Ugh. Another public display of indignation from another Illinois governor wannabe. Note to Illinois: a perfectly viable remedy exists. Have the legislature pass a law for a special election. Then have the executive sign and enforce the law. Notice that none of this requires involving the court system.
But if Congress has authority over the DIstrict, they could just pass whatever they wanted. They could appoint people who they trusted to represent the District. You can't apply one constitutional formula while ignoring another one.
The question is whether passing this law brings us closer to the situation where DC has voting representation. I think all this does is just delay for a couple of years the ability to pass a constitutional amendment. The makeup of the COngress is about as favorable as it ever will be for getting 2/3 of each house in favor of an amendment and wasting time on a clearly unconstitutional legislative effort wastes a rare opportunity.
I think it's based on the theory that Congress' legislative authority over the District gives them the power to do so. If that were true, why don't they grant the District 100 representatives and a dozen Senators?
You seem to be trying to argue that criminalization of homosexuality around the world is, in part, caused by Western Christian evangelicals such as Rick Warren. I am saying that the areas of the world where the laws against homosexuals are the absolute worst correlate with areas of the world where Christian evangelicals have zero influence. In those areas where Christian evangelicals do have influence, draconian laws against homosexuals came about less because of the influence of those western Christian evangelicals than because of the cultural attitudes already present in those areas.