Dear George and fellow Democrats,

I enter the the discussion on Council candidates "taking stands" on sodomy laws, capital punishment and so on with some puzzlement, and frankly, dismay. Surely it relevant for a voter to know what his representative believes on important issues of public policy -- even if that representative will not have the power to decide on that issue. When many of opposed the Vietnam War, and many local representative and city councils passed resolutions about it, they obviously did not have the power to end the war. When state legislatures, city councils, and university faculties voted to urge divestiture from companies that did business in South Africa during the period of apartheid they obvious did not hold controlling power over the white regime in Pretoria. Our own incomplete struggle for civil rights in this country relied on people taking stands even if they lacked 'controlling legal authority.'

Why did all these people and non-controlling groups act nonetheless? Because they thought this was an important matter of political and moral conviction, and they understood that such actions help to create movement for change among those who do have the power.

The sodomy laws of Virginia are anachronistic and are selectively applied in a discriminatory way. Twenty-six states plus DC have abolished such laws by legislative action; another nine states, including Georgia, have had their courts invalidate these laws. Virginia is among only nine other states that outlaw "sodomy" for both same-sex and opposite sex-partners. I wonder how many people realize that they are very likely breaking this law when they make love even in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Probably very few, because they are not among the minority against whom these laws are applied in a discriminatory way.

We choose representatives at every level of government for many reasons, but their beliefs about human rights clearly count high among such reasons. These beliefs show how they will approach many other important issues over which they may indeed have control. Moreover, the City Council can, and routinely does, legitimately pass resolutions indicating its position on pending legislation. A bill to repeal the Virginia sodomy law (and at the same time to increase penalties for sex acts in public) was introduced in this current session, and Mitch Van Yahres, typically and forthrightly, supported it. Public, on-the-record, support from other elected bodies can be important in the fate of legislation. Thus even if some of us are "uncomfortable" about asking city councilors to be a "voice of conscience" for the community, it is by no means unusual for a City Council to express the views of the community, as it understands them, on important issues, especially when legislation is pending. And many of us will wish to elect councillors who, rather than evading difficult "matters over which they have no control", choose instead to take a forthright -- and perhaps even courageous -- stand on such issues.

Thus I was proud that our City Council passed a resolution supporting a moratorium on the death penalty. And in fact I believe this action was cited by many opponents of capital punishment as evidence of growing disquiet with it. Of course Charlottesville cannot end this injustice on its own, but it can raise its voice with courage and conviction.

Personally, I will never support someone who tells me "I won't answer that question: it's not a matter over which I have control." That evasive path leads, at best, to expediency, and as we may learn from history, to far worse. I hope we will not walk down that way.

Michael Smith (electronic mail, February 14, 2002)