Another reason for Garrett not to like those activist judges

by: Jason Springer

Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 10:30:00 AM EST

We told you last week about Scott Garrett's conversion on the courts. Instead of trying to strip the power from those judicial activists in the federal courts, he was going to get them to rule in his favor and overturn the DC Marriage Equality vote. The court has not gone along with Garrett's plan:

A D.C. Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that same-sex marriage opponents do not have a right to call for a referendum to determine whether such unions should be legal in the District.
The decision, a major victory for gay rights activists, makes it more likely that the District will begin allowing same-sex couples to marry in March.

It's interesting to note why the court ruled the way it did, as a constant argument from opponents of Marriage Equality is that it should go to a referendum before the voters:

In the 23-page ruling, Judge Judith N. Macaluso affirmed a D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics decision that city law disallows the ballot proposal because it would promote discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Macaluso also concluded that previous court decisions outlawing same-sex marriage in the District are no longer valid.

Of course opponents plan to file an appeal of the decision, but the clock is ticking:

Despite opponents' plans to appeal, they are running out of time to block same-sex marriages in the District. Congress has begun the required 30-legislative-day review of the same-sex marriage law.
City leaders said that, barring intervention by Congress, marriage licenses will be available to same-sex couples around the first week of March.

Garrett may wait to try and take the power from the judges again until they rule on an appeal holding out hope, but no doubt he'll be back to stopping those activist judges as soon as they don't rule his way the last time.

Jason Springer :: Another reason for Garrett not to like those activist judges