Andrew is concerned about Barry anti-gay marriage position. I think a few things should be said:
1.) Andrew is vulnerable on this in a way, that I am not. This is serious business for gay people. I think it's a mistake to totally disregard Barry and to disregard Ward 8. I suspect that if you did, indeed, poll Ward 8 you'd find a lot of opposition to gay marriage.
2.) I have some deadlines looming over me, and if I didn't, I'd expend a little shoe-leather myself and try to get a picture of what's actually happening in my old home. I feel like the Post's coverage has been pretty one-dimensional and wanting. Maybe that's a sign of the times.
3.) I think having said all that, that is another case of the worst of us repping for all of us. Barry represents one Ward, in a majority black city. It is true that it's a heavily black Ward--but Southeast, and by extension Marion Barry, can't speak for all of D.C., any more than Harlem can speak for Jamaica, Queens. Eleanor Holmes Norton is just a black as Marion Barry.
I've argued strongly against white gay people expecting automatic sympathy from blacks, on the basis of shared victimhood. There was no shared sympathy extended to blacks from the Irish, or the Italians. There likely will be none in the future from Mexican-Americans.
That said, as a black person, it is painful and infuriating to watch this unfold. There is something utterly unreflective about people who can only use their pain to advance their own narrowly-defined interests, who can't use it to see the humanity of others. I think people who argue that gay marriage is going to "destroying our youth" are a fucking joke, and I will treat them as such.
Nothing threatens "our youth" more than credentialed ignorance--especially when the credentials are claimed from up high. Somewhere on the internet there is a place where reasonable people are interested in high tea with bigots, and converting those who are on the fence. I don't want any part of it. Compassion is a resource too. My stores are limited. There will be no quarter here.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
If, as Barry claims, 70% of his constituents are opposed to anything dealing with same-sex marriage, and that there's a chance for a racial civil war over this issue, then why weren't the other 12 Council members worried about feeling it from their constituents?
My problem with Barry is that he claimed he didn't know what he was voting for -- twice! How can he still hold office?
Honestly, if he just used his secondary explanation -- that most people in his ward are opposed so he's just following their will -- or if he just admitted he was opposed to it then I'd be okay. Everyone's entitled to their ignorance. But claiming he didn't know what he was voting for is, in the words of TNC, weak-sauce.
Barry is claiming that black church leaders are the ones who pushed him to oppose gay marriage. I imagine he is probably right. And in the grand scheme of things, if his ward is against gay marriage should he support it even though he is supposed to rep for them? But biggest in all of this is how you reach out to black church leaders not only in DC but across the nation that are vehemently opposed to gay marriage? I would venture to guess that the majority of black folks who are against gay marriage nationwide have come to that position from spending time in a black church. That being the case I think it makes sense to try to open that dialogue if people really want to raise support of gay marriage in the black community. Thats just my opinion.
I love how Barry justified his position saying, "98 percent of my constituents are black, and we don't have but a handful of openly gay residents."
So there you have it--minorities aren't entitled to equal rights afterall!
Exactly--how the man can be so ignorant that he could use that justification and see no irony whatsoever is beyond me. I suppose by his logic black voters shouldn't have rights in states like Maine or Wyoming where they are "but a handful" of the constituents.
How was that "ill-considered"? Seems pretty carefully considered in the past (if ad-hoc right now).
"Although he has been a longtime supporter of gay rights, Barry said he voted against the bill to satisfy his constituents in Southeast Washington"
Well, thank you for your leadership, Marion. Your heroic and principled stand is an inspiration to us all.
"I've argued strongly against white gay people expecting automatic sympathy from blacks, on the basis of shared victimhood. There was no shared sympathy extended to blacks from the Irish, or the Italians. There likely will be none in the future from Mexican-Americans."
TNC,
I can't speak for all Mexican-Americans, but you can count on me to have tons of sympathy for my brothers and sisters in the African-American community, as well as my brothers and sisters in the gay community.
And likewise bro. I'm not skepitical of the efforts of individuals. I'm skeptical of the desire of communities of millions of people to unite, solely, on the shared experience of oppression. That goes for all communities, including my own.
We Jews have always shared sympathy for fellow marginalized people. Sure, there are the Jackie Masons and the other "insecurely white" among us. But no sub-group of whites joined in on the Civil Rights movement more than the Jews.
"All hell is going to break lose," Barry said. "We may have a civil war. The black community is just adamant against this."
I live here in DC and I admit that Barry confounds me. But it almost made sense that he was voting based on significant pressure from the church groups. The church leaders are name calling on Councilmember Alexander, questioning her faith and threatening to run a "Christian" against her, meaning she's now likely in a bad way in her eastern ward.
But this quote - it pisses me off. If we give Barry any legitimacy, then this sentiment too is given legitimacy. And if this is legit for any politician to say, CIVIL WAR? Among the races? Blacks against WHO? Gays? Whites? Non-Christians? Everyone? Does this obligate someone to "break lose" to prove his point? Why talk like this? Hyperbolic threats of violence on issues like this gets under my skin!
Great point, Sophiagrrl. If I lived in the Ward 8, I would be offended by Barry's insinuation that his constituents are volatile types who could erupt into violence if the vote doesn't go a certain way. Seems like MB is blaming his constituents for his own lack of backbone.
The most galling aspect of the Barry episode is his feigned unwillingness to lead. This is, after all, a man who's managed to be elected in spite of being caught with a woman other than his wife.....and crack.....on tape.
Something tells me leading his district on the gay marriage issue, assuming they really are overwhelmingly against it, is something he could pull off. Good leaders in representative government don't always reflexively follow the majority. Sometimes they need to nudge their constituents in the right direction. After all, we wouldn't need a Bill of Rights if the majority were always just.
The mostly white, mostly gay male leadership of the GLBT movement has needed to do more outreach and community building among non-whites, and address it's own internal racism. And until they do, this sort of thing is going to be the result. You're absolutely right in the GLBT community treating other victims of oppression as if their status as allies is a granted. The GLBT leadership could do a lot more for other minorities, and is asleep at the wheel.
I'm sure it feels satisfying to say this, but the pro-marriage movement in DC is racially diverse, is working on gender diversity, and has been very attentive to the outreach you talk about. Not to mention, as TNC just pointed out on the main page, the vast majority of black councilmembers supported the bill. So it sort of seems like you're just looking for an opportunity to offer a standard complaint, without paying any heed to facts on the ground and progress being made.
Woah there. I didn't say one thing about the movement in DC. I was talking nationwide, and I didn't even mention the other council members, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. If the DC movement is going good, I'm glad.
I agree with you. If the 'Leadership' of the GLBT movement in DC takes the same approach as the 'No on 8' people did ---then expect the same results.
There are Black Gays and Lesbians already on the ground, doing work and outreach in the DC Community. If they are not asked to go and help and speak out, then expect more of the same.
Edmund Burke, as quoted in the musical 1776;
"...that a representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion."
That musical is so full of win.
Marion Barry is a fine public servant. He knows who voted him into office. As a former Ward 7 resident, I think a lot of City council members who voted thier conscience, rather than the will of the represented will be in need of new employment. Vincent Gray and Ward Seven, watch out! It's about time a representative of the people voted and reflected the will of the majority of those they represent. I am not against civil unions, however the tactic of ramming societal deviant behavoir disguised as a civil rights initiative has gone to far. It's time to elevate our actions out of the flesh and the mud, and into a spiritual enlightenment, where we serve and love one another, not label each by our genitalita, or sexual preference.
While I disagree with your assessment of gay people being sexually deviant lets hash out what you are saying.
Are child molesters precluded from getting married? NO
Are convicted murders precluded from getting married? NO
Are people who steal precluded from getting married? NO
Are rapists precluded from getting married? NO
Are people who commit domestic violence precluded from getting married? NO
So if we follow your logic here, why aren't you protesting REAL societal deviants being allowed to marry? You know they have a word for that right?
well done
There is no comparison necessary, deviant behavior is dealt with through a variety of actions! Those who's actions violate laws, such as batters and molesters are jailed, fined, feel me...Rape is against the law as is theft! In my humble opinion, being Gay is not the same as being prejudiced because of your race, skin color or sex or heritage! What one does in the privacy of one bedroom should not be addressed in the public space! Nor should your choice be rammed down the majority either! You should have the right to legally attach yourself to what and whom ever, simply keep it a private matter! j
Okay, let's pretend you're serious.
How do you advise that I enforce my rights as a not-spouse, if her parents disagree about when to pull the plug--under this 'private matter' theory of relationship law you're positing?
Should I 1) knock my not-mother-in-law on the head and hide her unconscious body under the hospital bed, 2) persuade the doctor I'm reflecting my not-spouse's wishes that go against her parents' religion, using my personal magnetism, or 3) ask Congress for a hand like Terri Schaivo's parents did?
Show your work.
What is it you THOUGHT marriage was about? Weddings are about love and a party, marriage is about what happens when you die or break up.
First of all, deviant behavior is anything that deviates from the norm, correct?
Here's your logic:
Theft deviates from the norm.Theft is illegal.
Therefore all behavior that deviates from the norm is illegal.
This logic requires that someone establish a norm in the first place. Who is that someone? And who was the someone who at one time defined interracial relationships as deviant? And who was the someone who at one time defined women in the political arena as deviant? And children having full education from K through 12 as deviant?
Two you say being
Id argue it is exactly the same. I dont buy that BEING Gay is a behavioral choice. ACTING Gay (choosing to sleep with someone of the same sex for kicks or out of emotional vulnerability) is arguably an acute behavioral choice, but BEING gay is in my opinion not an option any more than being short or tall is an option. Considering the traditional amount of societal penalty for being gay, and the amount of self-loathing some gays show in promiscuous unprotected sex, serious drug abuse, etc. I personally do not buy that people choose to BE gay for most if not all their lives. And frankly, the happiest most grounded, balanced and healthy gay folk I know are those in committed relationships.Three,
Agreed--so does this apply to opposite sex marriages too? Why should the government offer such strong tax incentives to marry and have property? Isnt that addressing the privacy of one's bedroom in the public space? Why aren't civil unions the rule for everyone, straight OR gay? Isnt marriage a religious ceremony inappropriate for the separation of church and state? And didn't Marion Barry ram his choice aka vote down the majority?
I hope you'll answer these questions and not run from them because they push you to review your convictions.
Being gay is not societal deviant behavior, nor is the push for marriage equality. Labeling it as such detracts from your purported call to "serve and love one another, not label each by our genitalia, or sexual preference."
Perhaps the blinding irony of your statement was meant satirically. If so, I apologize, otherwise...
Wow. In one breath you talk about spiritual enlightenment, and not labeling people based on genitals or sexual preference. In another, you call same sex couples "socially deviant", an accuse them of "ramming". those are pretty charged words there. And a bit sexually suggestive, to be honest.
Conflicted much? If I vote for someone someone, I expect them to always vote their conscience, not take a poll every time they vote. Nice work on the threats against council members, BTW. I can just see someone running on the bigot ticket to get them out of office.
Societal deviant behavior like, oh, I don't know, smoking crack and cheating on your spouse with hookers? Or is it okay because "the bitch" who set Barry up was of the opposite sex?
TNC,
I'm so glad that you pointed out that Barry represents just one ward in DC. Focusing on Barry's opposition to recognizing gay marriage causes us to miss the forest for the trees; in a majority black city with a majority black political leadership, the City Council voted overwhelmingly (12 to 1) IN SUPPORT of recognizing gay marriage (albeit ones performed outside of DC). This represents a great political victory for the gay rights movements, and refutes the meme which claims that the African-American community is monolithically, implacably, and irresolutely opposed to recognizing gay civil marriage.
It is OK for TNC to castigate Barry for his attitude on this. And yet, when I saw the score of the vote, I was so happy. Things cannot be so wrong with gays on the Black community if in a majority Black city as DC only one guy votes against gay marriage.
By the way, in all this "Blacks are so Homophobic" thing people forget that the two most pro-gay governors in the country not just in terms of position but how emotionally they articulate it are AA: Patrick Duval in MA and the biggest of our champions, that sweetheart of David Paterson in NY.
@syfassociates: What part of "spiritual enlightenment" is the government's business?
My council member (Jack Evans) voted exactly the way my wife and I hoped he would. My dad's council member (Jim Graham) voted exactly the way my dad hoped he would. And I thank them for it.
I expect some reps from Utah and Texas will rant and rail about this, and that will be that. Good luck even getting an initiative to overturn it on the ballot - with the ward-by-ward signature requirement, there's probably less than a 50/50 shot at getting enough signatures from both Ward 2 *and* Ward 3.
We've got record unemployment, but this asshole's still got a job. Barry's one of those guys, like David Vitter, who just makes you embarassed to be an American. Christ.
TNC: you missed another whopper Sullivan just picked up on--a post from the Secular Right blog arguing that gay marriages shouldn't be recognized because then blacks will be even less likely to get married:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/gays-cant-marry-so-blacks-will.html#more
thoughts? comments? concerns? seems utterly ludicrous to me, but then again, just about every anti-gay argument does.
Actually that one came up yesterday in the Noon thread. If I remember correctly, he stopped reading at "black failure." Unfortunately for me, I didn't.
I went and read it and honestly the argument is too stupid to even respond to.
I try to be open minded about opposing viewpoints, but for the life of me still can't understand how the legal marriage of same sex partners would threaten in any way religiously sanctioned heterosexual marriages. I don't want to write off opponents of gay marriage as hateful bigots, but I'm just not seeing the logic of their position. And I can at least understand the logic of current socially conservative positions on other issues. What am I missing?
A few things immediately jumped out at me when I read the Post's article about this:
1) DC has two openly gay members of their city council. I don't know of another city in the south that can claim this.
2) Marion Barry tried to justify his vote by claiming that he only has a handful of openly gay constituents. I guess it never occured to him that the environment that was present at the council meeting (Respected members of the community claiming that homosexuality, and by extension homosexuals were a threat to children) was not one that encourage gay men and women to come out. I'm sure that there are a few more than a handful of gay people in Ward 8; most of them have chosen to remain in the closet. Mr. Barry's job is to represent them too, regardless of whether they are out or not.
3) The argument that homosexuality is threating our youth is indeed laughable. On a large scale, ignorance, a poor education system, and a lack of opportunities is what threatens the youth of DC. On an individual level, the youth of DC aren't being destroyed by gays, they're being destroyed by their fellow youth.
OK first of all I call Bulls__t because
1. DC has a HUGE Black gay male population. Problem being, many of them are closeted by fear, thus Barry's super-weak parsing "openly gay" in his argument. His willingness to use the desire for discretion against his Black gay closeted constituents is rather despicable, although I dont expect much from a guy who smoked crack with his jumpoff even as he suspected the Feds were onto him, WHILE HE WAS THE MAYOR OF THE NATION'S CAPITAL.
2. Separation of Church and State, Barry! Who cares what the ministers think is a sin?!--cheating on your wife is a sin, usury is a sin, some even argue eating pork and shrimp are a sin but since America is not Saudi Arabia, what a millenia-old moral and religious code calls a sin doesnt translate into illegality.
3. DC's HIV rate is really, really bad. 'Sif Barry's implicit Dont Ask Dont Tell is gonna do much to save some lives in an at-risk population. What a clown.
Two quick clarifications
Re: 1. My point is, the kind of guy who would play the saint by day and a devil by night probably misses the whole hypocrisy and corruption of pushing that public-private dissonance as law.
and DC's Black gay AND lesbian / bisexual population is big.
"The argument that homosexuality is threating our youth is indeed laughable. On a large scale, ignorance, a poor education system, and a lack of opportunities is what threatens the youth of DC. On an individual level, the youth of DC aren't being destroyed by gays, they're being destroyed by their fellow youth."
I forget the name for arguments such as this one but basically you seem to know the cause for the result but you cannot connect the cause with the result?
I will go ahead and connect it for you then. A lack of education and opportunities historically (and to this day) have resulted in a spew of destructive behavior? So to behave as if young people who were born into such a predicament are at the root of something much deeper and larger than themselves cannot work.
Jack Turner had the best headline for a post in quite awhile, Coates:
DC City Council Votes 12-1 To Recognize Gay Marriage. Crackhead Only Holdout
I don't doubt that Barry will have support in his ward, but it's not the rest of the city. If you go up antagonistically against these folks, then get ready for it. I still believe, yes, I know, that there are Black Gays and Lesbians in Washington, DC, that have roots there and are already working. Why aren't THEY reaching out to the community in Barry's Ward?
Marion Barry is a frelling moron, but I do find it amusing that the people in his ward are pressuring the guy they elected--the crackhead whose comment upon realizing he'd been caught was, "Bitch set me up!"--to take the "moral" stance.
Because my marriage is SO MUCH MORE DAMAGING to the black community than having the MAYOR get caught smoking crack with a hooker.
I've lived in DC and the Metro area since 1982. What I can say about Marion Barry is that it is *always* about Marion Barry. This is a great rebranding effort for him--he gets to be the guy standing up for "traditional marriage" instead of the guy who hasn't payed his taxes in six years. And it's working--the press is on this story. Barry was pro-gay in the 1980's because he needed the gay votes to get elected mayor. Now he's anti-gay marriage. It's not about principle, as far as I can tell...
Deleted and banned. Read another blog.
Two things. On Marion Berry you are dead right on both his ward and his continued aim of using the attitudes of his ward to suppress people as opposed to educate.
On Andrew, using him to point out anything regarding homosexuals is a non starter. He still believes that conservatism is responsbile for his ability to marry.
Nothing threatens "our youth" more than credentialed ignorance
Amen and amen.