Three Decisions

This is a comment about three recent and completely unrelated decisions by government entities, two of which allow me to continue to be optimistic about our future, and one of which has me scratching my head and wondering what the decision-maker was thinking.

Earlier this week, the Landmarks Preservation Commission in New York City gave final approval for an office building containing an Islamic community center and mosque in Lower Manhattan. Mayor Bloomberg reminded us yesterday, in a speech that should make us all proud, that our nation was founded on the principle that government may not favor one religion over another or prohibit the free exercise of religion. In may happen in other countries, but we should never allow our government to attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship, based on their own particular religion, on their own private property. If they would allow themselves to be open-minded by listening to people like Mayor Bloomberg, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and others could learn a lot about the Constitution and especially the First Amendment that they claim to hold dear.

And in a decision just announced this afternoon, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California invalidated California's Proposition 8, a referendum passed by voters that banned same-sex marriages. It was an ugly, intolerant, hateful law, and Judge Vaughn Walker (who, incidentally, was nominated by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush) should be applauded for his insight, wisdom, and fairness. Of course the battle is not over; an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals is a certainty, and the case is likely to end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. But bigotry and intolerance have suffered a blow, at least for today.

But then there was the decision made last night by the Chair of the Lower Merion Township Zoning Hearing Board. A news crew from Channel 6 attempted to record a public meeting that was addressing the plans by St. Joseph's University to make improvements to its athletic fields along Latches Lane, but the Chair, with the aid of the police, directed that the camera be removed. Unless the camera was somehow causing a disturbance, and I am not aware of any evidence of that, I believe the Chair's decision is legally suspect. Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act specifically states that recording devices may be used by people attending meetings of public agencies to record all the proceedings. It is important to note that the agency is permitted to establish rules and regulations regarding the conduct of the meeting including, presumably, the use of television cameras, but I seriously doubt that the cameras can be banned outright. It will be interesting to see if Channel 6 challenges the actions of the Zoning Hearing Board and its Chair.

As I stated at the beginning, these three decisions have absolutely nothing to do with each other, unless they can be said to serve as simple examples of how our government and our elected and appointed officials should never be afraid to do the right thing, in the open, in full public view, even if the result may not be universally popular.