Marion Barry Votes Against Gay Marriage
I’m not sure what to make of this. In an interesting turn of events, two people, both democrats, voted against the D.C. City Council’s initiative to legalize same-sex marriage in the district. One is Yvette M. Alexander of Ward 7 and the other is former D.C. mayor, Marion Barry of Ward 8.
As to Barry’s reason? The Washington Post reports, he appears to be against the idea:
In a emotional speech before he cast his vote, Barry pleaded with gay men and lesbians not to hold his vote against him, saying that he has battled for gay rights since he began his political career in the 1970s.
‘I stand here today to express, in no uncertain terms, my strong commitment to the gay and lesbian, bisexual, transgender community on almost every issue except this one,’ Barry said.
There appears to be more to the story than this. As the Washington Times also points out, “Both have cited the will of their overwhelmingly black constituencies as the reason for their opposition.” In other words, they listened to the will of the people.
While that might seem like a good thing, is it? Does a politician have to reflect and vote exactly as the people dictate? Why or why not?
Comments are closed.
It seem appropriate to insert a cocaine joke here, but I’ll resist.
Since many a thread here devolves this way, let’s just start this one with changing gay marriage to abortion. At some point, I think one should fall on his sword rather that allow an injustice to occur. On the other side of the equation, one shouldn’t go around looking to be martyred. I’m sure the issue of gay marriage will come up again in DC. Perhaps at that time, constituents will be more receptive of it. For a supporter of gay marriage, the choice between having an advocate for gay rights in office and attempting to persuade his constituents and having him voted out of office and replaced with a candidate that may not be as sympathetic to gay rights would seem obvious. In a sound byte culture, such rationality won’t be forthcoming from the ideological leadership.
The issue of when to vote ones convictions over the wishes of ones voters is a difficult one.
If one just votes the wishes of the district all the time even when it goes your best judgement then you are not doing your job
However if you just relied on how you felt and did not consult your district all the time you are not doing your job either .
It is a difficult balance.
I believe his honor preferred crack, he’s too much in tune with the common folk to go for snooty cocaine.
Black culture is far more homophobic than white, as could be seen in the shameful Prop. 8 in California. One aspect may be that there’s a feeling of having one’s “thunder” stolen, thou shalt have no other civil rights issues. It’s a tricky situation for the politically correct – the victim group of long standing, “urban blacks”, exhibits sexism, homophobia and violence like no other. Can a victim be victimizing at the same time ? It must make their little heads spin.
It is an irony that blacks feel so strongly about traditional marriage when the issue is same-sex unions, but there are such serious problems involving marriage among blacks:
“Does a politician have to reflect and vote exactly as the people dictate? Why or why not?”
It is called democracy. A messy business. But surely preferable to academic [I intend both senses of the word] theorizing. Who shall decide what the people must accept?
The more interesting aspect it that even with the activities of the Archdiocese, the Catholic lay faithful (Black or white) declined to get involved in the opposition to the legislation.