The recent revelations that Councilmember Marion Barry (D-Ward 8 ) funneled a city contract to his on-again-off-again girlfriend (Mr. Barry canceling and renewing the contract in sync with the relationship’s woes) has brought about a need to strengthen the city’s ethics laws.  Though conflict-of-interest laws prohibit giving contracts or positions to member’s of an official’s own household (the law defines this as immediate family), there is no restriction against giving contracts to girlfiends or boyfriends, who may in fact share interests and advantages akin to those of legal family.

Though using public funds to enrich one’s boyfriend or girlfriend (or mistress— Mr. Barry, “standing moral compass of God” is still married to someone else, lest we forget), may not be illegal, but it is unethical.  Public faith in good government rightly erodes at the sight of people of questionable qualifications reaping public benefits simply for being in bed with the powerful (in this case literally).

Mr. Barry, when asked if he would award city money to a girlfriend, responded, “Unless the law changes, why not?”

Mr. Barry’s ethical lapses are frequent enough that such a remark should not come as a surprise.  During his mayoralty, crime in the District soared, schools soured to become some of the worst in the nation, and people fled the city just so they could receive decent government services.  In 1990 Mr. Barry was arrested and caught on camera smoking crack in a hotel room with a woman who was not his wife.  Recently it was revealed that Mr. Barry failed to file Federal tax returns for eight of the last nine years and had also neglected to file city tax returns.

No one who so carelessly disregards the tax law should be in a position to determine how public funds are spent.  Nobody is above the law and it is time the city codify this principle further.  We propose the city council enact the following law to ensure that anyone running for elected office in the city has filed all tax returns as required and does not owe any outstanding debts to the city.

WHEREAS equality before the law and obedience to the law are necessary for a fair and free society, two requirements listed below will be added to D.C. Code § 1 – 1001.02 defining “qualified electors.”  For the general election following the ratification of this bill, a “qualified elector” will be defined as a person who meets the existing requirements and

1. Who has filed all tax returns to the District government as required; and
2. Who is not delinquent in the payment of any taxes, fees, or judgments to the District government.

The District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics will certify these additional requirements.

Harry Jackson, flustered. Opposing civil rights is such hard work.

The bad part about direct democracy is that it empowers the tyranny of the majority to overrun the rights of unpopular minorities.

We have reported before that when the D.C. city council voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, the lone dissenting vote was cast by Marion Barry, who claimed to stand “on the moral compass of God” and opposed the legislation also out of what he claimed to be racial solidarity. Joining him in standing in the schoolhouse door was Bishop Harry Jackson, a District resident (more on that below) who is the pastor of a Maryland church.

Unhappy that the city council passed the civil rights legislation, Jackson threatened to bring the matter to a city-wide referendum, where, as we have noted before, it just might pass.  Jackson hit a snag earlier this week, though, when the city’s Board of Elections invalidated the proposed ballot question since it would deny civil rights to LGBT people, whom the city’s Human Rights Act protects from discrimination. City law wisely prohibits ballot referenda that contradict the Human Rights Act; human rights are not, and should never be, up for a popular vote.

Mr. Jackson is challenging the board’s decision in court, hoping an “activist judge” will side with him and let him put the discriminatory civil rights question on the ballot. Complicating the matter is whether Mr. Jackson has standing as a District resident to propose the referendum. As the Washington Blade has reported, Jackson and his wife own two houses (blessed are the poor?) in Montgomery County, Maryland, and neighbors claim they reside in one of those houses, a $1.1-million mansion. The Jacksons, however, claim neither home as their principal residence according to tax records. For the purpose of voting, Mr. Jackson claims residence in unit 630 in the tony Whitman condominium building in the Mount Vernon Triangle area of DC. Tax records show that a Mr. Joseph Honaker owns this one-bedroom condo and claims it as his primary residence. If these records all hold true, it would appear that Mr. Jackson shares a one-bedroom condo with another man.

Joining Mr. Jackson in his battle against civil rights is Rev. Walter E. Fauntroy, former D.C. Delegate to the House of Representatives, former city councilman, and civil rights activist (until now); Rev. Dale E. Wafer, pastor of the Harvest Church in Northeast; Melvin Dupree; Sandra B. Harris, a real estate agent with Cosmopolitan Properties in Shaw; Dr. Patricia Johnson, dean of a local Christian liberal arts college; and Bobby Perkins, Sr., pastor of World Missions for Christ Church in Shaw.  Even if Mr. Jackson is not a bona fide resident, that still doesn’t necessarily stop the ballot referendum since one of these other residents could carry the torch of discrimination.

Nobody knows how the court will rule (our guess is that they will defer to the Board of Elections,  City Council and city attorney), but it is truly shocking to see such strident opposition to civil rights in a supposedly liberal city, where over 90% of the electorate cast ballots for Barack Obama.  Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

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.

Gov. George Wallace stands in the doorway of the University of Alabama, refusing a Federal order to desegregate the school.

Civil rights advanced today in the District of Columbia in spite of Marion Barry, who cast the lone vote in opposition to the city’s recognition of same-sex marriage.  The former mayor, drug convict, habitual tax-cheat, and overwhelmingly re-elected councilman from Ward 8 justified his vote with an outrageous claim of racial solidarity:

What you’ve got to understand is 98 percent of my constituents are black and we don’t have but a handful of openly gay residents.  Secondly, at least 70 percent of those who express themselves to me about this are opposed to anything dealing with this issue. The ministers think it is a sin, and I have to be sensitive to that.

That’s completely irrelevant. Mr. Barry believes that civil rights should be up to the popular vote, though he, of all people, as a former civil rights activist, should know how morally problematic that is.  Individual rights (especially the right to equal protection) are for individual citizens to have and not for others to take away; this is the absolutely essential foundation of a free constitutional democracy.

Furthermore, contentious civil rights never pass on popular vote— if they did, they wouldn’t be contentious.  The purpose of federal civil rights laws and Constitutional rights is to prevent the tyranny of the majority from abridging the rights of unpopular minorities.

Mr. Barry, completely oblivious to the fact that his very same arguments have been used to justify racial segregation, disenfranchisement, and discrimination, predicted alarmingly that the council’s vote would provoke a “civil war.”

The language of civil war was also a favorite of Gov. George Wallace (pictured above), who infamously promised “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,” in his inaugural speech standing at the same exact spot where Jefferson Davis was sworn in as president of the Confederacy.  Whereas Mr. Wallace decades later repented for his dreadful segregationism, Mr. Barry (yet again) has no shame.

After the 2004 election, some asked what’s the matter with Kansas? After this incident and after noticing that Mr. Barry was re-elected to the council with an astonishing 91% of the vote, we wonder, what’s the matter with Ward 8?

"Marriage is not a right." Bishop Harry Jackson of Beltsville's New Hope Christian Church voice his own interpretation of civil rights.

We wrote before of the fact that an astonishing 70% of black Californians voted for Proposition 8, which prohibited same-sex marriage.  We also wrote before that when we extrapolate the California results and apply them to the District, a similar city ballot question would pass if one considers income, education, or race.*

Just a few weeks ago, to our surprise, the city council unanimously passed a bill to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. That very same day, the Vermont legislature stole much of the media thunder by overriding the governor’s veto and legalizing same-sex marriage in the Green Mountain State.  Nonetheless, it was a bold move for Washington, a city whose every decision can be vetoed by a Congress looking to make a statement. The issue of marriage is usually portrayed in the media as a religious-secular struggle and another side of the issue rarely discussed: race.

The relationship between race and opinion on same-sex marriage— a relationship so quietly whispered it dare not speak its name!— has come out of the closet in DC, a city that votes overwhelmingly Democrat and is also 56% black.

Several area churches (all predominantly black and some of them suburban) spent part of Tuesday protesting the city council’s recent decision and lined up outside the Wilson Building on Freedom Plaza to voice their displeasure. (See the Post’s video of the event)

Bishop Harry Jackson (pictured above) of the New Hope Christian Church— which is outside the District— recently penned his own opinion on the matter in Newsweek lamenting his own “robbery” at the city council meeting by those dastardly “equality vigilantes”!

I felt robbed and disenfranchised as I observed “equality vigilantes” setting up an unjust concept of civil rights.

Mr. Jackson seems to have his own peculiar interpretation of civil rights.  In the Post video above, he states:

Marriage is not a right.  Brothers and sisters can’t get married. People who are related can’t get married.  You can’t marry a three-year-old.  There are parameters that are for the benefit of the society about marriage.

Wrong.  In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a basic civil right.  To deny a civil right on account of sex (that is, to disqualify a woman from marrying another woman solely because she is a woman) requires a compelling state interest.  Some states have decided there is such an interest, some have found there is not.  Nonetheless, in American jurisprudence marriage is a civil right.

Mr. Jackson, who, as the Post’s Marc Fisher has noted, has strong connections to the national conservative movement, continues, “I’d rather be politically courageous than politically correct.”  That’s a noble sentiment, for sure, but it is certainly possible to be selfishly courageous, too.

Lynne Breece, a District resident and a bystander at the event, offered some hope that not everyone shares Mr. Jackson’s views:

As a black woman, I know a lot about discrimination on both ends, and I know what it feels like.  And for us, of all people, black ministers to use the pulpit to oppress another minority and then to cloak that bigotry using the bible! This happened to black people!

Indeed, though Dr. Martin Luther King cited scripture to demand equality, Jim Crow supporters and defenders of slavery never hesitated to quote the good book either.

Councilman Marion Barry, who didn’t show up to vote on the bill, but who previously promised to vote for same-sex marriage, managed to make it to the rally and profess his new-found opposition.  Why the change of heart?  Barry provided a great gem of a quotation:

I am a politician who is moral.

Dream on!

Even with Barry’s opposition, the rest of the council and the mayor have all voiced support for eventual same-sex marriage licensing in the city.  Messrs. Barry and Jackson notwithstanding, justice and fairness shall overcome someday.

Ward 8: So close to the rest of Washington, but so far from God.

The Post story today on Marion Barry’s election challengers has some excellent nuggets.  If you thought aurugula was a “class” food of the well-to-do, single beers go the other way.  Sandra Seegers, one of Barry’s challengers is upset:

For Seegars, … [an improved Ward 8] means allowing Ward 8 residents to buy single 16-ounce beers at their corner store.

The D.C. Council, with Barry’s support, recently passed a bill to expand the ban on single sales to wards 7 and 8. The measure, meant to cut down on loitering and public drunkenness, awaits congressional approval. Seegars said the ban discriminates against people who can’t afford a six-pack or a case. Barry’s response is simple: “Some people can’t afford to drink.”

Add affordable beer to the list of political hot topics.

Blight and glitz, a tale of two Washingtons united in liberalism.

Marc Fisher in the Post today writes about Marion Barry’s return to life as a civic organizer.  The voice that once denounced the evils of gentrification now seeks more redevelopment in his home ward east of the Anacostia.  The article sports one especially telling paragraph:

In public settings, Barry still says that “if we are not careful, we are going to become a city of the very, very rich and the very, very poor.” But alone in his car, he sounds like a developer, touting the idea that bringing in residents with stable jobs and a stake in the community will do more to stabilize neighborhoods in Southeast than any government giveaway.

Too late, Barry.  Washington is a city of the very, very rich and the very, very poor.  Moreover, the very, very rich are well-educated and typically white whereas the very, very poor are almost always black and are victims of the city’s miserable public schools.  The only thing these two Washingtons share is a long-standing affinity for liberalism and the Democratic Party.

However, it is nice to see that Barry has moved away from the angry separatism of his earlier years and toward an integrationist attitude.  Ward 8 has enough poverty as it is and it could use some wealthier residents to move in and share their wealth.  Whereas good fences make good neighbors, sometimes good neighbors make good neighbors.