to vote on marriage, click here (352 KB PDF).

Further Learning

Learn more about: Family, Marriage, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality, Citizenship, Legislation,

You May Also Like

Justices ponder narrow Prop 8 ruling

By Tom Strode - Mar 27, 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court struggled during oral arguments in a landmark case regarding same-sex marriage with not only how it should rule but whether it should rule on the constitutional issues involved in the controversial subject.…

Read More

GuideStone injunction blocks abortion mandate

By Roy Hayhurst - Dec 20, 2013

OKLAHOMA CITY (BP) -- Federal District Judge Timothy DeGiusti issued a preliminary injunction Dec. 20 against the federal government's mandate that requires employers, including many religiously affiliated ones, to provide abortion-causing drugs and devices.…

Read More

VIDEO: Actively being pro-life

By Thomas Willis - Jan 17, 2014

Renee Rizzo chats with Daniel Darling about the lifesaving work of faith-based pregnancy centers. Nashville’s Hope Clinic for Women, where Rizzo is president and CEO, provides not only help for women facing an unplanned pregnancy but also medical testing, assistance and counseling.…

Read More

ERLC to Present Awards to Green Family & Saeed Abedini at Annual SBC Meeting

Jun 3, 2014

NASHVILLE, Tenn., June 3, 2014—Russell D. Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, will present the 2014 John Leland Religious Liberty Award to the Green Family of Hobby Lobby and the 2014 Richard Land Distinguished Service Award to Saeed Abedini during the ERLC report at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, June 11.…

Read More
D.C. council votes to legalize ‘gay marriage’ HUNGER: Feeding ministries in Alabama