The Clarendon City Council exhibited great courage last Thursday, May 9, when it unanimously rejected a proposed ordinance from an out-of-town political activist.
& Editor
Abortion is illegal in Clarendon, Texas. That didn’t change just because the council said “no” to the “Sanctuary City for the Unborn” ordinance. The State of Texas has one of the most restrictive laws against abortion in the nation, and no action of any city council is going to change that. And yet activist Mark Lee Dickson would have you think that “pro-aborts” won the day last week and that our beloved Saints’ Roost has lost its way. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Clarendon has been, is, and will be one of the most conservative communities you’ll ever find. Conservative candidates overwhelmingly win state and national elections here, and Christianity has been the dominate religion since the town’s founding. People are not all in lock step on their opinions though. We have about 23 churches at last count, which should tell you something. And as difficult as it may be for some to believe, not everyone in this community is a Christian, which is their right as Americans.
Clarendon is about neighbors loving each other and rallying around those in need. We may disagree on local issues from time to time, but that’s our own business. Never in my 29 years covering our community do I recall seeing someone from out of town bring trouble to our community for their own political gain. And then Mark Lee Dickson came to town.
Dickson has bounced around Texas getting dozens of cities to pass his “Sanctuary City” ordinance. He finds fertile ground because people are pro-life and presumably think that being a “Sanctuary City” is a keen idea. But in Clarendon he found people who actually read his 17-page ordinance and didn’t like it. Some don’t like it because they are pro-choice, others are pro-life but think the ordinance goes way too far (encouraging civil suits and providing for no exceptions for rape or incest in its abortion ban), and many find the idea just irrelevant because state law trumps city law. But a lot of people, including the great majority of social media comments, do not like the Sanctuary ordinance because of the division and emotions it’s bringing to our community.
About 80 people attended last week’s city council meeting. Thirty-one spoke in open comments with slightly more speaking in favor of the bill than against it, 18-13 by our count. City officials announced that of those who registered their opinion when they arrived at the meeting, 39 supported the measure and 31 opposed it.
To read Dickson’s comments, you would think that the city council should find itself obligated to appease the majority of speakers. They are not; they are duty-bound to make decisions in the best interest of the entire community. Dickson would also have you believe that the city council “was prevented” from hearing a lengthy explanation of his ordinance. The fact that they don’t want to hear this guy drone on about something they are fully capable of reading for themselves does not mean they were “denied” anything. Dickson also claims the council “ignored” letters signed by some state legislators and officials from other cities encouraging them to support the ordinance. The Clarendon City Council, however, does not represent those people, and what the Mayor of Odessa or another outside official thinks, is irrelevant. In fact, many of the speakers last Thursday were not residents of the City of Clarendon or even from Donley County. And then most laughable, the false prophet would have you believe that his proposal failed because of a coordinated effort by one alderman – Eulaine McIntosh.
Dickson has made McIntosh a target on social media for her political views and the sources she contacted in researching this proposed ordinance. Dickson talks about needing a change in leadership, and that’s his modus operandi when a community won’t give him what he wants. He starts agitating for “new leadership” that aligns with his “values.” In other words, he knows better than we do who should be on our city council. Screw that.
Mrs. McIntosh is a valued member of this community and has lived here for several years. She volunteers her time with several organizations to make our town better, and she has faithfully carried out her duties as a city alderman. Her personal political beliefs are hers, and she is entitled to them. They do not in any way prevent her from doing what is best for Clarendon. Mrs. McIntosh was the first of the council to speak against the Dickson ordinance last week, but she was not the spokesman for the city council. Two other aldermen – Tommy Hill and Terri Floyd – labeled themselves as pro-life and spoke just as forcefully against the sanctuary bill.
After the council unanimously voted “no” – not just to table or take no action, but actually said “no” – the Dickson circus moved outside. Only 15 citizens remained in the Mulkey Theatre to watch as the city council dealt with issues we actually elected them to handle – a park curfew to curtail vandalism, the city’s representation on the Greenbelt Water board, staffing of the library, setting charges at the recycling center, and reports on the aquatic center, the fire department, street improvements, and more.
Common sense, decency, and Christian love won the day with last Thursday’s vote. But Dickson isn’t giving up on trying to add Clarendon to his sanctuary totem pole. His supporters need to step back and take a long hard look at what he’s doing. It’s fine to be pro-life or even anti-abortion. Those are valid positions. But again, state law already makes abortion illegal. Not one baby would be saved by this city ordinance. Not one pregnant mother would be helped. The “sanctuary” label might give some people the warm fuzzies for “taking a stand,” but in reality, all it would be is just another rung on the political ladder for a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Meanwhile…
One of Mark Lee Dickson’s followers – Jacob Meyer of the Amarillo Area Young Republicans – took his time at the microphone last Thursday to do what many political hacks do – attack the media. He criticized last week’s editorial for saying that our local elections are nonpartisan. This guy claims that all elections are partisan and ridiculed the Enterprise for thinking otherwise.
While some activists are trying to inject partisan politics into local city councils and school boards, the fact is that these are nonpartisan elections. In other words, you don’t sign up to run as a Republican or a Democrat, and candidates therefore are not beholden to a party platform when making decisions about local issues. We elected our city council to do what’s right for our community, not what’s right for some political party. That’s a fact, Jack, and don’t come to our town trying to make trouble where there isn’t any.
Reader Comments