Mayfield’s comment was a reply to an audience member, who asked if the Charlotte City Council was considering a resolution officially opposing the anti-LGBT amendment that North Carolinians will vote on during the May 8 primaries. Other cities, including Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill and Greensboro, have already passed such resolutions.
Civil rights activist Matt Comer, former editor of Charlotte’s LGBT magazine QNotes, wrote about it at his blog, InterstateQ: Destination Equality, on Friday and again today. Here’s a snippet:
Anyone with even a single iota of knowledge on how local government works knows that city councils and other local governing bodies (e.g. county commissions, transportation commissions, etc.) take public positions on state and federal matters on a regular basis … The City of Charlotte is no exception. The council’s Governmental Affairs Committee meets regularly in order to discuss, debate and propose the city’s annual state and federal legislative agenda. They even publish a calendar outlining the timing of their deliberations and subsequent approval by city staff and city council.
LGBT activists who helped elect Mayfield were disappointed that she seemed to be distancing herself from an answer she gave the LGBT community before her election. Qnotes had asked her the following question:
Would you support the adoption by city council of a legislative agenda that includes items to (a) seek legislative approval to extend public accommodations and public housing ordinances to include both sexual orientation and gender identity, (b) oppose the state’s 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, a statute which bans recognition of same-sex marriages, and (c) oppose any attempt to pass a state constitutional amendment that would ban recognition of same-sex marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships and other legal arrangements?
Mayfield’s reply:
“Yes I would support A, B and C. I believe that by building relationships and commitments among the Council members we can ensure enough support to sustain a yes vote.”
At issue is the state anti-family amendment designed to hurt gay couples and their extended families. Comer’s blog post today pointed out exactly how the passage of this amendment would impact Charlotteans. Here are a few of his key points:
* The amendment would bar the extension of health and other benefits to the same-sex partners of city employees. The city doesn’t currently offer these benefits, but, as mentioned by Mayfield, the issue is currently being discussed and considered by council members and city staff. If the city truly desires to one day offer these benefits to LGBT employees’ families, then taking a position on the amendment and its ban on domestic partner benefits is a question of concern for the city and, therefore, deserves attention from our city council.* The amendment could mean the end of domestic violence protection for individuals, both gay and straight, in unmarried relationships. The city-county’s joint police department would have to explore new ways to combat and control domestic violence between unmarried partners. How would the police department ensure the safety of a person being battered and abused by an unmarried partner? How much authority would they have to remove the abuser from the household if law prohibits the recognition of their relationship? The city oversees and administers the police department, therefore it is a question of concern for the city and, therefore, deserves attention from our city council.
* The amendment could invalidate joint child-custody and visitation arrangements between unmarried couples. Though the county primarily oversees the social services and children’s welfare programs here, if the city has any stake at all in the preservation of healthy homes and families, then this is a question of concern for the city and, therefore, deserves attention from our city council.
To read Comer’s pieces in their entirety, go to his InterstateQ blogsite.
This article appears in Feb 7-13, 2012.
Some sort of decree, statement, declaration, tweet, announcement or bill board sign from the city council or county commissioners isn’t going to have any effect on the outcome of the vote in November. When it comes to this issue people are going to vote the way they want to vote, not the way the city tells them to. The best course of action among those how oppose the amendment is to educate people on the purpose of the Constitution. It is to tell us the Rights of the People and the Restrictions of the Government. This amendment will clearly deny a Right to citizens based solely on their sexual orientation. The Constitution and our laws must be applied equally to all citizens. It has been a long standing rule that we cannot discriminate against someone based race, religion, sex, or creed. Now we want a Constitutional Amendment that allows just that thing? I for one certainly hope not.
If the LBGT community wants to go after somebody they should be going after Pelosi, Reid and Obama. The 3 of them made some big promises in ’08 and except for the repeal of DODT, little came out of Washington that benefited the average gay on the street. Two years of a near strangle-hold on the Legislature and the White House and what did the LBGT community get for all their money and votes? Damned little. And don’t even bother blaming it on the Republicans. If they passed Obama Care, they could have passed some pro-gay legislation.
Maybe they are right! Life would be much easier if I just give up!
@Pokeinthenose – I don’t know that educating people on the purpose of the Constitution is going to do much good either. As far as I know, the strict separation of church and state, 1st amendment and the civil rights movements are still taught in every public school yet somehow we end up with a majority of the population thinking it is okay to legislate marriage into law based on its religious definition. The fact is the word ‘marriage ‘ is too loaded in its religious context to have any place in the law anymore. Too many people are unable to separate the religious context of marriage from the legal. What we need is politicians willing to change the term used for defining consensual relationships between adults to something more neutral so that the religious context no longer enters the picture in legal matters regarding how consenting adults choose to be treated for tax purposes, property rights, probate, health care decision, insurance, etc. Although you are quite right that the major issue stems down from flaws at the federal level, that doesn’t mean local representatives get a free pass on this issue. Local representatives can still put pressure on State and Federal lawmakers and pass city policy that is consistent with equal rights.
Alex: It will be a moot point if the amendment is passed. If a city tries to pass its own ordinances contrary to the amendment then their ordanances will be Unconstitutional. That is even a bigger stumbling block than were we see states trying to pass laws that either mirror or go against Federal Law (ex: medical marijuana). Right now the immediate challenge is to see this amendment is not passed and name calling is not going to be an effective strategy.
Pokeinthenose – I promise you I understand the that if it passes then any city policy using the term marriage in a position contrary to the amendment would immediately make that policy unconstitutional and that amendment one needs to be voted down. When I say they should pass policies consistent with equal rights, I mean they should be striking the term marriage altogether from city policy. So as one example, if the city offers a benefit to married couples (as defined by amendment one) and therefore does not extend the same privilege to same-sex couples then it shouldn’t be in the benefits offered to city employees at all! Instead the city should create a policy that uses and defines a more equal term, such as a domestic partnership/civil union and convey certain benefits without any reference to the term marriage. Then any city employee meeting the criteria of a domestic partnership whether same-sex or opposite-sex would receive the same benefits package. Granted, there would still be (and currently is) a significant number of rights that would not be available to same-sex couples and in this example this only helps same-sex couples where at least one is a city emploiyee. But from the viewpoint of what the city council can do this would be a move in the right direction.
I wonder what Thomas Jefferson would say if we told him that we need a license from the government to get married?
Perception is the key to change. “One reporter takes things out of context to flare up dialogue, taking a well intentioned politician as the sacrificial lamb”- that will be my headline as radical as it sounds. A responsable journalist, understands the power of words and the replications to a fragile community. One person takes the lead and the courage to say I m politian that happens to be gay, and some community members expect her to be the one and all changing agent in our city. I challenge the journalist and all the people nooding to this article, to take three minutes at the City Council to ask all of them to be responsable to our constitution and to their voters. No hearsay, no broken telephone, take a stand and DIY!!!