Nashville Metro Councilman Jamie Hollin erupted into what some witnesses described as a "cursing fit" and what The Tennessean referred to as a "profanity-laced rant" after two members of Metro Council-one of them State Representative Jim Gotto, who is also a member of the governing body of Nashville and Davidson County-used a procedural maneuver to "kill" a resolution by Hollin honoring high school students who protested House Bill 600-now law as Public Chapter 278-the legislation which nullified Davidson County's so-called anti-discrimination ordinance. That ordinance was specifically targeted at homosexual persons, and the General Assembly balked since the ordinance was not in conformity with State law.
According to reports, Councilman Hollin took his argument with Gotto and Councilman Phil Claibourne to the hallway and then to the parking garage, where he pelted them with expletives that would apparently make a sailor blush with shame, and accused them of objecting to his resolution on biblical grounds. Apparently, in the political universe of Jamie Hollin, one shouldn't take their religious beliefs into account when voting on legislation or other matters, unless perhaps you might agree with Hollin. What the press seems to be underemphisizing is that Councilman Hollin missed the committee meeting that would have advanced his resolution, thus giving its opponents the opportunity under the rules to keep it from coming before the full Council. Rather than accept that his resolution might cause controversy, and that he ought to be prepared to attend any committee meetings related to it to keep it from dying the legislative death, Hollin instead chose to blame others for his dereliction.
It is also clear that Councilman Hollin has taken leave of himself and forgotten exactly what part of the country he lives in. Previous actions of the Nashville/Davidson Metro Council notwithstanding, we can judge by the results of the 2006 marriage referendum that Councilman Hollin holds a minority opinion in this State concerning what protections under the law homosexual persons should have, and if that vote is any indication at all, it is a fringe minority at that.
We have reached a sad state of affairs when it is considered an offense worthy of institutional disruption to object to a proposal of law on moral grounds.
Comments