RECENTLY, the Washington Post published the results of a poll conducted in the District of Columbia. The headline for the article accompanying that survey celebrated the left-leaning penchant of the city. No surprise there. Most of the residents are registered Democrats.

What was surprising, however, was that the majority of respondents believed a public vote on same-sex marriage should be allowed. Those results echoed the cry made during the last six months by gay marriage opponents, including Stand4Marriage, a coalition of residents and clergy.

That group had sought through various efforts to get on the ballot a referendum that would have overturned legislation passed by the D.C. Council that mandates the government recognizes marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions. The Board of Elections and Ethics (BOEE) denied that effort. A D.C. Superior Court judged concurred that such a measure would violate the city’s Human Rights Act (HRA). And so, it has continued: opponents push for a ballot initiative; the BOEE and court rejecting such efforts.

Many people I spoke with–residents and legal experts–have described the HRA as overly broad. The act includes the standard prohibitions; but it’s also illegal to discriminate based on personal appearance, family responsibilities, genetic information, disability, matriculation, or political affiliation of any individual.” Critics further argued the council may have exceeded its authority and is using the act to limit citizens’ engagement.

“If the council can place anything off limits for citizens’ input simply by inserting it in the [HRA], then the council nullifies citizens’ rights to have initiatives and referenda,” said

Gary Imhoff, co-founder of DC Watch, a government watchdog group that has been involved in several initiatives and referendums.

In 1978, the Home Rule Charter–the District’s constitution–was amended to provide citizens the right to create and repeal laws, except those involving the appropriation of funds. The same council approved procedures for implementing that amendment. But the Initiative, Referendum and Recall Procedures Act (IPA) added restrictions not originally indicated in the charter amendment approved by Congress, including that no citizen-law can authorize discrimination.

“Anything can be added to the [HRA] to prevent citizens from having a say,” said Imhoff. He argued that over the past 10 years there has been a “sea change not in popular opinion but in elite opinion,” which asserts that there are issues that are “inarguable.” That has meant that if citizens engage in a debate on those issues, they are called bigots. Or, in the case of same-sex marriage, homophobes.

It doesn’t matter what side of the marriage issue you’re on. Anyone interested in a fully functioning Democracy should want to examine more closely the apparent over-reaching consequences of the Human Rights Act, especially as the council and the courts have been using it.

While the District of Columbia majority of whites support same-sex marriages, the majority of blacks don’t may be divided over whether homosexuals should be permitted to wed, there is consensus on the vote, according to the Post poll.

It’s unlikely, that such a vote will occur, unless Congress makes such a demand. The city’s structure provides the House and Senate with veto rights over District laws. But Democrats control Congress, and they have vowed to stand aside. Thirty-nine Republican members filed an amicus friend of the court brief endorsing the position of opponents that the D.C. Council overstepped its authority when it passed last year legislation that permits gay marriages to be performed in the city.

This entire debate asks a larger question: Why is the government involved in a ceremony that always has been religious? If there really is a separation of church and state how did the government come to take up residence in the front pew?

Money. Taxes to be precise; it couldn’t levy without regulating. And so the “marriage” license was created. And then came marriage by the justice of the peace or judges. The original religious and Christian foundation of marriage has been misdirected for centuries by the government.

Help us!

Opponents have a right to want to protect marriage as the religious ceremony it was intended. And while, the District law, cutely called the Religious Freedom and Marriage Equality Act, suggest that the demands of government won’t be imposed on the church, the mere fact that there is a law telling the church what it can and can’t do regarding a very important ritual is, in fact, an imposition.

Some folks have argued that if the demands made by African Americans during the civil rights movement had been put to a popular vote, then segregation would still be in effect in the country. These individuals seem to ignore that the grievance of blacks was the lack of federal enforcement of the United States Constitution. There is no clause in the constitution that gives gays the right to marry. There is, however, a federal congressionally approved law that specifically defines marriage as between a man and a woman a belief held by the majority of the clergy around the world to say nothing of in the United States.

The only way to end the same-sex marriage debate is to get the government out of the marriage business. If it believes it must issue licenses, then it can call them domestic partnerships or civil unions. Those licenses would apply to everyone heterosexual and homosexual.

The church would be the only institution permitted to provide marriage covenants and ceremonies. The government wouldn’t taint the religious aspects of such ceremonies. But more importantly, the government’s need to treat all equally could be satisfied just not at the expense of important religious and spiritual beliefs and acts.