Who Does Government Speak For?
Your comments about this column are welcome ~ e-mail Laramie at
The Spectator
founded 2004 by ron cruger
A place for intelligent writers
A place for intelligent readers
 by Laramie Boyd
2013 Spectator Ron - The Spectator All Rights Reserved
       In Rancho Mirage, California, a City Councilman "sought a city proclamation in support of the judicial decision" rejecting DOMA and upholding same-sex marriage, "and severely derided the mayor " when he declined to do so. I wonder, as one G. Dana Hobart in the Opinion section of The Desert Sun newspaper asked, "Had the Supreme Court decision been 5-4 the other way, how would the Rancho Mirage LGBT community have felt if our city issued a proclamation supporting their losing these intense battles?" Why do so many politicians, and some people in general for that matter, revel and assume legislation enacted that they agree with is only right, yet speak of the devil when their agenda is not fulfilled? If nothing comes of the battle over immigration, would the likes of the City Councilman deem it only fair for cities to issue proclamations supporting the failure of any program giving illegal immigrants a "pathway to citizenship" and other "reward" advantages in education and driving licenses?
       Mr. Hobart states that "City government does not deal in state and federal issues." He adds, they are not elected "to parade their individual political and social values under the false assumption that we all share those same values. The residents of Rancho Mirage, and of every community in America, are divided on same-sex marriage, abortion, gun control, immigration, etc. Our government represents both sides of these national issues", as elected representatives. City officials are elected to "take care of " local city problems, not "take controversial political stands in the name of all residents of the city." That's a lesson to be learned by all government.
       We can only guess which side of "the aisle" those who agree with the Rancho Mirage councilman sit on. But that is not the issue here. Wouldn't it be a grand day when state governments and the federal government could stand up and simply say something to the effect that some legislation just passed, whatever it may be, was the consensus of the elected representatives of the people, and until it is repealed or changed, it will be enforced. And enforced in a way such that, as Mr. Hobart states, "All are to be treated equally in the eyes of the law."