DC Mayor Refuses Citizens a Vote on Marriage

In a hearing today on “Greater Autonomy for the Nation’s Capital,” Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian Fenty stated he does not believe citizens in his city should have the right to vote on marriage.

Asked if he would be in favor of a vote on a referendum against same-sex “marriage” in the District of Columbia, he responded, “The short answer is ‘no.’”

Most states in the U.S. have held referenda on marriage, voted on by the citizens.

The question was posed by Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah,) who reminded Mayor Fenty that 31 states have already allowed citizens to vote on the definition of marriage. In every case, traditional marriage was preserved.

Mayor Fenty went on to say that the D.C. Council was capable of making a decision regarding same- sex “marriage” since the council was elected by the citizens of the District of Columbia.

D.C. Council Chairman Vincent Gray, also on the panel of witnesses, echoed that sentiment.

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, said, “The D.C. Council reeks of rank hypocrisy. For years they have demanded that D.C. citizens should have the right to vote for congressional representation, which is in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Yet now they are denying D.C. citizens the right to vote on marriage, an institution so fundamental to America’s well-being that territories were not allowed to become states unless they kept marriage between one man and one woman.

“D.C. officials are proving, once again, why they need congressional oversight. They need to be reminded that citizens are not serfs.”

---

Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.

Show Us The Money

The following is a statement from Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America on President Obama’s speech on health care to a joint session of Congress:

 

President Obama made many promises about the health care bill he will sign, paid for by savings from cutting out waste and fraud from existing government programs. But Americans won’t be fooled by rhetoric.

If it won’t use taxpayer funds for abortion – put it in writing in the bill.

If it will protect doctors from violating their conscience by forcing them to commit abortions, put it in clear, no- nonsense language in the bill.

If it will cut waste and fraud – prove that government can and will do it before creating new government programs.

If it allows people to keep the plan they have, then let it allow people to choose the plan they want.

If it requires every person to pay for government- approved insurance, be honest with Americans that they will be punished if they choose a different plan for themselves and their families.

 

---

Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.

 

Sotomayor Would Reject Herself for Supreme Court

“Confirmation conversion” spotlights the contrast between past opinions and opening testimony

Day one of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination hearing raised eyebrows when her opening statement contrasted with her well- known past opinions.

Sotomayor before the hearings:

Race, gender, and ethnicity “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

The “court of appeals is where policy is made.”

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Discriminated and ruled against New Haven firefighters in Ricci because of the color of their skin.

Sotomayor’s opening statement:

“In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law.”

“The task of a judge is not to make the law — it is to apply the law.”

“My personal and professional experiences help me listen and understand, with the law always commanding the result in every case.”

“Throughout my seventeen years on the bench, I have witnessed the human consequences of my decisions. Those decisions have been made not to serve the interests of any one litigant, but always to serve the larger interest of impartial justice.”

Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) President Wendy Wright said, “Sotomayor’s new ‘enlightenment’ highlights the radicalism of her previous statements. She suddenly seems to know the proper role of a judge. Yet she purposely violated that responsibility to advance her ideology when the Supreme Court was not in sight.”

Mario Diaz, Esq., CWALAC’s Policy Director for Legal Issues, said,

“Judge Sotomayor knew then, and recognizes now, what we have said all along, that a judge is to follow the law regardless of race and gender. Her opening statement at the hearings not only condemned her own record, it made all those senators we heard defending these unconstitutional statements look foolish.

“If Judge Sotomayor was to follow her new-found wisdom, she could not even support herself based on her record.”