Should Your City Council Pass a Resolution to Support Gay Marriage?

Atlanta's mayor Kasim Reed became the latest mayor to throw his support behind marriage equality for same-sex couples. Should your mayor and city council do the same?

The city of Atlanta recently passed a resolution in support of marriage equality for same-sex couples. The move is largely symbolic, as same-sex marriage still remains banned in Georgia.

And, on Nov. 11, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed threw his name behind those in support of gay marriage, as well.

Earlier this year, Reed was still struggling with what he wanted to do about the very controversial issue. At the time he was quoted in The Ga Voice as saying:

"While I am still wrestling with my own personal beliefs on the issue of marriage, I deeply appreciate the contributions gays and lesbians make to our city every single day and I remain committed to Atlanta’s vibrant and diverse LGBT community."

Reed's support comes after President Barack Obama and the NAACP came out in support of same-sex marriage.

Now, Reed's name, along with the names of two other Georgia mayors, is listed on the Mayors for Freedom to Marry campaign website.

The other Georgia mayors are East Point's Earnestine Pittman and Kathie deNobriga, who is the openly lesbian mayor of tiny Pine Lake, near Stone Mountain.

As of Nov. 11, 291 mayors from 32 states have signed a statement in support of this effort, according to the Freedom to Marry site.

Should your mayor also sign a statement of support? Should your city council pass a resolution in support of marriage equality? Let us know in the comment section.

Dave Norling December 14, 2012 at 01:27 AM
Yes, Michelle, Jesus died for our sins and we are forgiven but I thought He wants us to repent, not continue living in sin. God punished His chosen people of Israel and I have no doubt that God's anger can come down on our society too if we don't repent!
jim armstrong December 14, 2012 at 08:58 AM
Government is meant to govern, not rule. "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.." is what prosperous and comfortable means. When a government at any level makes the citizenry less prosperous and less comfortable, thats not governing, that's ruling.
Racer X December 14, 2012 at 01:16 PM
Gail- Don't kid yourself, this is about votes, nothing more. All politicians worry about since the day they are elected is getting re-elected. I do admire your rose-colored glasses though, wish I had a pair, my life would be much easier.
Racer X December 14, 2012 at 01:17 PM
Great post.
Racer X December 14, 2012 at 01:20 PM
It's a should be a non-issue for the government. It's non of their business either way. It's JUST a way to get votes and make more money.
Racer X December 14, 2012 at 01:21 PM
They should neither deny them OR support them. It is none of the government's business.
Racer X December 14, 2012 at 01:23 PM
Jeffrey- You are EXACTLY right.
Racer X December 14, 2012 at 01:25 PM
We all sin, but that doesn't make it ok.
Grant December 14, 2012 at 01:35 PM
What difference does it make what it's called NGW? Call it "hippopotamus " if it somehow makes you feel better but it's still marriage.. The whole " call it something else" idea is just silly
Grant December 14, 2012 at 01:39 PM
Hey Dave, Here's a news flash for you . Many people dont believe in your holy book and are not required to live by it's tenants. YOU can choose to do so if you wish but the government is strictly prohibited from forcing the rest of us to do so . So , thanks and have a nice day
Grant December 14, 2012 at 01:40 PM
J D , Your Christian beliefs do not apply to other people . By all means folow them as you so choose but you have no right to foist them on others any more than the Muslim guy at can force your wife to wear a Burkha.
Jeffrey Allen December 14, 2012 at 03:23 PM
So, basically Mayor Reed succeeded in diverting attention away from city issues by needlessly engaging in a hot button social issue that the city government can have no effect on. Proof on the pudding...this thread. The city council of Atlanta just gave themselves a fat 50% raise. Then they committed $50,000,000.00 to a new some stadium that we don't need. The question here about a pointless resolution that the city passed to divert attention from real issues that the city should address. I'd there a conversation to be had on SSM? Sure there is. Just not in the council chambers on an entity that can't do anything about it. And especially when weighty matters that do affect the city's bottom get ignored in lue of it...
Grant December 14, 2012 at 03:50 PM
I'd guess there are a lot of folks that dont see this as pointless Jeff... Sure , no doubt there is some pandering here , typical politics...Would you care for me to point out similar "pointless" examples from the other side? A non binding resolution in support of freedom isnt one I'm gonna take issue with nor does it require us to ignore other completely unrelated issues no matter how unimportant one might find it . Meanwhile our own "smaller government conservative" rep in the gold dome is working on legislation regarding automotive window tint.
Good Grief Y'all December 14, 2012 at 06:07 PM
Right, government has to get involved to undo what government has done. Otherwise, status quo.
Jeffrey Allen December 14, 2012 at 06:47 PM
well, of course you want to pull some.pointlessness from the other side! Lets help Reed hide whats really going on even more while we talk about a topic that has nothing to do with the business of Atlanta. But please...by all means, lets have some examples of what those evil Republicans in Atlanta's city government are doing... Hello....there is nothing that the city of Atlanta can do to affect this issue one way or the other, rendering it a pointless waste of time in city council chambers and serving to divert attention from whats really going on. like, the fact that these clowns who furlough public safety and other employees just voted themselves a fat raise. Why wouldn't they want to change the subject, divert attention to something he can't do anything about, other than jump on a bandwagon and hope that this is what they remember come reelection time, not the fiscal irrersposability. And because he's talking about one of your champion causes, I guess it's just ok. Your answer it to join the diversion by dredging out more crap unrelated to the fiscal issues of the city of Atlanta. Brilliant. I dont expect any sort of objectivity from you, but you've been duped. Not just you, but everyone one both sides here. You're talking about what he wants you to talk about while they waste money while nobody is looking at the real issues. Part of being duped is getting caught up into not realizing you've been duped.
Grant December 14, 2012 at 07:06 PM
Ahhh there it is ... Everyone has been duped! We're all completely fooled ! Fortunately we have the mighty Jeffro to point out the error of our ways!! Horsepuckey Really Jeff, get over yourself .No one has been duped here ,pretty sure that a 15 minute non binding resolution passed at the behest of a council member (not the mayor as you erroneously imply) is not some part of some tinfoil hatted conspiracy to cause the other actions of the government to become invisible I get that you think it pointless due to your extreme indifference on the matter. Might I suggest you read some other articles on the topic ? Many of those who actually have some skin in the game dont share your opinion. http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/atlanta-mayor-announces-his-support-of-gay-marriag/nTSpZ/
Jeffrey Allen December 14, 2012 at 07:21 PM
My position on the matter is clear, and ill thank you not to paint it any other way. Read. Dont assume. My point is that this has obviously diverted attention from matters the city does have jurisdiction over. That fact is self evident, and you not realizing (well, refusing to admit it now that its neen pointed out, anyways) serves to prove rhe point. I have no problem with anyone weighing in a personal opinion, as Reed did with a local magazine. Thats fine,but the point where it males headlines as city business? No. I would feel the same way if it were something i supported that a local body gad no effect on. I'd be looking for what they didnt want me to see. In this case, it wasn't difficult to spot. PS...im not againt SAM... you knew that, yet as usual you.chose the broadstroke. Typical
Grant December 14, 2012 at 07:35 PM
Readiing issues again Jeff? I know your stance and made no attempt to paint it otherwise..As I recall you have stated that you werent against it but you wouldnt actively support it . I define that as "indifference" and thats the word I used...Please clarify if necessary! You may be unfamiliar with the way City Government works. I'd suggest attending a local council meeting . Generally there are a great many issues in play at the same time. Quite often ,City governments pass non binding resolutions ,award honors to civic groups and recognize outstanding citizens and the like . Happens all the time even at our local Council meetings . I myself have even been recognized at such a meeting ! I'm quite certain that moment was NOT intended to somehow divert attention from the other business of the council . It's actually a function of the government and not an effort to dupe citizens
Jeffrey Allen December 14, 2012 at 07:44 PM
Whatever, man. Spare me the lecture. I know how it works. I just think this is a diversion. It is taking media attention, and is a pander, nothing more than a soundbite for reelection time. and oh, look...its working. "Leta not talk about that pay raise pr that $50,000,000 we wasted on a some! I support gay marriage!" That's all im trying to say. Im not sure why you chose to attack me on this...Surely you can see the truth in what Im actually trying to say, even if you're more interested in trying to spin it into what you want to say. But whatever. I've made my point clear. Carry on...
Grant December 14, 2012 at 07:57 PM
You realize of course that the resolution was proposed by a councilman (not Reed) and all he did was sign it after the council passed it it right? You are also aware that there is a year left on the mayor's term? If indeed it was to generate a "soundbite" one would think he would have timed it better...
George Wilson December 14, 2012 at 08:08 PM
@Jeffery Allen The amount was A. Blank and the Braves would put up $700,000,000 The govt. would put up $300,000,000 The govts's portion would be paid out of the Hotel/Motel tax
George Wilson December 14, 2012 at 08:08 PM
@Jeffery Allen The amount was A. Blank and the Braves would put up $700,000,000 The govt. would put up $300,000,000 The govts's portion would be paid out of the Hotel/Motel tax
Jeffrey Allen December 14, 2012 at 08:13 PM
Maybe you don't understand how.politics work? The resolution was timed to coincide with the pay raise, and the $50 million dome agreement. These things all hit the media at the same time...guess which one we're wasting text on? Yup...the non-binding resolution. The one thing that has exactly zero effect on the business of the city, a feel-good measure designed to grab headlines away from the fact that they just screwed over the taxpayers and workers of Atlanta. The timing was Perfect. Im not attacking the issue of SSM...you are failing to see that...but calling out the slick political moves that used that issue as a red herring. I know how resolutions work...i also know that sometimes they are used as red herrings. As I believe the case is here. that's all. Have a nice day.
Grant December 14, 2012 at 08:43 PM
Wow ... you really think that to be the case dont you .. Just wow.... I think you'll find there there to be PLENTY of ink and discussion devoted to both the pay raise and the stadium proposal. Apparently you might avail yourself of some of that to attain a better understanding of the issue at hand. A little google or a glance at a paper and you would realize both issues have been covered extensively in virtually every media outlet available. As a matter of fact they have received WAY more attention discussion and print than the "non binding resolution" that you are so bothered by ..
Jeffrey Allen December 14, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Yeah, I really do think that local politicians threw a red herring in order to divert attention from other issues. Wow! Where would I get that idea? so why dont you take your condescending lecture and stuff it? I think that talking about issues out of the control of a said government agency, in a formal sense, is a complete waste of time. Had the resolution been to condemn SSM, I would feel the same as I do now, whereas you would most likely agree with me.
Dave Norling December 15, 2012 at 04:11 PM
I pray for all you non-believers. The Founding Fathers of our great country based their beliefs on Christianity, even used a government building as a chruch for Christian sermons. Unfortuanely, our current politicians have conveniently forgotten this for political purposes. Freedom of religion or non-religion is acceptable for all because of our Founding Fathers! God bless!!
Grant December 16, 2012 at 09:28 PM
Dave....you ought to read a book or something so you aren't embarrassing yourself. This country was founded on religious freedom not Christianity and our constitution prevents Jesus freaks from basing laws on their personal superstitions....seriously, read a book.
Ketsha Gay January 04, 2013 at 01:28 AM
That was stupid...because steve and stevie what about jessica and jackie so its not only men its women too. and i think they have every right to marry, like everyone else. And I thank you
Ketsha Gay January 04, 2013 at 01:29 AM
Ketsha Gay January 04, 2013 at 01:30 AM


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something