Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. was appointed one of the four police commissioners of New York in the 1880s. ... Taverns put out a few sandwiches, called it a meal, and poured the beers as fast as they could, claiming they were only serving a beverage with a meal. Roosevelt made the cops go in and shut these people down, and the city howled. ...
I don't think this is one of those situations. I don't think failure to recognize same sex marriages will work any hardship on the citizens of the District of Columbia. And i think Mr. Berry was obliged to respect their wishes. His "leadership" on such an issue would only alienate those who elected him.
Even though I disagree with Mr. Barry's vote, I respect his reasons for making it.
What do you think?
I do think the people I vote for have a duty to represent me.
In The Phantom Tollbooth, Norton Juster wrote:
Quote:For you often learn more by being wrong for the right reasons than you do by being right for the wrong reasons.
I've used that as my signature line on A2K for quite some time now and today I came across something that seemed to really exemplify it. Leonard Pitts writing on Marion Barry said:
Quote:The former mayor and current city councilman of Washington, D.C. is a longtime supporter of gay rights. So observers were stunned last week when a bill committing the city to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere passed the council on a vote of 12-1.
The ''one'' was Barry.
Wait, it gets worse. Barry said his position hasn't changed but warned that the council needs to move slowly on this issue. ''All hell is going to break loose,'' Barry said. ''We may have a civil war. The black community is just adamant against this.'' Indeed, after the vote, a group of black ministers reportedly ''stormed'' the hallway outside the council chambers, vowing political reprisals.
The Washington Post quotes Barry as saying he voted as he did because ''I am representing my constituents.'' He reminded reporters that ``98 percent of my constituents are black, and we don't have but a handful of openly gay residents.''
That's a lot of words to say what he could have said in three: I punked out.
There's something to be said for representing one's constituents. But there is more to be said for leading them. Barry's failure to understand the difference is galling in light of the fact that he was once a leader in the civil-rights movement.
Read all about it: http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/1039247.html
I was reminded of when then governer of Oregon, John Kitzhaber, signed our Physician Assisted Suicide bill into law even though he, as an emergency room physician, opposed the law.
I respected his decision to sign, the people who voted him into office wanted the law passed, it shouldn't matter what he wanted.
I think the role of an elected official is to represent his constituents.
Even though I disagree with Mr. Barry's vote, I respect his reasons for making it.
What do you think?
My point in bringing up Roosevelt was simply to point out that one effect of bad laws may well be their repeal. I then immediately pointed out that i don't consider this to be one of those cases. I was not comparing Roosevelt to Barry, now matter how attractive to the argument you hope to make such a conclusion may be. To that extent, your response is a straw man.
I am surprised that you are worried about denying civil rights to homosexuals in the matter of marriage law, and become concerned about my remarks with regard to the District of Columbia. Were you as concerned about this issue in 1996? That was when the Democratic President and a Republican Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act.
Therefore, your impassioned and noble remarks (please note the saracasm, if it does not immediately leap out at you) about whether or not majorities feel any pain in denying minorities their civil rights is so much horseshit. Had you informed yourself, you'd have known that under Federal law, homosexuals have no right to insist that their marriage be recognized out of the jurisdiction in which it was formalized. Therefore, this act of council in the District of Columbia denies no one their civil rights because no such civil right exists. Take it up with one of the eleven Federal Appellate District Courts, and push it to the Supreme Court if you are so sure that a majority is denying a minority their civil rights. But don't come over all holier than thou with me on a topic about which it appears to me that you are woefully ignorant.
So far, I see two arguments proposed here. The original is that a politician is correct in voting against his conscience when that vote is in line with the majority of his constituents. I disagree. I believe in a representative form of government, it is the duty of the elected official to research issues and then to vote from a position of greater information than the population at whole. I also think it is the duty of that elected official to explain his position and to be held responsible for it by the voters.
Your argument is horseshit because the Federal Law ensures that no one has the right to impose the provision of "full faith and credit" on any jurisdiction which does not recognize the right of same sex marriage. Therefore, no rights are being denied because no such right exists. If you had read the opening material, you'd know that Barry voted for a measure which states that the District of Columbia will not recognize a same sex marriage from another jurisdiction. This is completely legal under the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act. Therefore, your claim that someone's rights are being denied is so much horseshit, because no such right exists.
I disagree with the claim about an elected representative being elected to provide a form of leadership from alleged superior knowledge (i find it hilarious that you imply that there is any superior knowledge in the issue of the recognition of a same sex marriage from another jurisdiction) or a superior moral view. At the level of city councilman, certainly the electorate chooses a representative to make their views known in council, and i see no reason why people in a municipality would elect someone to vote differently than the views of the electorate who selected them.
It is not my argument that if laws cause people pain they will be changed. It was an observation on the side that such outcomes might result, and, once again, tediously, allow me to point out that i don't think that will result in this case.
Finally, as for DD's comment about "pure democracy," at the level of municipality and county, that is exactly what i see Americans as having. Municipalities and counties seek to pass bond referenda to finance projects. School districts seek to pass increased levies on the property tax to finance new schools, renovations, upkeep and material costs. When i vote, i vote on a host of issue which are decided directly the the electorate, and not through any notional leadership of the County Commissioners or the Mayor and Council. The constitution guarantees a republican form of government for all the states--a republican form of government means only that we have a society governed by laws, rather than by fiat by individuals. The notion that people will directly determine matters through the ballot, or will expect their elected representatives to vote as the public chooses is not at all inimical to the idea of republican government.
I remain convinced that only at the highest levels of government, and only in certain, uncommon circumstances should the elected representatives of the people attempt to lead them in directions which they were not previously disposed to go. Otherwise, i see it as the duty of the elected representative to effectively represent his constituency by voting as the majority which him or her to vote.
Otherwise, i see it as the duty of the elected representative to effectively represent his constituency by voting as the majority which him or her to vote.
Regardless of how you see that law, it is the law, and one which Mr. Barry is not competent, as a city councilman, to change.
boomerang wrote:
So you think Kitzhaber would have been right to ignore the majority of Oregon voters and veto the law based on this own moral principals?
I think it is his duty as an elected official to research the issue and then vote accordingly. Moreover, I think it is his duty to say "I voted this way and this is why." Claiming to set aside what he thinks of as the correct position due to peer pressure is a double fail for me.
Regardless of how you see that law, it is the law, and one which Mr. Barry is not competent, as a city councilman, to change.
I have no reason to believe that you know that voters elect someone who they expect will mostly represent their views, but not their views on everything. People are notoriously unreasonable in their expectations of those to whom they give their agency, whether it is a school teacher, a lawyer or an elected representative. I see no reason to accept you dictating to me what it is that voters want when they elect someone.
If an elected representative feels that he or she has more or better information than the electorate, then he or she may attempt to inform the electorate. When the vote comes up, it is their duty, nevertheless, to vote as their constituents wish them to vote, because that is why they are elected.
I will drop or not drop a topic as i choose. I think the Roosevelt example is germane, and it could become decisive in the black community of the District of Columbia if they become more familiar with homosexuality and more comfortable with homosexuals. It might not apply right now, but it could well apply in the future. After all, the blue law Roosevelt enforced was passed decades before he decided to make an issue of it.
As for your other objections, i will first note that i was responding to DD, and not to you. My experience of DD is that he is more than competent to defend his own point of view, to expand upon it, or to object to my observations.
Your objections are bootless as far as i'm concerned, because the public elects the school board members, the county commissioners and the city councillors. These officials are also subject to laws intended to prevent the abuses of privilege. I see no plausible reason from what you have written to assume that elected representatives are given carte blanche by the electorate, or that they are elected in the expectation that they will provide "leadership" even if contrary to the express wishes of the electorate.
What if it had gone the other way, engineer?
What if the constituents had wanted out of state gay marriage recognized and his research led him to believe this was a bad idea.
Would he have been right to vote against it because that's what his conscious told him was the right thing to do?
Would you still defend his right to vote his own mind?
