Jump to content
The factor that has gone awry is the responsibility of the father. Marriage was, more than anything else, a requirement for the husband to provide for the wife and children, a commitment he could not forsake. I support a re-institution of paternal responsibility, one which even a single mother cannot reject without due process and compelling circumstances. The child has a biological mother and father, and is entitled by its natural rights to the support of both, and unless in exceptional circumstance to have access to the nurture of both.
I should probably stay out of this one but oh well here goes.
There is something beyond the old conventional religious positions that comes into consideration in defining marriage. There is the Natural Order, a fundament that is cherished by many who eschew anything having to do with Biblical tenets.
It is clear to any observer that the Family, consisting of a mother and father together with their children is the basic unit of human existence. The human race as it has evolved will not be continued if that Order is not maintained.
Marriage was enshrined and sanctified in recognition of that Natural Principal, for the protection of the Family, to require a permanent commitment in order to procreate (or even to engage in sanctioned sexual relations).
It is also clear to any observer that human sexuality was intended (by Evolution, Nature, God, Gaia, or whatever you wish to call the Creative Force) to have its function as a reproductive and bonding mechanism. Sexuality in nearly every other multicellular species on Earth follows the same basic pattern of the male and female uniting their genetic components. It is the Natural Order.
That said, there is plenty of basis for sexual inclination to follow paths that will not lead to procreation, no harm no foul as long as there is enough of the "Right Kind" of sexual intercourse. And people whose inclination is to pair bond (or menage a trios?) with another of the same gender should have a right to do so.
Perhaps all it needs is a different name to satisfy the wish to protect the oldest and most basic human relationship. Let us come up with a differentiation in naming that will still not deprive those with unconventional sexual attractions from enjoying a legally recognized status. I propose" Traditional Marriage", or "Conventional Marriage for the old institution, and "Alternative Pair Bond" or "Legal Life Partner" for the new variety. Each would have identical legal ramifications, and when applying for a license the clerk just asks, Regular or Alternative?
How about a (brief?) report from each department head at each council meeting? "Touch base" regularly with the citizens representatives? Seems like something like that has been part of procedure in the past. Even if it was simply that "all business was strictly routine maintenance this week, no plans for future changes were under consideration", that would be worth hearing.
Minor items such as "we mowed the lawns in all the parks this week" could be passed over of course, but "we are negotiating for purchase of new snowplows and buses" should not. And something like We are negotiating with Triple Crown" or "we are considering cuts in bus service" should be always prominent in the council's (and public's) awareness.
Letting so much of the city business pass through the filter of the city managers office has potential for keeping matters of public concern unreported.
Tell us Scott Ford, if you please, what was the upshot of that briefing?
And regarding these walking tours of the city streets, make an announcement, invite the public, schedule several times so various council can fit it in their schedules.
There is little difference in the amount of staff time needed, maybe less since three or more council may then attend. The only drawback for staff is scheduling, waiting for proper notice.
The disadvantage is that staff or council may feel constrained in what they say based on the presence of a member of the public or press. I saw our planning director, a city engineer and two council on tour at Oak and eighth yesterday. If I was not shuttling kids around I would have asked to join the tour. Would the group have had the right to decline? Would it have been inappropriate for a mere citizen to ask to listen in?
In an email to council members, City Manager Deb Hinsvark wrote that "unfortunately, the safest harbor for the city related to ongoing, touch-base meetings with our parks and community services director is simply not to have them."
Perhaps simply not have them" privately" is what she meant. "Touch base" meetings can easily be had at council meetings, Agenda Item: Brief report by Parks Dept re Triple Crown contract negotiations. I'll bet numerous people would attend for that item alone.
Thank you again to Scott and Sonja for maintaining transparency.
Thought I had added my comment last night, did it get deleted or did I forget to hit "post"?
Kudos to the committee, and thanks. Please press forward with the recommendation that other public safety facilities from Yampa Street be brought along, that is much of the reason for this effort.
The purchase of the neighboring lot and incorporation of garage bays under a embankment style facility makes good sense. If we do not acquire that property now we will regret it in the near future.
The growth of this community will clearly be west of town. Within the projected life of this facility it may be near the population center. The growing need for fire and ambulance on that side of town is apparent, and would be well addressed in this effort.
I'm with Steve Lewis on this one, a river feature creating a wave and a pool with a beach, and definitely restrooms using the existing water and sewer taps. Some benches and a picnic table or two where we oldsters can sit and watch the kids playing in the water. The point of this purchase was to obtain river frontage, lets focus on that natural attribute.
I remember after the election of 1960, my third grade teacher took down the picture of losing candidate Richard Nixon and said, "we can forget about him now".
OK Scott, give us the real story. Take the average traditional vehicle, ton/miles per gallon (or GGE, gasoline gallon equivalent for natural gas), and compare it to ton/miles per KWH, then calculate losses in transmission and conversion, charging, etc. Will an electric vehicle move a ton further on the same amount of fuel?
We can mkle the comparison between the most modern gas/electric generating plants and the most efficient internal combustion engines. trying to compare coal and gasoline gets unnecessarily complicated. (And in all likelihood there will be far fewer coal plants and gasoline engines a few decades from now.)
Last login: Saturday, May 16, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.