Amen. Glens Falls Hospital has raised a pride flag for years and will do so again this year with the new Pride Forward flag. All are welcome here is part of our mission and should be part of who we all are.
Why do something that will cause more polarization? While I support so many of the organizations like gay pride, I don't see how other organizations should be denied their point of view and that is what this would devolve to.
It seems SCOTUS established what is in a sense a system of squatters rights for public symbolism. As long as the public entity controls the message a squatter can’t take up residence.
In effect the Common Council would simply need to exercise just powers derived from consent of the governed.
Since people who are symbolically represented by the pride flag are among the governed but are and have been denied just consent of the governed from the very beginning of our nation it seems just that a pride flag be flown by local government as almost literally the least government can do to recognize the hundreds of years of the public taking their rights unlawfully.
People represented by the symbol of the pride flag are just that, people. They are not a religion, philosophy, or economic interest - they count among them members of every possible class or religion - so even without the backing of the SCOTUS ruling a claim of government putting its finger on the scale for one particular group is specious. Political groups, religious groups or others have no legitimate claim for equal time.
Putting up a second pole would invite chaos - essentially saying that GF recognized squatters having legitimate claim - and be an unnecessary expense.
I think the City Council has enough to do without debating and voting on whether or not it supports the positions of any group that applies for permission to fly its flag.
I agree with Will's summation &, like he, would like to see the Pride flag being flown over City Hall. My wife & I had 6 children, 2 of which, were born Gay & have lived their lives accordingly. My wife and I have been proud of them & as I say, would love to see the Pride flag flown over City Hall. Thank You.
I mean, really, don't we have better things to do than be concerned over how a local government interpreted, or mis-interpreted, a U.S. Supreme Court decision that pertains to the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment? Or how, and whether, that government represents its residents? Or the nature of that representation?
Speaking of clarification, my comment is meant as sarcasm. To me, it's an obvious and appropriate topic to be concerned about. (I've added a "sarcasm" indicator.)
I read the Post Star article and I said to myself this one requires some thought and a few steps back to see the bigger picture. I’m glad you posted the wording of the Supreme Court’s opinion so we could read for ourselves. My initial reaction to the newspaper article was the city should be able to pick and choose what flags they fly, after all it’s their flagpole. Then I thought on the other hand, if they had to worry about giving equal time to all flags, no matter who or what they represent, they could easily find themselves knee deep in angry citizens, especially nowadays when folks seem to be just itching to get riled up over just about anything. So maybe just official government flags was the way to go. Having now read what the Supreme Court actually said, it does seem clear that legally, the city can make a policy to vote on what non-governmental flags they will allow, and then go ahead and do that. Like approving a permit to have an event in the park.
Except if you take another step back, it still seems like a can of worms waiting to be opened. They say flying the Pride flag from a city flagpole would show the city of Glens Falls accepts and promotes the values it represents. Let me stress this: these are values I personally agree with, but might some religious people feel a bit like their city government is rubbing their nose in it? I don’t agree with that particular brand of religiousness, but they are as entitled to their opinion as I am to mine. They might feel like it’s a poke at them just as I might feel if the city allowed a flag like the Christian one at the center of the Boston case. I would think to myself, whoa, what about the separation of church and state?
So would there have to be a section in the law to specifically ban religious flags? Would that then lead to no holiday decorations, because, even though they seem secular enough, someone might get on their high horse about the city endorsement of a religious celebration? So now I’m back to thinking that strictly governmental flags is the way to go, simply to avoid any future turmoil. But I am not done thinking about this yet.
I don't think all that would be necessary. The Common Council could confirm among themselves that, as the Supreme Court ruled, they have the authority to decide how the city expresses itself through displays such as flags on city flagpoles. Then it (the Common Council) could begin, choosing, as the elected representatives of the city's citizens, what to endorse and what not to. That's it. As the ruling states: "The Free Speech Clause does not prevent the government from declining to express a view. The government must be able to decide what to say and what not to say when it states an opinion, speaks for the community, formulates policies, or implements programs." The city does not have to "be fair" or "let this group fly its flag because it allowed this other group." The city can exercise its right under the Free Speech Clause to be as arbitrary in its choices as anyone else. That's not to say the city should be arbitrary, but to point out the city won't be forced to hoist flags or allow other displays that the Common Council members don't want to hoist or display.
I don’t know, I still have some reservations…I have to believe in the common sense and basic decency of the elected officials of Glens Falls, but given different personalities and circumstances, what if elected officials decided flying, oh let’s say, a Q-anon flag was what they wanted? To me, a government entity flying a flag or hanging a banner implies if not official endorsement, at least official acceptance. All well and good if it aligns with your values, not so good if it doesn’t. If they’re going to allow anything besides official government flags, I think it would be wise to put up some guardrails of some kind…
I often wonder if many of those flying the American flag truly believe it represents everyone in our country.
Amen. Glens Falls Hospital has raised a pride flag for years and will do so again this year with the new Pride Forward flag. All are welcome here is part of our mission and should be part of who we all are.
Why do something that will cause more polarization? While I support so many of the organizations like gay pride, I don't see how other organizations should be denied their point of view and that is what this would devolve to.
"Sanctuary city" refers to the treatment of immigrants, doesn't it? I don't see what that has to do with flying the Pride flag.
The point is inclusion for all people. Not a “point of view”. This is for all people.
I think flying the POW MIA flag is appropriate even though it may not “represent” all Americans.
Well said! It’s a pleasure to read your columns with my morning coffee!
Hear, hear!
Excellent column.
It seems SCOTUS established what is in a sense a system of squatters rights for public symbolism. As long as the public entity controls the message a squatter can’t take up residence.
In effect the Common Council would simply need to exercise just powers derived from consent of the governed.
Since people who are symbolically represented by the pride flag are among the governed but are and have been denied just consent of the governed from the very beginning of our nation it seems just that a pride flag be flown by local government as almost literally the least government can do to recognize the hundreds of years of the public taking their rights unlawfully.
People represented by the symbol of the pride flag are just that, people. They are not a religion, philosophy, or economic interest - they count among them members of every possible class or religion - so even without the backing of the SCOTUS ruling a claim of government putting its finger on the scale for one particular group is specious. Political groups, religious groups or others have no legitimate claim for equal time.
Putting up a second pole would invite chaos - essentially saying that GF recognized squatters having legitimate claim - and be an unnecessary expense.
I think the City Council has enough to do without debating and voting on whether or not it supports the positions of any group that applies for permission to fly its flag.
It's silly for Collins to make this an issue.
My guess is someone's afraid of offending the good old boys club here.
Making fair, well-reasoned decisions seems beyond the capabilities of many municipal officials these days.
I agree with Will's summation &, like he, would like to see the Pride flag being flown over City Hall. My wife & I had 6 children, 2 of which, were born Gay & have lived their lives accordingly. My wife and I have been proud of them & as I say, would love to see the Pride flag flown over City Hall. Thank You.
Yes, some commenters here are absolutely right.
I mean, really, don't we have better things to do than be concerned over how a local government interpreted, or mis-interpreted, a U.S. Supreme Court decision that pertains to the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment? Or how, and whether, that government represents its residents? Or the nature of that representation?
Heck, it's just local stuff, right? Why worry?
</s>
The SCOTUS seemed to think it was important to clarify.
Speaking of clarification, my comment is meant as sarcasm. To me, it's an obvious and appropriate topic to be concerned about. (I've added a "sarcasm" indicator.)
I see the sarcasm clearly now.
Well said. 👍
I read the Post Star article and I said to myself this one requires some thought and a few steps back to see the bigger picture. I’m glad you posted the wording of the Supreme Court’s opinion so we could read for ourselves. My initial reaction to the newspaper article was the city should be able to pick and choose what flags they fly, after all it’s their flagpole. Then I thought on the other hand, if they had to worry about giving equal time to all flags, no matter who or what they represent, they could easily find themselves knee deep in angry citizens, especially nowadays when folks seem to be just itching to get riled up over just about anything. So maybe just official government flags was the way to go. Having now read what the Supreme Court actually said, it does seem clear that legally, the city can make a policy to vote on what non-governmental flags they will allow, and then go ahead and do that. Like approving a permit to have an event in the park.
Except if you take another step back, it still seems like a can of worms waiting to be opened. They say flying the Pride flag from a city flagpole would show the city of Glens Falls accepts and promotes the values it represents. Let me stress this: these are values I personally agree with, but might some religious people feel a bit like their city government is rubbing their nose in it? I don’t agree with that particular brand of religiousness, but they are as entitled to their opinion as I am to mine. They might feel like it’s a poke at them just as I might feel if the city allowed a flag like the Christian one at the center of the Boston case. I would think to myself, whoa, what about the separation of church and state?
So would there have to be a section in the law to specifically ban religious flags? Would that then lead to no holiday decorations, because, even though they seem secular enough, someone might get on their high horse about the city endorsement of a religious celebration? So now I’m back to thinking that strictly governmental flags is the way to go, simply to avoid any future turmoil. But I am not done thinking about this yet.
I don't think all that would be necessary. The Common Council could confirm among themselves that, as the Supreme Court ruled, they have the authority to decide how the city expresses itself through displays such as flags on city flagpoles. Then it (the Common Council) could begin, choosing, as the elected representatives of the city's citizens, what to endorse and what not to. That's it. As the ruling states: "The Free Speech Clause does not prevent the government from declining to express a view. The government must be able to decide what to say and what not to say when it states an opinion, speaks for the community, formulates policies, or implements programs." The city does not have to "be fair" or "let this group fly its flag because it allowed this other group." The city can exercise its right under the Free Speech Clause to be as arbitrary in its choices as anyone else. That's not to say the city should be arbitrary, but to point out the city won't be forced to hoist flags or allow other displays that the Common Council members don't want to hoist or display.
I don’t know, I still have some reservations…I have to believe in the common sense and basic decency of the elected officials of Glens Falls, but given different personalities and circumstances, what if elected officials decided flying, oh let’s say, a Q-anon flag was what they wanted? To me, a government entity flying a flag or hanging a banner implies if not official endorsement, at least official acceptance. All well and good if it aligns with your values, not so good if it doesn’t. If they’re going to allow anything besides official government flags, I think it would be wise to put up some guardrails of some kind…
All our voices need to he heard. Respectfully also.