The Mayor and City Council's decision to and a constitutional amendment to for the residents of College Park got me thinking. Here are a few more questions that the Council and Mayor might want to give their two cents about for the residents of College Park:
- Should Mark Turgeon install Phil Jackson's famous "Triangle Offense" to improve our beloved Terps?
- How should Randy Edsall fix the myriad of problems on his team?
- Should the Redskins try to get Peyton, trade up for RG III, trade down for picks or just take the best available at the number 6 pick in the draft?
- While we are on the Redskins, should Dan Snyder sell the team so we can get a good owner?
- Labrador or Labradoodle?
All kidding aside, what is next? Is the Council going to weigh in for the people of College Park on other potentially divisive issues that do not affect our city—like abortion, immigration reform and gun control?
This is not about supporting or opposing the legislation they are addressing. It is about them using their public office to express opinions for us. It is the right and responsibility of each individual citizen to speak on important issues such as these to their appropriate elected officials. In cases that directly impact the city, it MAY be appropriate for the Council to weigh in. Our Council, with the exception of Councilman Kabir, obviously felt it necessary to speak for us.
Why?
I suspect the council feels that they can do whatever they want on issues that do not concern the city. I believe that they are emboldened by the fact that most of them do not even have to campaign for their seats on the City Council.
Since these issues do not affect the city or its business, the Council had neither the right nor the responsibility to speak for the people... I wish they hadn't.
And I'm wondering about those cameras, too.
It is well within their purview to express their collective views on matters affecting our community.
The same sex marriage issue was introduced by another councilmember. He spoke in favor of it, with a very brave statement, as most of the council did. Councilmembers comment on the issues on the agenda, that is what they are supposed to do. My gripe is with it the council, as an entity, speaking for the city residents on social and constitutional mattters that do not directly effect the citiy's business. If you had to get a marriage license form the city, then this would be appropriate. If political campaign giving to candidates for city office wasn't capped at $250, the citizens united case might be their business. Please do not misconstrue this blog as an attack on any individual councilmember. It is not.
If the state or fed gov is asking elected officals to "vote" for if they approve gay marriage then I'm 100% ok with that. Otherwise just do your jobs and focus on the things you have a direct influence on.
Some responded that there are gays and lesbians in the city, therefor it is a city issue. There are also plenty of people who live here that fled oppressive regimes in other nations. Should the city council petition the UN on there behalf? The residents of College Park are represented at the state level through Jim Rosapepe, Joseline Pena-Melynk, Barbabra Frush, and Ben Barnes. Does anyone here need their contact information?
I bet there are also some religious people in the city who were not polled or represented. If lets say 50% of the citizens do not support gay marriage why is the council pushing for it when nobody asked them?
Councilmember Kabir, however, intends to hold off his vote until he sees the actual content of the bill. However assuming that it is similar to the one that was introduced in the past years, he thinks the City should not take a position (either for or against) on this proposed bill. Unlike other issues that the Council decides, this bill deals with a social issue which is extremely controversial and touches upon enormously complex and abstract matters such as peoples’ faith and belief system. He has also found many residents oppose the bill because they do not want to see the current official definition of marriage is changed in the State (Article 2-201 Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State). He is not of the opinion that a few persons on the Council should be imposing their own opinions on thousands of City residents on such a complex and sensitive matter, especially when the State is not asking the City to take a position on this.
Please think before you write. Ignorance and phobia has no place in our land.
You are also misstating what you seek what you call "marriage equality." Marriage has traditionally been (and is presently) defined as a union between a man and a woman. There is very little stopping you from getting married, so long as it is within the recognized definition, i.e., to a woman. I say very little because there are limitations on consanguinity and existing marital state. What you seek is to redefine marriage, so that it is a union between any two consenting adults.
Fortunately, as you observe, the United States is a secular society, and, fortunately, it is not an atheistic society. All are welcome to make arguments on whatever basis they choose and the most persuasive will win. With respect to gay marriage, one's view might be informed by religious truth but one's argument might proceed on entirely non-religious principles. Or, one's view might be based on self-interest and proceed accordingly. All views should be allowed. By the way, you are absolutely wrong that gay marriage won't harm the institution of marriage. It will, in fact, completely redefine the institution, obliterating what has been the common understanding for the whole of human history so that it can serve an entirely different (teleological, if you will) purpose.
You're wrong about Citizens United. The holding was that the LIMITS on independent corporate expenditures (aka "soft money") were unconstitutional, not a prohibition on corporate spending. College Park campaign finance rules prohibit any entity from spending money to influence an election unless it is an individual giving money to the campaign itself, and then the campaign itself spending the money. Those rules could be exposed to a Constitutional attack under Citizens United - any corporation (or, for that matter, any person) could spend an unlimited amount of money independently of a campaign and influence a City election.
As far as whether it harms heterosexual marriage, we'll probably just have to agree to disagree rather than resorting to "yes it is, no it's not" arguments. My opinion: it acknowledges families that are already there. The definition has never been static throughout history. But I've had people blame me, as a gay man, (in all seriousness) for wars, famine, pestilence, the downfall of modern society, etc, and the only thing I can say is "my bad, I'll do better next time." Cheers :)
Same-sex "marriage" isn't just "neutral" to society; it affects everyone because it is imposed on all by government. Once you establish this "right" it opens up a whole range of new rights based on "equality" in all related areas as well. For example, the "right" to enter and use the bathroom facilities of your "orientation" The next phase of exerting this new right is then to force private religious organizations to grant adoptions and conduct marriages to same-sex couples, or face legal sanctions under "equal rights" "uni-sex" or "gender-alternative" bathroom facilities under building codes. The same-sex "marriage" creates a new protected category of "gender-alternative" person, presumably determined by the person involved. Maybe there could be false claims of "gender-orientation" or people could change their minds to gain advantage and control of others. The point is, it's not about "equality", or private, personal choice, it's about government forcing on everyone something that some in society strongly oppose for many reasons. The issue fits into the whole "entitlement" concept to get government to give free money and benefits to some that everyone else must subsidize, whether they agree or not. This is abuse of the role of government in US. Unless halted, it will lead to dictatorship and the equality of the graveyard - everyone equally dead.
As for marriage, no one is telling you who you can marry, as long as you aren't already married or you aren't trying to marry a close relative. What you want is something that is presently understood as not marriage. So, in reality, you want to non-marry another man but to do non-marry you must destroy marry. Seems pretty clear to me.
I was opposed to the bag tax, however I am just as much against the a state committee arbitrarily deciding that Montgomery County can have a bag tax and we cannot. They should have stayed out of both discussions. Thoughts?