Gay marriage in DC, Marion Barry, and Ta-Nehisi Coates

The City Council of Washington, DC, has voted to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. I wasn't going to blog about this, despite the fact that I have lived in DC three times and I love it, because gay marriage news is coming out (pun intended) fast and furious these days, and I have to be somewhat selective. But Ta-Nehisi Coates has a great post about Marion Barry's vote in opposition. Fascinating comments. Several people pointed out the irony of a man caught on tape smoking crack trying to take some kind of moral high ground. Coates is relatively new to The Atlantic, but he's becoming one of my go-to bloggers, because he's a liberal who occasionally tries to slap some sense into liberals, particularly on civil rights issues. He's also the only blogger I read who can discourse extensively on the history of rap and hip-hop. Very refreshing.

I think the vote in DC may be a breakthrough in gay-black relations. I have my fingers crossed. The tension between African-Americans, particularly in churches, and gays has been a simmering source of tension. This will bring it out in the open (so to speak). One possible consequence may be that African-American gays and lesbians may be encouraged to come out of the closet, and force members of their community to confront their fears and issues around homosexuality.

It's also an opportunity for Obama to take a stand on this issue. He's been avoiding gay issues, which is understandable, given what else is on his plate. He is presumably a little reluctant to spend some political capital on this issue right now. There are a couple of reason for that. 1, he doesn't need to - incredible progress is being made without any help from him. If you had said two years - or even a year or even six months ago - that we would have gay marriage in almost all states in New England by the summer of 2009, I would not have believed you. If you had said that gay marriage would be legal in Iowa before California, I would have thot you were insane. So Obama doesn't really need to do much. 2, he doesn't gain much by spending political capital on gay rights issues. He would piss off conservatives, although that wouldn't make much of a difference. He might alienate a few people in the middle of the road, which would be bad. But it wouldn't make much of a difference with liberals and most out gays and lesbians, because they already support him. Not much reason for him to do anything.

Other than the fact that moving forward on repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is the right thing to do. I expect Obama to be occasionally motivated by just doing the right thing.

This situation is just about ideal for Obama. He can make some kind of bland statement about how he supports expanding civil rights, and he hopes that Congress respects the District's rights to pass its own laws. He doesn't even have to support gay marriage outright. And then he can make it slightly personal about Marion Barry. Nothing big. Just make it clear that he doesn't agree with Marion Barry. Conservatives would love that. Judging by the comments in Coates' post, so would a fair number of African-Americans. Marion Barry is a demagogue and an embarrassment to everyone he is associated with. It is tragic that he is still on the DC City Council. Obama could score points with just about every point on the political spectrum just by shaking his head at the mention of the man's name.

A reason to see Harold & Kumar

I didn't see Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle, but it's been on my radar screen, particularly since I loved the title of the sequel, Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay. Now I have a reason to see both: the guy who plays Kumar, Kal Penn, now works at the White House. He will be the associate director in the White House Office of Public Liaison. Great Hollywood-Washington connection! Apparently politics runs in the family - his grandparents marched with Gandhi.

h/t: Daily Kos.

Vouchers in DC schools

The debate about vouchers in schools is taking an interesting turn in Washington, DC. The District currently has a voucher program, which was started at the behest of a Republican, back when they were in power in Congress. Now that Democrats are back in power, they would like to end it. Except one Democrat, but one very important Democrat in this debate: Arne Duncan, Obama's Secretary of Education. He's in favor of letting kids stay in schools that they are already attending. As someone who attended elementary schools in three states, I'm strongly in favor of continuity.


I'm also one of the only Democrats in favor of vouchers. I'm a big fan of public education. My mother taught elementary school, my brother teaches high school English, and my public high school education in suburban Detroit was one of the best things that ever happened to me.


But I'm also a fan of innovation. One reason my high school education was so good was that I was in a program called "Flex" (short for Flexible Scheduling) that allowed teachers a great deal of freedom to teach unusual topics in interesting ways. We watched movies like "Ran" and "The Seventh Seal." I actually graduated from high school with a better knowledge of foreign film than American movies.


I am also of the opinion that we already have an incredibly successful voucher program in this country. It's just that we have it at the college level. Think about it: the Federal government subsidizes private higher education in a number of ways: Pell grants, student loans, grants from the NEH, NIH, etc. For me, there is very little difference between Pell grants and vouchers. Both of them are payments from the government that allow students to study at private schools. Pell grants are basically vouchers for college students. The only difference between Pell grants and vouchers is the age of the student.


One argument against vouchers is that they subsidize religious education. But a fair number of colleges and universities in this country are religious in nature, and we have no issues subsidizing those. Georgetown, Notre Dame, and Boston College are all Jesuit. There are dozens more, associated with a wide variety of religions.

So I say we keep vouchers. Americans are constantly complaining about the state of our educational system. But our higher educational system is the envy of the world. We have a great model for how vouchers can work to encourage innovation and promote excellence in education. We just haven't realized it yet.