Notwithstanding Justice John Roberts' wink at anti-marriage-equality activists last year, the Supreme Court has declined to hear a case arguing that D.C.'s human-rights law prohibiting discriminatory measures from being put to a popular vote is in violation of the city's home rule charter.
What does that mean? It means that the National Organization for Marriage's efforts to prevent consenting adults from marrying one another because they are gay or lesbian has come to naught. They protested, they unsuccessfully tried to exploit racial divisions within the city, they poured money into D.C. running their own candidates for City Council to punish members who voted for equality, and they ultimately appealed to the conservative wing of the court to intervene and force a referendum by fiat. The court declined. D.C. stands as the site of one of the anti-marriage-equality movement's biggest defeats.
As long as there's a Democratic president with a veto in the White House, the prospects for federal interference are remote. So the nation's capital stands on the vanguard of individual liberty on marriage rights, both as a harbinger of a time to come and an indictment of the federal government that remains an ongoing obstacle to full equality.
