Why is Christianity loosing the cultural war ?

[soleil10]

How have they been denied an opportunity to vote?

In every state, the process is different. Many Politicians keep saying that they do not want to be in the marriage business, meanwhile they refuse do let the people vote.

Here is the example of Washington DC this past week.

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 18, 2009

Opponents of gay marriage filed a lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court yesterday hoping to force a referendum on whether to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

The civil suit against the District's Board of Elections and Ethics asks Judge Judith E. Retchin to overturn an election board ruling Monday that blocked a proposal to put the issue before the voters. Citing a District election law prohibiting votes on matters covered under the 1977 Human Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination against gay men, lesbians and other minority groups, the board said that a referendum would "authorize discrimination."

The plaintiffs asked for an expedited hearing. If the court or Congress does not intervene, recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere will become law early next month, at the end of the required congressional review period.

"We are not going to sit by and allow an unelected board of bureaucrats to deny voters their rightful say on this issue and, by their action, allow the institution of marriage and the entire structure of our society to be radically redefined," said Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville and one of seven District residents who are plaintiffs in the suit.

We will continue to fight for the people of the District of Columbia who want their voice to be heard in this important issue."

The civil suit is the latest step in a battle over same-sex marriage in the District. Last month, the D.C. Council overwhelmingly voted to recognize such unions performed elsewhere. A group called Stand4Marriage swiftly filed paperwork to begin collecting the 21,000 signatures needed to stop the bill and put the issue to a referendum. The election board's ruling Monday stopped the referendum effort.

Legal experts say it appears unlikely that Congress will intervene to stop the law from taking effect, and the D.C. Council is expected to take up a separate proposal this year allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in the District.

"The decision of the board of elections is an insult to every voter in the District of Columbia and must be legally challenged, as we are doing," said the Rev. Walter E. Fauntroy, the District's first congressional delegate and a plaintiff in the suit.

In the filing, the opponents cite a 1995 appellate court ruling that the District need not recognize same-sex marriages. In Dean v. the District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the Human Rights Act did not apply because family law covers a husband and a wife. Since then, the D.C. Council has made many laws gender-neutral and has updated the Human Rights Act to include references to same-sex couples married elsewhere.

Peter Rosenstein, a veteran gay rights activist, said he hopes the court will uphold the election board's ruling.

"I trust the Superior Court will recognize and support what is clearly D.C. law, which says you cannot vote to discriminate against a group of individuals protected by the D.C. Human Rights Act," he said.

 

[bob x]

I totally agree with you.

Then why are they denied to vote on this issue in Washington DC, in New Jersey in New York, in New Hampshire and in Connecticut like in Mass and may be in Iowa ?

Because it is not up to the majority to decide whether minorities should have the same rights as themselves. Live your own marriage, however you please; I have no power or desire to change anything about it; but LEAVE ME ALONE. You have no right to shove me around, and I won't stand for it anymore.

 

[soleil10]

Because it is not up to the majority to decide whether minorities should have the same rights as themselves. Live your own marriage, however you please; I have no power or desire to change anything about it; but LEAVE ME ALONE. You have no right to shove me around, and I won't stand for it anymore.

You already have the right to marry.
You do not have the right to redefine marriage for everybody else
You have no right to violate the human right of children to a father and a mother by inscribing it into the marriage law.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Many Politicians keep saying that they do not want to be in the marriage business, meanwhile they refuse do let the people vote.

Here is the example of Washington DC this past week.

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 18, 2009

Opponents of gay marriage filed a lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court yesterday hoping to force a referendum on whether to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

First of all, this is not an instance of the DC Court "redefining marriage," which is what I was looking for per your Post #296.

In every state, the process is different.

In your post #296 you state that "redefining marriage has major consequences on everyone's family and it should not be decided by a handful of judges or just politicians, especially when they suppress the voice of voters who have the right to a referendum and gather the signatures required." You just restated this idea. Unfortunately, your reference to the District of Columbia as an example of some kind of devious "voter suppression" phenomena doesn't seem to apply since there doesnt seem to be an voter element with respect to any bills :

Unique to the District of Columbia, an approved Act of the Council must be sent to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate for a period of 30 days before becoming effective as law (or 60 days for certain criminal legislation). During this 30-day period of congressional review, the Congress may enact into law a joint resolution disapproving the Council’s Act. If, during the 30-day period, the President of the United States approves the joint resolution, the Council’s Act is prevented from becoming law. If, however, upon the expiration of the 30-day congressional review period, no joint resolution disapproving the Council’s Act has been approved by the President, the Bill finally becomes a Law ....
​

How a Bill Becomes Law

Then why are they denied to vote on this issue in Washington DC?

There is no "denial." See above explanation from the D.C. Council web page.

Your portrayal of how things work in the DC legislatlive process strikes me as misleading. If you are genuinely interested in these matters, you would spend more time doing background research.

 

[soleil10]

First of all, this is not an instance of the DC Court "redefining marriage," which is what I was looking for per your Post #296.In your post #296 you state that "redefining marriage has major consequences on everyone's family and it should not be decided by a handful of judges or just politicians, especially when they suppress the voice of voters who have the right to a referendum and gather the signatures required." You just restated this idea. Unfortunately, your reference to the District of Columbia as an example of some kind of devious "voter suppression" phenomena doesn't seem to apply since there doesnt seem to be an voter element with respect to any bills :

Unique to the District of Columbia, an approved Act of the Council must be sent to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate for a period of 30 days before becoming effective as law (or 60 days for certain criminal legislation). During this 30-day period of congressional review, the Congress may enact into law a joint resolution disapproving the Council’s Act. If, during the 30-day period, the President of the United States approves the joint resolution, the Council’s Act is prevented from becoming law. If, however, upon the expiration of the 30-day congressional review period, no joint resolution disapproving the Council’s Act has been approved by the President, the Bill finally becomes a Law ....
​

How a Bill Becomes Law
There is no "denial." See above explanation from the D.C. Council web page.
Your portrayal of how things work in the DC legislatlive process strikes me as misleading. If you are genuinely interested in these matters, you would spend more time doing background research.

Netti, why was there a hearing in front the board of election last week, if that right to a referendum did not exist?

Where does this # of 21000 signatures come from ?

Now tell me since you have done your research and I have not

 

[Netti-Netti]

Netti, why was there a hearing in front the board of election last week, if that right to a referendum did not exist?

Where does this # of 21000 signatures come from ?

The signatures are after the fact of the bill going through and have nothing to do with a legislative process. In DC this is a process that doesn't involve voter participation, and that seems to be the case in all matters, not just the legal validity of same sex marriages from other jurisdictions.

You're now drifting away from your original claim that the DC Council legislation granting legal recognition to same-sex unions established in other jurisdictions involved an active attempt to deny voter participation. Admit it: your contention regarding DC's legislative process as an example of pro-gay ideological fascism is simply false.

Classic.

 

[wil]

Netti, why was there a hearing in front the board of election last week, if that right to a referendum did not exist?

Where does this # of 21000 signatures come from ?

Now tell me since you have done your research and I have not

I still think it funny.

A. you think we live in a democracy...no a constitutional republic, we vote for leaders who do the legislation and thinking for us.

B. the only places in the world who have draconion rules like you'd prefer are highly dictatorial, not avid democracies...

21,000 signatures out of 400,000 registered voters...

And who is asking for the vote?? Gay rights activists?

I am so confused...on all but one point.

Yes, look in the mirror to see why Christianity is loosing the cult-ur-all war.

 

[soleil10]

The signatures are after the fact of the bill having gone through and have nothing to do with a legislative process. In DC it's a process that does not involve voter participation, and that seems to be the case in all matters, not just the legal validity of same sex marriages from other jurisdictions.You're now drifting away from your original claim that the DC Council legislation granting legal recognition to same-sex unions established in other jurisdictions involved an active attempt to deny voter participation. Admit it: your contention regarding DC's legislative process as an example of pro-gay ideological fascism is simply false.

Netti, you are playing with words. Why are they denying the people the right to vote now ?

This right to referendum is part of the voter participation process if they are not happy with the decision of the council
This is why there was a hearing.

 

[greymare]

To Soliel

In your opinion, did God make gay people?

 

[citizenzen]

Here is the official letter from the commission that is on National review. I am glad that the U.S. Commission on Civil rights is not drinking the poison from this hate crime law.

Six out of eight commissioners signed this letter. Of those six, four are republicans (appointed by former president Bush) and the fifth signer is a senior member of The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

So what you've brought to our attention is that a commission dominated by conservatives opposes this law. That should come as no surprise considering that 90% of the republicans (158 No votes vs. 18 Yes votes) in the House of Representatives likewise opposed it.

Unfortunately for you, this commission can only advise the house and senate. If the senate passes the bill and the president signs it into law then you will have to go through the courts to challenge it or regain control of congress and write a new law.

In the meantime, I hope President Obama sees this as an opportunity to reappoint new commissioners and restore a little more political balance to a commission overloaded with conservatives. That's why we elected him into office, after all.

 

[soleil10]

I still think it funny.
A. you think we live in a democracy...no a constitutional republic, we vote for leaders who do the legislation and thinking for us.
B. the only places in the world who have draconion rules like you'd prefer are highly dictatorial, not avid democracies...
21,000 signatures out of 400,000 registered voters...
And who is asking for the vote?? Gay rights activists?
I am so confused...on all but one point.
Yes, look in the mirror to see why Christianity is loosing the cult-ur-all war.

21000 signatures is the # required. It does not matter who is asking for the vote on a referendum. It is the rule they have. It could go the other way.Gay activists can ask for a referendum too.

I know that we live in a constitutional republic. That was a cheap shot.

Jefferson said ," OUR LEADERS CAN NOT ACT WITHOUT THE CONSENSUS OF THE PEOPLE. .... Thomas Jefferson St. I agree with that

This is what is happening as we saw in 30 states who had a chance to vote on marriage. Don't you think smart politicians would get the message ?

Support for Gay marriage has declined since April and I hope Miss California will sue her boss so the truth about homofacism can be revealed.

Young people need to know what it is and open their eyes.

 

[soleil10]

To Soleil In your opinion, did God make gay people?

You may want to start another thread on this subject.
This thread is already plenty

 

[greymare]

Sorry soliel, I was just after a simple yes or no answer.

 

[wil]

I know that we live in a constitutional republic. That was a cheap shot.

Jefferson said ," OUR LEADERS CAN NOT ACT WITHOUT THE CONSENSUS OF THE PEOPLE. .... Thomas Jefferson St. I agree with that

This is what is happening as we saw in 30 states who had a chance to vote on marriage. Don't you think smart politicians would get the message ?

I thank G!d for smart politicians overriding the inherent bigotry of the masses.

Without them our civil rights laws would not have been enacted in the 60's or the Disability Act, or reformation of labor laws.

If there were a referendum the majority would vote all of it out. Again I thank G!d for our politicians as we can't wait for collective consciousness to wake up to reality of the good for all.

btw I like Thomas Jefferson, too, especially the interpretations of the gospels he wrote, how about you? I gotta check he may have taken out the refernces against gay folks

Have you read the Jeffersonian Gospels?

 

[Netti-Netti]

In every state, the process is different.

DC is not a state.

Netti, you are playing with words. Why are they denying the people the right to vote now ?

Why do you say 'now'? The Council of the District of Columbia (aka the DC Council) was established by the Home Rule Act of 1973. It was DC voters who established it. Today Council officials are elected. Which is apparently how it has been since 1973.

Here's a link to the Act: District of Columbia Home Rule Act The Act was intended to give DC as a community more control of its own local affairs (see SEC. 102. [D.C. Code 1-201]) and to minimize imposition by Congress.

Your suggestion that there is some new development regarding the DC legislative process that presumably entails an effort to railroad new laws is inaccurate and misleading.

 

[soleil10]

DC is not a state.

I know that

do you say 'now'? The Council of the District of Columbia (aka the DC Council) was established by the Home Rule Act of 1973. It was DC voters who established it. Today Council officials are elected. Which is apparently how it has been since 1973.Here's a link to the Act: District of Columbia Home Rule Act The Act was intended to give DC as a community more control of its own local affairs (see SEC. 102. [D.C. Code 1-201]) and to minimize imposition by Congress.

This is not relevant to the subject we are discussing

Your suggestion that there is some new development regarding the DC legislative process that presumably entails an effort to railroad new laws is inaccurate and misleading.

What I am saying is that people are refused the right to a referendum for illegitimate reasons and a suit has been filed.

This effort to stop the people from is similar to other states (here I include DC) where gay activists do not want the people to vote because they would loose.

 

[soleil10]

Six out of eight commissioners signed this letter. Of those six, four are republicans (appointed by former president Bush) and the fifth signer is a senior member of The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.So what you've brought to our attention is that a commission dominated by conservatives opposes this law. That should come as no surprise considering that 90% of the republicans (158 No votes vs. 18 Yes votes) in the House of Representatives likewise opposed it.Unfortunately for you, this commission can only advise the house and senate. If the senate passes the bill and the president signs it into law then you will have to go through the courts to challenge it or regain control of congress and write a new law. In the meantime, I hope President Obama sees this as an opportunity to reappoint new commissioners and restore a little more political balance to a commission overloaded with conservatives. That's why we elected him into office, after all.

OK so everything for you has to do with labels and parties and nothing to do with principles, positions, facts or reasoning.

This discussion is a waste of time

 

[soleil10]

Sorry soliel, I was just after a simple yes or no answer.

God created men and women

 

[citizenzen]

This discussion is a waste of time

Oh, I totally disagree!

I learned a new term, HOMOFASCIST.

It would appear that I'm not the only one concerned with labels.

 

[wil]

God created men and women

That is either a yes or an indication that one thinks that gay folks are less than human....

or maybe it needs further explanation instead avoiding the yes and no...