Government Support of Gay Pride

According to the New York Times, the Hillsborough County (Florida) Commission "approved by a vote of 5-1, with one abstention, a policy that directs the county government to 'abstain from ackowledging, promoting or participating' in gay pride recognition or events" (6-26-05, p. 1.17). Further, "the commission also voted to require a supermajority vote of 5 to 2 to overturn the policy" (p. 1.17).

I think it is unfortunate that the commission decided to make such a blanket policy. First, it singles out a group of legitimate citizens and says, in effect, that government shall not take heed of them. Will a public administrator be in violation of this policy if he or she allows gay groups, as gay groups, to participate in public hearings or other forms of participatory democracy? After all, doing so would be an acknowledgement or recognition of gay citizens - a source of pride.

Second, it deals with the issue with a one-size-fits-all brush. Rather than deal with the question on a case-by-case basis, the commission is saying that gay pride is itself something that government in Hillsborough county must not associate with.

Third, it begs the question of the First Amendment rights of gay pride groups. Since the county cannot refuse to grant parade permits based on the content of the speech being espoused by the marchers, but can only make content-neutral limitations on their access to the same rights that other groups (like the Daughters of the American Revolution) are granted, it is unclear what the real effect of the new p0licy will be. If the county grants permits for a gay-pride event based on a content-neutral determination, then will they then be in violation of their own policy? If they refuse to grant such a permit, are they then not in violation of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court?

Fourth, as a county policy, it is unclear to me what the effect would be on municipalities within the county. Will cities also be required to follow this rule, or can only the state impose such rules on them?

Perhaps the biggest problem, though, is the supermajority requirement, which is inherently anti-democratic in nature. It appears that, if you can control a majority of the commission at any given time, you can vote for supermajority requirements that will make it difficult, if not impossible, for future commissions to make changes or repeal those policies. The only way to truly be able to do this with a shred of democratic spirit would be to make changes to the charter of the county - and that cannot be done, democratically, without a public referendum.