Marion Barry: D.C. risks “civil war” by legalizing gay marriage
posted at 4:35 pm on May 6, 2009 by Allahpundit
Via JWF, a tough call here for the forces of tolerance. On the one hand, he’s a Democrat and a minority and therefore presumptively possessed of Absolute Moral Authority. Attack him at your peril. On the other hand, he’s a tax cheat and an ex-crackhead. No need to impeach his credibility; there’s none left to impeach. Really, about the only thing that can be said in his favor is that, warts and all, he’s still more appealing than Perez Hilton.
This much is certain: Hate like this demands the release of another Carrie Prejean topless photo.
D.C. Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), the only council member to vote against the bill today to legalize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, predicted today there could be a “civil war” in the District if the Council decides to take up a broader gay marriage bill later this year.
“All hell is going to break lose,” Barry said while speaking to reporters. “We may have a civil war. The black community is just adamant against this.”…
Although he has been a longtime supporter of gay rights, Barry said he voted against the bill to satisfy his constituents in Southeast Washington.
“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,” Barry said. “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.”
There’s a movement afoot among House Republicans to overturn the city council’s decision but they surely don’t expect to pull in 40 Blue Dog votes knowing how difficult that would make life for Pelosi (and The One). Meanwhile, Maine just became the fifth state to legalize gay marriage and the second in a row to do so legislatively. New York should follow soon and then we might see a domino effect among blue states eager to prove their own progressive bona fides. Which means, despite the all pronouncements of the death of the culture wars, that this could be a very hot red state/blue state issue come 2012. I’ve got a feeling Jon Huntsman won’t be the only candidate who supports civil unions by the time of the primaries.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Most definitely. But a real topless photo this time.
BadgerHawk on May 6, 2009 at 4:37 PM
You know things are bad when it takes a crackhead to tell people the truth.
teke184 on May 6, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Though I have to say, Mr. Barry’s honesty is kind of refreshing.
I read that there were protections in the bill that would allow those who perform marraiges to opt out of performing same-sex marraiges for personal or religous reasons. If that’s true then I don’t really see what’s wrong with the Maine bill.
BadgerHawk on May 6, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Nice way to sneak in a mention of Maine having just legalized same-sex marriage… ;p
starfleet_dude on May 6, 2009 at 4:40 PM
…and then he did a line of blow off Perez Hilton’s belly.
29Victor on May 6, 2009 at 4:41 PM
No problem. Offer a ‘vote rebate’ check and it’s wedding bells among the Cherry Blossoms.
Limerick on May 6, 2009 at 4:41 PM
This is why DC doesn’t deserve a vote in Congress, they elect clowns and the smartest one is the same guy who was elected after using crack on video tape.
lavell12 on May 6, 2009 at 4:41 PM
It was arguably the black vote that passed Prop 8 in California. And who knows civil rights more than they? This is not a civil rights issue this is a religious issue and the government dictating religious doctrine.
petunia on May 6, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Again with this “Jon Huntsman is the only candidate who supports civil unions” line?
Didn’t Sarah Palin famously block a law that would have limited the benefits that civil unions receive in Alaska? Something conveniently forgotten by all who decided to demonize her as a Social conservative demagogue.
Charlie Crist also supports civil unions.
Although I do back down on my assertion the other day that “most” GOP candidates support civil unions. I just did some digging, and found that Thompson, Huckabee, Sanford, Jindal, and Romney are all against them.
jimmy the notable on May 6, 2009 at 4:42 PM
“But I thought this bill for Gay Marriages meant ‘Happy’ Marriages” – DC council member /sarc
AverageJoe on May 6, 2009 at 4:43 PM
You haven’t been paying attention to the Prop 8 story have you? Otherwise, you wouldn’t use the word tolerance in reference to the pro-gay marriage side of the argument.
Vashta.Nerada on May 6, 2009 at 4:43 PM
AP got a Miss California reference and the Maine Bill into the same thread. Pure, uncut comment bait.
BadgerHawk on May 6, 2009 at 4:43 PM
For now. Don’t be naive this isn’t the end game.
petunia on May 6, 2009 at 4:43 PM
The gays will never be satisfied until they’ve destroy every last family value in America, and it becomes an even bigger cesspool than it already is.
kirkill on May 6, 2009 at 4:43 PM
A civil war with gays against African Americans. I don’t know who would win, but I can guess which side would have the most stylish uniforms.
Cicero43 on May 6, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Can we stop the fiction that blacks are somehow socially conservative? Sure the ones you see in everyday life most likely are, but their political class is just as liberal as San Francisco’s.
Speedwagon82 on May 6, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Heh.
BadgerHawk on May 6, 2009 at 4:44 PM
I think that would be a tough call. Everything cool in America comes from those two groups. Is that bigoted? I didn’t mean it to be. Cool is good, sorta.
petunia on May 6, 2009 at 4:46 PM
There is. Here’s the bill. Relevant section:
Slublog on May 6, 2009 at 4:47 PM
In that case, hot is cold, death is life, and sex is love.
kirkill on May 6, 2009 at 4:48 PM
If there was a civil war in DC, some neighborhoods would not notice any change.
Right_of_Attila on May 6, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Nah, it’s the media gays that drive the bus. Our family’s best friend passed away two days ago of HIV/Aids. He voted RED. I know, anecdotal BS to most here on HA, but I owe it to him to testify that he had the balls to tell radicals to go interfere with themselves.
Limerick on May 6, 2009 at 4:49 PM
I’m thinking I know the winner there…maybe i’m a little biased but I know where i’ll put my money on
youngO on May 6, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Eightball, anyone?
MadisonConservative on May 6, 2009 at 4:50 PM
For now.
They can’t just come out and say we want to burn all the religious people at the stake and re-educate their children! They will teach the children in school to rat out their parents as enemies of the state.
Why do this? There is equality in Civil Unions. It is the religious doctrine gays are after not rights.
petunia on May 6, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Okay–trendy, stylish, hip… not cool.
petunia on May 6, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Agreed, all it takes is one “discrimination” lawsuit to overturn that statute and force all churches to perform any marriage.
jimmy the notable on May 6, 2009 at 4:55 PM
How could you tell?
Mason on May 6, 2009 at 4:55 PM
LOL nice pwn, even for you
blatantblue on May 6, 2009 at 4:56 PM
I second that motion.
That pic of her with her that was just released is awesome. That babe is HOT!!
Now I know how the cultists feel when they watch a video of Sarah Palin trying to figure out what a newspaper is:
“*pant pant* need cold shower need cold shower nooooooooo! hurry hurry, HURRY!!! *pant pant*”
The Wall on May 6, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Christopher Hitchens made a “civil war” prediction similar to this and said he would be on the anti-Christian side.
aengus on May 6, 2009 at 4:57 PM
nooooooooo = nooooooooooow
HA HA HA
The Wall on May 6, 2009 at 4:57 PM
That is the question I have yet to see someone answer, when presented with civil unions (those legally identical to marriage, as in Washington state) as an alternative.
This, at its core, is an attack on religion from the Left. The gay community alone could not exert this kind of pressure. They are being used by the Left, I suspect – and the Left is no friend of God.
capitalist piglet on May 6, 2009 at 4:58 PM
But they voted for Prop 8 in California! I know because the gays blamed the Mormons–and we did analysis of who voted and the swing vote was blacks who turned out for Obama and then voted for Prop 8.
(By we I don’t mean the Church, just some political Mormons I know)
Religious blacks are pretty socially conservative. If they weren’t convinced that Republicans hate them all and would burn them in their beds–more of them would vote with us.
petunia on May 6, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Obviously he is using hyperbole to make a point. But he is right. Blacks aren’t into the gay thing.
Blake on May 6, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Hmmm no surprize there.
petunia on May 6, 2009 at 4:59 PM
It probably doesn’t help that the gay rights movement keep trying to coop the black civil rights movement.
Blake on May 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Another drooling and panting thread?
Loxodonta on May 6, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Sarah blocked gay Marriage but said Civil Unions are ok. She even has signed and passed a bill that same sex partners recieve benifits.
upinak on May 6, 2009 at 5:01 PM
ahhh not the gays again!
but…but…but…tradition! who will think of tradition!?!?
meh. meh meh meh. i cannot feel more meh. about gay marriage. that it gets people so riled up seems so silly to me.
ernesto on May 6, 2009 at 5:01 PM
you really are a tool, wall. but good comic relief…
homesickamerican on May 6, 2009 at 5:03 PM
gays don’t have the guts to stand up to african americans who are against gay marriage. you saw this when they went after mormons, not AA’s that voted against it in California.
Ghoul aid on May 6, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Would like a link to the conscientious objector info, please. Can’t seem to find it on the net.
Loxodonta on May 6, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Tolerance.
What you espouse?
JetBoy on May 6, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Not sure how that would work. Sexual orientation is not a suspect class for 14th Amendment purposes. And the government forcing a church to perform a marriage? Well there’s ONE big problem I can see with that.
Erich66 on May 6, 2009 at 5:07 PM
WRONG!
Please people…look up the differences between civil unions and SECULAR MARRIAGE.
This has absolutely nothing to do with religion. So please, stop saying it. Pure untrue propaganda.
JetBoy on May 6, 2009 at 5:08 PM
that seems unlikely. i wouldnt need a church to marry my girlfriend, why would i need one if i happened to have a boyfriend instead?
ernesto on May 6, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Read your post the other day. Hope all goes well with you.
Loxodonta on May 6, 2009 at 5:11 PM
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Same-sex domestic partners would have all the rights and benefits that Washington state offers married couples under a bill that passed the state Legislature Wednesday.
After nearly two hours of debate, the House approved the Senate-passed measure on a mostly party-line 62-35 vote. It now goes to Gov. Chris Gregoire, who said she will sign it into law.
As this demonstrates, civil unions legislation can be written in a way that should be satisfactory to the gay community – unless it’s something else the community wants.
You’re aware of this, Jet – why do you pretend you’re not?
capitalist piglet on May 6, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Most African-Americans in DC strongly disapprove of gay marriage.
“Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” is what ( heard on the bus today.
Dhuka on May 6, 2009 at 5:13 PM
make it so on the federal level and i promise to shut the gays up :-)
ernesto on May 6, 2009 at 5:13 PM
I was responding to a post above. I didn’t say that a marriage needed to be performed in a church.
Erich66 on May 6, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Doesn’t Palin (for one) already support civil unions? So did Dubya. It’s not about civil unions anyway, it’s about marriage. No compromise. Plus, is there that much of a difference between the Dems and Reps on the issue? Could it be that by 2012 support for gay marriage will be an official plank of the Democrats? What would the implications be?
ddrintn on May 6, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Oh good gravy, so they are upset?
I don’t believe this threat for a minute.
AnninCA on May 6, 2009 at 5:16 PM
It works really simply on how a church would be forced to marry gays: if the law says that anyone who is authorized to conduct marriages must not discriminate…. ergo, any minister who wishes to marry someone must be forced to marry a gay couple too.
Churches then either marry gays or not marry anyone. And it’s a “facially neutral” law, too. Burdens clerks, judges, etc…. so not just religions. Probably survive 9th circuit review. And whammo–Churches cannot marry people.
It’s coming.
Vanceone on May 6, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Or, as Jon Stewart put it after Vermont legalized gay marriage: “It’s Ben and Jerry, not Gwen and Jerry.”
factoid on May 6, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Because it’s state benefits, npt federal.
SnarkVader on May 6, 2009 at 5:17 PM
This issue has nothing to do with gays. It is about keeping the right of churches to continue time tested religious doctrine without the government interfering.
Everyone is free to choose their life. So if Gays insist they aren’t free without coupling in a legal arrangement lets have a law that says they get the rights of marriage in civil unions.
If it was only about the rights that should be fine with them. But it isn’t about the “right to marry” it is about whether a church has “the right” to call what they do, “sinful, in the sight of God”.
They want to stop churches from teaching age old religious doctrine. Because they find that doctrine offensive.
I understand why they would be offended. And I am sorry they feel that way. I want them to be happy. But I believe it is the way they live that makes them unhappy not religious doctrine.
Religious doctrine can’t be based on who might be offended by it. It has to based on the God’s word.
Gays want to infringe on religious freedom.
petunia on May 6, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Maybe the answer is to get rid of marriage for good; have the type of unions like those in the movie “Serial”: “I now pronounce you pair-bonded.”
Erich66 on May 6, 2009 at 5:18 PM
BINGO.
SnarkVader on May 6, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Why would they bother when they can just hide behind the robes of judges? They don’t want to risk losing the black vote.
aengus on May 6, 2009 at 5:18 PM
A civil war in D. C.!
Set up the bleachers and popcorn stands I’d love to watch it.
rplat on May 6, 2009 at 5:19 PM
A church has rights beyond that of a clerk in the DMV or marriage license department.
If gay people try to force churches to marry them, I’d contribute to the church’s legal defense fund. My guess is the ACLU would work for the church pro bono.
dedalus on May 6, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Heck, I’ll shut up when all Americans are equal in this regard.
Oh, wait….I’m supposed to be attacking Christianity…yeah, that’s my goal…to destroy religion in this country forevah! Muahahahahaaa!
*sigh*
JetBoy on May 6, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Not while Obama’s around, but when other Dem pols start trumpeting their supprt for gay marriage, they could lose quite a few voters themselves. Forget the implications for the Republicans.
ddrintn on May 6, 2009 at 5:23 PM
The Black Man is pissed off that the Gay Community is comparing their “Struggle” with the “Civil Rights Struggle”.
Pass the popcorn.
PappaMac on May 6, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Wow…I actually agree with scumbag for a change…nothing like a couple of the libs favorite special interest groups at it…both groups for the most part fear each other…the gays in California protested against all of the churches over prop 8 except the black churches…unfortunately I think the gays win this battle but I’ll be interested in seeing the local reaction on both sides as this heats up…
DCJeff on May 6, 2009 at 5:24 PM
It’s not yours, but you’re not everybody, Jet. I appreciate the snark though.
capitalist piglet on May 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM
My guess is it would depend on which group is a more reliable contributor to the ACLU.
ddrintn on May 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM
What would you do about situations such as those describe here?
Religious objectors to gay marriage need legal protection too
Loxodonta on May 6, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Well said
Vashta.Nerada on May 6, 2009 at 5:26 PM
I understand the difference between state and federal benefits. That wasn’t my point. My point is that these bills can be written in an everything-but-marriage fashion – but for some reason no one has yet articulated to me, that is not good enough for the Left.
capitalist piglet on May 6, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Sorry about the snark, cp…
I just get real sick and tired of this “attack on religion” argument brought into this every single time. Not to mention constantly being tagged as some freak, or a second-class citizen of this country.
Our Constitution is meaningless if “equal” is denied anyone.
JetBoy on May 6, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Gay marriage is an attack on religion if you don’t know it yet–it will become more apparent if you watch with that in mind.
Marriage isn’t good enough they want their conscience to stop bothering them and they think if they can find a way for society to condemn religious teachings that will do the trick.
This is the end game: Stigmatize religious teachings against homosexual behavior. Or put a stop to it altogether. Religions should not teach morality only government can.
petunia on May 6, 2009 at 5:28 PM
It would be worth seeing the heads explode on the MSM……..
Seven Percent Solution on May 6, 2009 at 5:28 PM
I suspect it has more to do with societal acceptance than with legal benefits.
ddrintn on May 6, 2009 at 5:29 PM
“a tax cheat and an ex-crackhead” = Barry & Timmy
“The black community is just adamant against this.”… I’m sure the gay militia will be protesting them in 3, 2, 1…..
txag92 on May 6, 2009 at 5:29 PM
You asked.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/05/gay-marriage-opponent-topless-photos-leaked.html
JiangxiDad on May 6, 2009 at 5:32 PM
If the state were involved with forcing the church, the ACLU would be opposed to the state.
dedalus on May 6, 2009 at 5:32 PM
No the “gay militia” is busy spray painting Mormon Temples because the Black Community doesn’t accept this as a “civil right”.
Must make sense to someone.
petunia on May 6, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Ha! I assume that was a joke. Who do you think is going to do the hate crime suing? Or did you mean the ACLJ would work for the church pro bono.
Christian Conservative on May 6, 2009 at 5:33 PM
You know that I don’t like the way you are sometimes treated around here, I hope. I’ve said so. I’m just not sure you’re aware of it, so I’m telling you now. I regard you as a fellow American, and one deserving of the rights you currently enjoy, and should enjoy. I just disagree on how they should be framed. I don’t think you’re entitled to change the definition of marriage – but as you also know, I’m in favor of civil unions that are legally identical to marriage, as long as they do not infringe on the religious.
But the attack on religion argument is apparently valid, because no one seems to be able to offer an explanation that would take it off the table. Not even you.
capitalist piglet on May 6, 2009 at 5:35 PM
At the expense of the gay community? I’d believe that when I see it.
ddrintn on May 6, 2009 at 5:35 PM
It needs to be done on a federal level. Extend all of the benefits, both state and federal, to same sex couples and include a religious protection clause. What is wrong with that?
SnarkVader on May 6, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Heeere we go.
warbaby on May 6, 2009 at 5:39 PM
You really think that would be enough? Not a chance.
ddrintn on May 6, 2009 at 5:40 PM
It depends on the issue. My guess if the government interfered with a church service based on a restriction of speech, the ACLU would oppose the government. They sided with Limbaugh against the government in his recent case.
dedalus on May 6, 2009 at 5:42 PM
You really don’t understand the Equal Protection Clause, do you? Discrimination occurs every second in this country. That’s what laws do. The particular state interest in drafting a law is balanced against the group claiming discrimination, with different levels of scrutiny depending on the classification. Laws that discriminate on the bases of race, religion, and national origin rarely hold up to scrutiny. Sexual orientation does not fall into that category. Sorry, not my decision, that’s the Supreme Court talking. That doesn’t mean the Court would not conclude that gay-marriage bans are unconstitutional, just that a law banning gay marriage is more likely to pass muster. This isn’t as simple as “all men are created equal” so give us gay marriage. Again, if you have a problem with that, take it up with the Court.
My hunch is that your definition of “equality” is: anyone should be allowed to do basically anything at any time as long as it doesn’t infringe on someone else’s rights. The proper term for that is “anarchy.”
Erich66 on May 6, 2009 at 5:44 PM
You’re absolutely right. The gays won’t be happy until they’ve destroyed all of the churches and replace them with reeducation camps.
SnarkVader on May 6, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Why? Are we discussing “Handsome Rob” again?
ladyingray on May 6, 2009 at 5:44 PM
“I-ness…you-ness…us-ness…we-ness…”
By the way, I lived in Marin 20 years after “Serial” ran in the SF Chronicle, and virtually nothing had changed. The movie was still topical in the ’90s, and hysterically funny.
warbaby on May 6, 2009 at 5:44 PM
In 2007 they took legal action on behalf of Christian groups against St. Petersburg FL. The city had planned to restrict the group protests against a gay pride parade. After the ACLU notified the city that it would sue, the city renegotiated the restrictions with the Christian groups.
dedalus on May 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Though many in the gay community are well-meaning in this regard (JetBoy, for example), many have targeted the church as an enemy. But that’s not the point, really. The Left is the engineer of this train, and the Left hasn’t a history or reputation of respecting religious freedom.
capitalist piglet on May 6, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Ummmm, no, it isn’t that.
ddrintn on May 6, 2009 at 5:48 PM
I know you weren’t talking to me but:
Because then the target becomes the protection clause and that won’t last long after the rest is enshrined in law.
There has to be a distinct difference in the language at very least in order for the language of the Scriptures to be used to teach morality. Because “marriage” is ordained of God.
If you apply that term to same sex relationships it gives the false appearance of God’s approval. It changes the scriptural meaning. It is an attempt to change the scriptures to mean something they do not mean. Civil authorities can only change civil law not God’s law.
petunia on May 6, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Millions of marriages happen every day without God’s involvement.
SnarkVader on May 6, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Thank you! If I decide I can’t hire someone at my Christian church or school or business because they’re living a lifestyle my religion has deemed to be sinful for thousands of years, I’ll lose my shirt in court.
Of course not! There’s no such thing as enough.
Before you know it, gays will be suing for the right to take away the children of others on the grounds that it’s unfair that nature has discriminated against them.
bcm4134 on May 6, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Sorry. I am clueless about the meaning of that reference.
Loxodonta on May 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »