By A. Daniel Bodine
desertmountaintimes.com
Debating the merits of opening the public purse to “spouses” of homosexuals, lesbians, one-arm people with upside-down swan tattoos on their bellies (e.g., name your objectionable category) is sure to be contentious, yes. Especially in a Texas city the size of El Paso where Pancho Villa once helped direct the Mexican Revolution.
But city council civility fell into an even darker slush pile last week, June 14, when one speaker during a public comment period told Mayor John Cook to get on his motorcycle, strap his guitar to his back, and essentially get the hell out of Dodge City.
“Go on back to where ever it was you came from!” he said
Frankly, it was a personal cheap shot. Cook had dared to resurrect and submit for council approval a similar version of a domestic partners bill that voters rejected in a special election in 2010. Political anger was justified perhaps. But not personal scalp-hunting.
“Hey, dude, in the name of whose crown are you rising?” I'm sure more than a few surprised onlookers at the meeting wanted to know. “You a sheriff with a real posse behind you?”
That person's basic protection, of course, is the Constitution and the right to free speech. It's not, as some of those who spoke at the comment podium suggested, scriptures from the Bible.
But there is a growing chorus of believers who simply argue that free speech doesn't and shouldn't equate with the right to make free personal insults. Character assassins. Especially in an issue as convoluted as this one. Doing so tends too often to lead to a problem-solving quagmire. Eventually then all citizens take an indirect hit somehow.
Here's the simple way the history of the El Paso domestic spouses issue appears on paper: The City Council first passed a measure which extended health benefits to legal domestic partners, or spouses of certain city employees, effective in January, 2010.
A local church group, organized by their pastor, then spearheaded a petition drive to have the issue put on last November's election ballot as a special initiative. With only 10 percent of the registered voters in a weak turnout expressing themselves, supporters then who opposed the health benefit law thus were able to overturn it. And a federal district judge on appeal upheld that election.
A secondary point of argument in the issue, and the cause of the appeal, was that the church group's wording on the special initiative inadvertently dropped health insurance coverage for retirees and elected officials as well. But no le asi. What the voters voted on was what the voters voted on, the court ruled..
Cook, feeling history on his side and also that the majority of citizens in El Paso would support the issue in another ballot initiative run, if it came to that, then put the health benefits extension back on the agenda, as another bill. Last week's vote approving it was 5-4, with Cook himself casting the tie-breaking vote.
Certainly the argument that spending tax money on a controversial subject many deem immoral (and thus unconscionable) has merits. The pages of democratic countries are riddled with confusion sometimes by such arguments. The Vietnam War remains a prime example. And sometimes the only clear answer out of it for citizens is to say, Yes, God will get us thru this, too.
Progressive Democrats, on the other hand, point to last week's City Council decision as “progress” toward bringing all El Paso citizens under the tent of full civil rights. One councilman even named some examples of the progress. Civil rights for African Americans, voting rights for women, etc.
Furthermore, he argued that sexual orientation is something a person is born with; it's not something society has created for us and can be shed like certain species shed hair or skin each year.
And furthermore, those who do oppose granting the benefits, and oppose it bitterly, the democratic process still allows some options, is an important point to remember.
Another petition drive, merged with a recall election for those members of the council who voted to approve the law, is one possibility certainly. Exhausting legal processes, rather than insipidly telling the mayor to go take a hike, or a ride out of town, is a much preferred option anytime.
For cooler heads, one could also make one other point, too, with the pros and cons positioned as they are now. May not be totally applicable, but there's a whiff of resemblance here anyway.
Probably one of the largest civil organizations in the country has as its members what most church groups no doubt at one time would despise as society's worst—a bunch of recovering alcoholics and drug addicts who before finding recovery would've turned on their own mother or father, just to get another shot. Or another hit. Of the devil's brew or spirits.
Yet by following a 12-step process as outlined in the Big Book and embracing the ages-old adage, keep it simple, most of these worsters are now decent, contributing citizens. Many are even our besters.
And no where in that Alcoholic Anonymous' Big Book does it require members to be straight, gay, or varying shades in between. If they truly believe their sexual orientation is not linked in any way to their drinking or drugging habits, it's their own business. Each already knows the realities of hell anyway; as a drunk or an addict they've been there.
Keeping the next steps in this El Paso health benefits issue simple—essentially leaving your moral prejudices behind--is good advice for those angry with last week's outcome also. And doing so would add a touch of class perhaps back to what otherwise is a really classy city.
Getting ugly is a shame on us all. An apology somehow is definitely in order.
–
We always welcome comments. Sign in to post in the forum. Or write Dan directly at dan@desertmountaintimes.com.. If you have Spanish speaking friends you'd like to send it to, remember with the click of the translation button in the right-hand column the article will come up in Spanish.
– 30 --
No comments:
Post a Comment