Bishop Harry Jackson, who, while a District resident, is the pastor of a Maryland church and is pushing to put civil rights up to a popular vote. The Post reports that he is going to try to bring to a referendum the city council’s near-unanimous vote to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. (Councilman Marion Barry, claiming to stand “on the moral compass of God”, was the lone dissenter)
Though we have worried before that such a referendum might pass, the city council could avoid a ballot measure altogether by inserting the marriage language into the city’s human rights code. According to existing statues, the District’s human rights code is not subject to voter referenda— this is wise, as civil rights should never be put to a popular vote.
However, even if Mr. Jackson fails to get the question on the ballot and even if such a question were rejected by the electorate, Congress could always intervene. In fact, Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Dan Boren (D-Oklahoma) have introduced a bill to prevent the city council from recognizing same-sex marriage.
It’s unlikely such a bill would pass. Soon the District will be added to the list of American juridictions that have ended marriage discrimination.
2 Responses
Leave a Reply
Washington's Security Theater
How the fear of terrorism limits public access and wrecks Washington's elegance.
June 6th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Eric, LOL … you refuse to make this about anything other than race. The introduction of whites into the discussion, like Phelps, who have been outspoken and vehemently against the existence of LGBTQ people is irrelevant to you. You just want to demonize black people and the black church. Well, as this situation continues to play out everything you’ve said is turning out to be wrong. You said that my reference to the involvement of big conservative organizations didn’t matter because they aren’t in DC and have no role in local politics, but you simultaneously admitted that the Post wrote that conservative organizations were behind Bishop Jackson. I’m sure you’ll say they had nothing to do with Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Dan Boren (D-Okla.) introducing D.C. Defense of Marriage Act. The bill has a total of 45 co-sponsors from both parties, and none of them are black.
I checked your blog, and I love how you’ve pointed out the black opposition to gay marriage in DC, but didn’t mention the race of the two white House members who introduced the legislation and the 43 white co-sponsors. Amazingly, there is no mention of the coalition of DC black clergy who came out in support of marriage equality. It was in the Post, on NPR, on all the local news stations. Where’s your coverage? You pointed out how you pulled a supportive quote from some random woman in the audience to show how balanced you are, but where’s that balance now?
And no one called or is insinuating you are a racist.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Most journalistic standards advise against reporting the race of the subjects unless they themselves have made it an issue; Barry and Jackson have made it a key part of their argument and this is a worrying fact that must be brought to light no matter how uncomfortable or inconvenient it may be. The Members of the House, whose bill is fortunately doomed, have not made it an issue of race (as far as I can tell).
I reiterate that I suspect these criticisms the commenter leaves are based on discomfort with an inconvenient truth: there are two black, influential community leaders in the city who are making an argument against civil rights (imagine that!) on account of what they claim to be racial solidarity (an old reason). Though Barry and Jackson may want to stand in the proverbial schoolhouse door, somebody has to call them out, even if the presumptuous deem it politically incorrect for certain other people to do so. Civil rights are a universal concern and those who wish to abridge them seem to find their way to our very own city council. We should not relent in speaking truth to power; Barry and Jackson do not get a free pass.