• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« FCC Chairman Picks His Staff | Main | Federal Judge Questions Prosecution Conduct in Ye Gon Case »

June 30, 2009



In response to Jon: Oppposite sex marriage is also not a constitutional right. Perhaps we should rally a vote to decide if heterosexuals should have the right to marry. Just because same-sex marriage doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean you get to decide whether other loving, monogamous couples get to have the same rights --legal, social, emotional, economic stability, the formation of a family -- as you.

Mollie Smith

Democracy -- NOT!! The U.S. is not, nor was it ever, supposed to be a democracy. The U.S. is a republic, thanks to the wisdom and foresight of our nation's founders. I, for one, am grateful to live under a system of government that provides at least some measure of protection for those who would undoubtedly be (and often are) oppressed by the majority. We ALL reap the benefits of such protection.


Excellent -- NOT!! The US is supposed to be a democracy. What's wrong with the people voting on a controversial measure the D.C. Council never should have passed? It's another example of the so-called elite imposing what they "know" to be best on the ignorant populace. Same sex marriage is not a constitutional right and, therefore, the majority of voters get to decide the issue.


Excellent! A forward thinking court doing the right thing. More states should have laws preventing a majority from voting to discriminate against a minority group.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad