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.

Just when you thought citing the bible for political purposes was solely the province of the Right, our quick perusal today of Leviticus turned up these verses:

And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. (19:33-4)

If there’s a so-called “Defense” of Marriage Act, based largely on prejudices inspired from odd passages from Leviticus, shouldn’t there also be an accompanying amnesty statute for illegal immigrants?

Rarely does our culture explicitly extol the virtues of money.  It’s a bit crass, we’re told.  Money concerns, however, have a way of focusing minds on things that matter and away from faddish diversions.  There is only so much airtime and so many op-ed pages and so many emails to Congressmen that could ever be generated during the lifespan of any political controversy cycle.  When there’s nothing else serious to talk about, “cultural” issues (e.g. God, guns, gays, etc.) are afforded their fifteen minutes.

Mark Rich in the Times writes that in this economy, where concerns of money trump all others, the culture warriors of the past 20 years are getting laid-off, as President Obama reverses the global gag rule and stem cell policies of the Bush Administration.

What has happened between 2001 and 2009 to so radically change the cultural climate? Here, at last, is one piece of good news in our global economic meltdown: Americans have less and less patience for the intrusive and divisive moral scolds who thrived in the bubbles of the Clinton and Bush years. Culture wars are a luxury the country — the G.O.P. included — can no longer afford.

Yes and no.  While the moral scolds are still scolding and their followers are still reiterating their specious talking-points, other issues are crowding them out.  Rich is wrong to think that “Americans have less and less patience” with those who want to teach creationism in school (a majority of the public wants this), or to keep the gays for marrying (even a majority of Californians won’t allow it).  These erstwhile “values voters” still exist in large numbers, but are distracted by more pressing economic concerns.  It’s not so much a matter of patience as it is a matter of attention.  When the economy’s decline has settled, the silent majority (Rich admits their silence, but not their majority) shall once again savor the luxury to take offense to Janet Jackson’s exposures and other such non-issues.

* * *

There’s one curious contradiction in Rich’s article:

As Michael A. Lerner writes in his fascinating 2007 book “Dry Manhattan,” Roosevelt’s stance reassured many Americans that they would have a president “who not only cared about their economic well-being” but who also understood their desire to be liberated from “the intrusion of the state into their private lives.” Having lost plenty in the Depression, the public did not want to surrender any more freedoms to the noisy minority that had shut down the nation’s saloons.

F.D.R. did not end “the intrusion of the state into … private lives.”  F.D.R. presided over a massive expansion of government intrusion, mandating all sorts of new taxes and social welfare schemes, not to mention the extensive economic regulation.  Whether or not one thinks the New Deal was wise, there is no doubt that F.D.R. expanded government intrusion.

Image source: LA Times

Much has been made of the surprise passage of California’s Proposition 8, which amended the Declaration of Rights of the state’s Constitution to state that “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”  What hasn’t received much attention, however, is that the city council of Washington, DC, may move in the coming months to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples.  In the past, the main obstacle cited is Congress; even if the city council approved a same-sex marriage bill (probably with near-unanimity), Congress, which has legislative authority to overturn any DC law, would overturn it in a heartbeat.

But since the Democrats now control Congress and the White House, the city now faces the best opportunity to introduce a marriage bill that would face the lowest chance of Federal opposition.  However, even if the measure escaped a snarling Congress, the measure would likely face stiff opposition from a large bloc of city residents.  If the civil rights measure is put to popular vote in Washington, DC, voters may in fact reject it.

Since there are no public opinion polls of District residents gauging opposition to same-sex marriage in the city, it is hard to predict how a ballot question would fare.  However, if we extrapolate November’s exit-poll results on Proposition 8 from California, the civil rights landscape in DC looks a little bleak.

In the best scenario, a DC vote would reflect the results among California’s urban voters.  Forty-five percent of California’s urban voters opposed Proposition 8.  Since all DC voters qualify as urban voters, if the proportions voting for and against held the same, a ban would lose.

(All the following data are drawn from CNN’s exit-poll of California and extrapolated based on each cohort’s share of the DC electorate as provided by MSNBC’s exit-poll of DC)

If we extrapolate from other measures, the outlook isn’t as good.  Based on income group, the results show a ban would just squeak by.  Interestingly, among all income groups, only those making less than $30,000 and those making more than $150,000 opposed Proposition 8 by a majority.  The vast middle supported it.  Now if we multiple each group’s support and opposition in California by each income group’s respective proportion of the DC electorate, a same-sex marriage ban would pass in DC by a slight majority.

It gets worse.

In California, 53% of college graduates opposed Proposition 8, whereas only 42% of those without college degrees opposed it.  Though 58% of District voters are college graduates, that is still not enough to stop a ballot measure in the city.  Based on education, a ballot measure in DC would ban same-sex marriage with a 52% majority.

Finally, race is the pink elephant in the room few want to bring up.  Traditionally, black voters, gays, and those with socially liberal views overwhelmingly vote  for Democrats.  However, on the issue of homosexuality, one Democratic constituency, blacks, holds views strong opposed to those held by other Democratic constituencies (social liberals, gays, etc.).

An astounding 70% of California’s black voters cast ballots in favor of Proposition 8 and an even more astounding 75% of black women voted in favor.  Proposition 8 only found greater support among self-identified 2004 Bush voters (80%), white evangelicals (81%), Republicans (82%), McCain voters (84%), weekly churchgoers (84%), conservatives (85%), and those who approve of the war in Iraq (85%), among others.

When we extrapolate each ethnic group’s vote in California to adjust it for each group’s proportion of the DC electorate, a same-sex marriage ban easily passes by 61% of the popular vote in the District.

Admittedly, California and DC, though both Democratic strongholds, differ in some important ways.  DC is entirely urban, whereas California is home to urbanites, a huge portion of suburbanites, and sizable rural counties.  Furthermore, unlike DC, California is more ideologically diverse and contains some very conservative areas (San Diego and Orange Counties, most notably) as well as liberal enclaves such as San Francisco, Hollywood, and Berkeley.  Washington’s singlemindedness leans decidely leftward, but in California the tilt, though still to the left, has counteracting forces that DC largely lacks.

Nonetheless, it’s premature for the city council and gay civil rights campaigners to assume that everyone shares the same view of what constitutes a civil right.  Though same-sex marriage might not raise eyebrows in upper Northwest, not all DC residents are ready to embrace a progressive view of marriage.  When the council starts to debate such a measure, don’t be surprised when you hear opponents ironically claiming civil rights for me, but not for thee.

Black voters in California voted overwhelmingly to elect Barack Obama—and to write discrimination into the state’s constitution.  The Post writes:

Any notion that Tuesday’s election represented a liberal juggernaut must overcome a detail from the voting booths of California: The same voters who turned out strongest for Barack Obama also drove a stake through the heart of same-sex marriage.

Indeed the New York Times reported earlier the worry among the proposition’s opponents that a high turn-out among California’s blacks would likely increase the measure’s passage while simultaneously ensuring Obama’s election.

Exit polls show that a bare majority of the state’s white voters voted for the measure, 53% of the state’s Latinos voters voted for the measure, and an astounding 70% of black voters voted for the measure.

One Californian discussed what drove her to vote to reduce the state’s civil rights commitment:

“I think it’s mainly because of the way we were brought up in the church; we don’t agree with it,” said Jasmine Jones, 25, who is black. “I’m not really the type that I wanted to stop people’s rights. But I still have my beliefs, and if I can vote my beliefs that’s what I’m going to do.

“God doesn’t approve it, so I don’t approve it. And I approve of Him.”

The overwhelming rejection of same-sex marriage by black voters was surprising and disappointing to gay rights advocates who had hoped that African Americans would empathize with their struggle.

The article continues with other quotations from people who wish to rework the state Constitution’s equal protection guarantees to suit their prejudices.  I’m sure many of these same people would decry any state measure that denied them rights or privileges solely on account of race, but it’s sad to see that they deem it acceptable to do the same regarding sex.

The proposition faces challenges in court (it was passed as an Amendment, though some argue that should be a Revision since it partly nullifies equal protection guarantees).

Nonetheless, Dr. King famously said that “the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.” Perhaps we shall overcome.

Democrat David Patterson become the governor of New York on the heels of Elliot Spitzer’s resignation over a sex scandal.  This unusual route to the governor’s mansion is just one of many unusual features of Gov. Patterson.  He has been among the few governors—Democrat or Republican— to publicly support the legalization of same-sex marriage, the third-rail of American politics.  Many politicians quietly support its legalization, but must pander to public opinion, which typically opposes the idea.

In addition to same-sex marriage we can add Ayn Rand to the list of Gov. Patterson’s unusual opinions.  The New York Post reports the governor’s admiration of Rand during his plea to Congress for a hand out:

Paterson cited Rand, a libertarian icon, and her best-seller “The Fountainhead,” noting the novel proclaimed that “our country, the greatest country in the world, was founded on the basis of individuals, where people were encouraged to adventure, not to be complacent; to be daring, not dormant; to prosper, not to plunder.”

Is Gov. Patterson a Democrat in name only?  Even few Republicans publicly cite Ayn Rand, as she is considered on the far right of economic thought.  In another sign of the governor’s unusual tilt, it seems he’s also against the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor:

“I am not here to beg. I am here to say New York doesn’t need a handout – we need a hand back,” he added, noting that New Yorkers pay far more in taxes to Washington than they get in return.

But New York is a rich state and, according to his fellow partisans, should be sharing its wealth with poorer (often redder) states.  Not only does this philosophical difference put him at odds with Sen. Obama, but so does his opposition to any tax increase:

“We have agreed that any taxation right now would only exacerbate the problem,” Paterson said.

“If anything, we need to lower taxes for some of our businesses that would hope to create jobs, so that hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers don’t leave the state, as they do every year, for other areas where the life quality is better.”

So Gov. Patterson also opposes raising taxes since it would hurt economic recovery.  Being the governor of New York puts him particularly at odds with Sen. Obama, since a disproportionate number of New Yorkers are high earners and would thus end up paying more in taxes under an Obama tax plan.

In summary, Gov. Patterson

• cites a Randian admiration of economic risk.
• believes wealth redistribution from rich to poor is unfair.
• believes that no taxes should be raised at this point.

David Patterson has unwittingly endorsed John McCain.

Says the New York Times:

While the gay and lesbian couples had about the same rate of conflict as the heterosexual ones, they appeared to have more relationship satisfaction, suggesting that the inequality of opposite-sex relationships can take a toll.

Regarding civil rights for minority groups, E. J. Dionne in the Post observes that

There is a complicated interaction between court decisions and the workings of democratic politics. On the one hand, there are times when only the courts can vindicate the rights of minorities. On the other hand, rights are more firmly rooted when they are established or ratified by democratic majorities.

Though a democratic majority in California is satisfied with prohibiting discrimination on account of sex, the state, up until this court ruling, has violated this rule in the case of marriage licensing, e.g. a man is denied a license to marry another man solely because he is a man— a clear instance of discrimination on the basis of sex.

Though democracy tends to be the most legitimate form of government since it derives its power from the consent of the governed, citizens are not always careful jurists.  When laws conflict with other laws, it is the responsibility of the courts to resolve the conflict.  The issue is especially contentious when the court is asked to reconcile explicit laws with principled and abstract “metalaws.”  Controversy ensues because the reason for upholding the metalaw is often vague and abstract and usually challenges political dogma and social prejudices.

However, when we proclaim “equal protection of the laws” and prohibit the granting or denial of rights or benefits on account of sex, we should mean it.  California’s court did not overstep its bounds.  It merely upheld the state constitution’s guarantee of equal rights.