Contact Us

Have a suggestion for an item? Send it along using our contact page.

Enter your email address to join the GLAA Announcements list

DC Gay Etc

About GLAA Forum

GLAA is pleased to offer an online site for discussion of affairs that affect the quality of life of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities of the District of Columbia. Through this social networking media GLAA aspires to connect to new generations of LGBT advocates and straight allies and to strengthen our organization's abilities to communicate and broadcast to a broad and diverse population.

We warmly invite you to join us at our regularly scheduled membership meetings, held the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month. Please visit www.glaa.org for a list of meeting dates and locations and other important information regarding our group's mission and projects.

Support GLAA

GLAA is an all volunteer organisation. Our expenses are paid by our yearly Awards Banquet and by membership dues and contributions. If you would like to join GLAA this can be done through PayPal or through our membership form.

« Iowans rate drivers' texting as more urgent than gay marriage | Main | Bishop Jackson's latest case for undermining D.C. Home Rule »

February 09, 2010

Attorney General Nickles opposes latest anti-gay initiative

Peter_Nickles D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles this morning sent a letter to Kenneth McGhie, General Counsel for the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics, commenting on the latest proposed anti-gay initiative, this one entitled "Preservation of Traditional Marriage One Man One Woman 2009." Here is Nickles's conclusion:

The District of Columbia has long been a leader in the protection of human rights and the eradication of discrimination. As such, the District currently recognizes same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions. This recognition reflects the District's commitment to equality, as expressed in the District's Human Rights Act. The proposed Initiative seeks to redefine what is recognized as a marriage in the District and, in doing so, would strip only same-sex couples of the marital recognition they currently enjoy with respect to foreign same-sex marriages and will soon enjoy with respect to District same-sex marriages. Guided by the principles of equality and the recent decision in Jackson v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections & Ethics, No. 2009 CA 008613 (D.C. Super. Ct. 2010) ("Jackson II"), I find that the proposed Initiative is not a proper subject for initiative under District law, as it discriminates, or has the effect of discriminating, in contravention of the Human Rights Act.

The Initiative in question is a poorly drafted mess, so it could be overruled on those grounds quite aside from the subject-matter restriction. One way or another, it will be our fourth victory before the Board of Elections and Ethics in less than a year.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The comments to this entry are closed.