Dave Weigel has a good take on D.C.'s role as a bargaining chip in the budget negotiations. It reminded me of something that was apparently left out of the negotiations -- a vote on D.C.'s marriage-equality law. Republican Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio had proposed forcing a vote on the law back in January, but it doesn't even seem to be on the table.
Remember that the GOP reaction to the administration's decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court was somewhat more low-key than expected, although Speaker John Boehner did ultimately take up the administration's invitation to defend the law in court. While Republicans eagerly went after D.C.'s ability to use its own money to give poor women access to abortions, their decision to leave the city's marriage-equality law alone might have had to do with the recognition that they're on the losing side of public opinion on the issue. That said, I think the administration would have also been more resistant to trading that away. Saving Planned Parenthood and Title X mitigated the decision to sacrifice D.C.'s short-lived ability to use local funds to pay for abortions, whereas allowing a referendum on marriage equality as part of the deal would have sparked considerable outrage among LGBT-rights activists.
