August 24, 2005

An American Dictator

Utah is a pretty conservative place. I don’t think I’m betraying any sort of national secret by saying that it is because of the Mormons. I mean, they are as conservative a bunch of pro-family traditionalists as you are likely to find – and they are centered right in Salt Lake City.

That’s why this move by Salt Lake City’s mayor seems sort of dictatorial to me – he’s going to impose domestic partnership benefits on the city by decree, even if the city council rejects them. After all, he has the power.

No lobbying or emotional debate necessary.

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson apparently can extend health benefits to unmarried partners of gay and straight city employees anytime he wants. And he said Tuesday that he will "absolutely" offer the benefits once the city finishes its research on the plan and he gets formal word he can do it without a City Council vote.

Still, Anderson hopes the council passes a symbolic resolution supporting the idea.

"As long as we're going to do this, we should demonstrate unity on this issue," he said. "Providing for equality should not create more division in our community."

Even a symbolic resolution is hardly a sure thing. The city's seven-member council leans conservative, and this is an election year for four of them.

If the council rejects a resolution, Anderson said he would go ahead and offer the benefits anyway. Barring quick action from another city, Salt Lake City would become Utah's first government to offer domestic-partner benefits.

Do you get the arrogance there? The use of what I can only assume to be the royal “We” in the third paragraph? Translated, the mayor is saying “I want a resolution of support, but I’m acting even if you refuse me one – and if that causes division, my opponents are the bad guys.”

I’d like to encourage the members of the City Council out in Salt Lake City to go on record in opposition to these benefits. What’s more, I’d like to encourage the people of Salt lake City to vote out any member of the council who votes for a resolution of support – and eventually Mayor Anderson. His tactics are antithetical to the American system, and he and his supporters need to be righteously slapped down by the vast majority whose values he is trampling upon.

HereÂ’s a link to the email addresses of the members of the Salt Lake City Council. Be respectful, but express your views.

Posted by: Greg at 01:18 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I happen to think that providing the benefits to unmarried and same sex partners are right thing to do -- go away, you have no jurisidiction in Salt Lake City -- stay in that filthy town called Houston. Quit meddling in their affairs.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Thu Aug 25 09:12:57 2005 (ODDFf)

2 Thanks for the link - I'll email my support of the
mayor tonight. It's good to see a politician use his legitimate power to accomplish a measure of equality. Those who oppose him are seeking to deny people health coverage - WWJD, indeed?

Posted by: Dan at Thu Aug 25 11:48:59 2005 (aSKj6)

3 Gee, Ridor, when did you move to Salt Lake City?

And since when, Ridor, do I lose the right to free speech because you disagree with me?

Dan -- you are welcome to do as you see fit. If you believe that rule by executive decree is just hunky -dory, support it. Those who support him are seeking to impose government programs over the will of the people and the vote of their elected legislators.

As for your WWJD question, it is really simple. he would tell all of them to go and sin no more -- advising the heteros to marry and the homos to live a celibate life, as is consistent with the Scriptures.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Aug 25 13:31:48 2005 (tfoe3)

4 RWR, several of my friends live in Salt Lake City. I plan to be in Salt Lake City for 2007 Deaflympics -- well I think I am legitimate to speak for them than you.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Thu Aug 25 14:52:04 2005 (ODDFf)

5 Gee -- you have friends there and plan on going for your Jim Crow sports event in a couple of years (I guess you fear being outclassed by those who can hear, otherwise you would compete against hearing folks -- right?). You think that makes you better qualified to speak than me? What a crock!

I've sent my letters off, encouraging the city council to act to stop the mayor -- and to place the issue on the ballot for the people to decide if they cannot stop him from acting contrary to their vote.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Aug 25 15:35:25 2005 (tfoe3)

6 Hurrah, RWR. I did the same thing.

These issues should be decided in the democratic fashion by the people of the town by voting on them. Such health benefits come from taxes in the city's coffers by tax payers. The issue should be decided by the tax-payers of the city by voting on it. It's a legislative issue, not a dictorial issue.


Posted by: mcconnell at Thu Aug 25 16:34:22 2005 (xZw2C)

7 While I like the idea of the benefits being given, I do not like this jerks high handed and draconian methods of getting what he wants. I pray that he is unelected or removed from office with all haste.

Just because the dictator is doing something you like doesn't mean that it's good to have one.

Dan and Ridor - you sound very opportunistic in this thread. Do what's right, not what is convenient.

Bartleby

Posted by: Bartleby at Fri Aug 26 03:51:40 2005 (lkCzp)

8 And Bartleby, I respect the position that giving such benefits is the right thing, even though I disagree with that position. The problem is exactly as you stated -- the high-handed method by which this is to be accomplished.

Now since the benefits in question are traditionally tied to marriage, I oppose the extension. As i pointed out above, the one group already has the optioon of receiving the benefits. The other group is ineligible because the people of the state of Utah have made a policy decision that marriage is between a man and woman only. The extension of domestic partnership benefits therefore degrades the importance of marriage as a social institution.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Aug 26 11:59:05 2005 (R6+yj)

9 Jim Crows sports? I dare you to say that in my face in person or anyone who is affilitated with Deaflympics.

You'll be the most hated person on the planet.

Of course, you lack the guts to face people in face -- which is why you're sitting behind the monitor and [CENSORED COMMENT ABOUT MY WIFE'S DISABILITY]
R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Fri Aug 26 12:41:57 2005 (ODDFf)

10 Hey, Ridor, can't take the truth? If any of you were good enough to do so you would participate in the real Olympics, not set up a special "just for us" event. It is every bit as Jim Crow as the Miss Black America contest.

And your comment has been editted as a warning -- do not cross that line again.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Aug 26 13:35:45 2005 (R6+yj)

11 Where did this "Jim Crow" sports came about in this thread? But funny you should mention this.

http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2005/03/are-you-go-getter-athlete-or-do-you.html

Oh, and I will certainly say it to anybody's face, in person, on what they have is a Jim Crow sport, which in a nutshell is all about segregation. I pretty much outlined that in my March blog. Now, if its the Special Olympics or the Paralympics, that's another matter, which is patently obvious. But deaf/hh althletes are able to run, jump, swim, fence, and weightlift like any other hearing people. There shouldn't be excuses why they can't strive for something better in competition. The Olympics is the ultimate in sport competiton. Best of the best, whether the person is deaf or not.




Posted by: mcconnell at Fri Aug 26 17:18:50 2005 (on93k)

12 Deaflympics is much more than that. It is a place where Deaf people are united in solidarity. We rather our own than to deal with your ugly people.

Just look at McWeenie -- he has been licking hearing people for years and what did it do for him? Nothing, actually.

The whole point is that you are full of s***, Greg.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sat Aug 27 10:18:43 2005 (ODDFf)

13 Yeah, I know what you are talking about.

I wrote about Lawrence Phillips and his actions in 2005. I did not go into his disgusting criminal activity in 1995 or 1996, which involved Tom Osborne, because I was writing about Phillips in 2005. You consider that a cover-up that i don't discuss Osborne and his politics, even though Osborne has no connnection to the 2005 incident. In other words, you are upset that I don't include details about an individual who has no involvement in the current actions of the subject of my post.

On the other hand, I'm writing about Fred Phelps himself and his actions in 2005 -- and therefore find it appropriate to note that what party he has always been a member of and for which he has sought office.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Aug 27 12:41:13 2005 (rMegD)

14 Solidarity, self-segregation? Not that I'm complaining, just noticing the reality of such self-imposed segregational, er, solidarity events.

Seeing Fred Phelps just sort of creeps me out. Glad we don't have to deal with him. Have fun with him, R.


Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Aug 27 12:51:27 2005 (x2noK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
15kb generated in CPU 0.0051, elapsed 0.0122 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.008 seconds, 43 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]