A Principled Decision on Official Proclamations

By Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

My decision not to support an official city proclamation for Pride Month rests on a straightforward constitutional principle. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” As a veteran who swore an oath to the Constitution and as an elected official who renewed that commitment, I am bound to apply this standard consistently. I do not believe local government should issue formal proclamations that single out groups defined by race, color, sex, or sexual orientation for special public recognition. Such actions, however well intentioned, are inconsistent with the principle that government must treat all persons with equal regard under the law.

Personal Inclusivity

Some have suggested that declining the proclamation reveals personal bias. This charge ignores my consistent record. For years I have opened the holiday season by saying, “Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays, or whichever you may choose or none at all.” I adopted this practice because I grew up with family and close friends from many different ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds, a perspective reinforced in the workplace and during my military service. I also maintain close relationships with family members and friends who are part of the LGBTQ+ community. They live their own authentic lives, and I have no interest in interfering with how they choose to live. My goal has always been to extend genuine respect without presuming anyone’s private beliefs or demanding agreement with them. The notion that a traditional greeting or a decision to withhold official identity proclamations exposes hidden prejudice applies selective standards.

Equal Protection Requires Restraint, Not Selective Affirmation

The Fourteenth Amendment does not demand that government remain silent on every topic. It does, however, counsel against official acts that elevate particular identity categories above others. When government issues a proclamation celebrating one group’s self-identified characteristics while remaining silent on parallel requests from others, it risks creating the appearance and the reality of unequal treatment. This is not hostility toward any individual. It is fidelity to the principle that government should not confer symbolic favoritism based on protected characteristics.

Supporters have pointed to a supposed long local tradition. In fact, Pride Month proclamations here began only two years ago. A recent and limited practice does not override the constitutional preference for neutrality. Individuals have every right to live their authentic lives and to celebrate as they see fit through private association and expression. What they do not have is a claim on government to compel public affirmation or to place one set of personal characteristics on a higher official plane than others.

What Neutrality Permits and What It Rejects

This policy does not prohibit all proclamations. I support official recognition for causes that do not turn on race, color, sex, or sexual orientation, such as Veterans appreciation or mental health awareness. These address broad human conditions or civic service rather than identity-based distinctions. Likewise, acknowledging long standing national traditions that have long been part of our civic life remains appropriate when presented in a secular context.

A Consistent Standard for All

If a proposal arrived for an official proclamation honoring any other comparable identity category, the same analysis would apply. Government should not pick winners in the contest of group affirmation. True respect for every resident is shown by maintaining impartiality, not by distributing official endorsements according to current political fashion.

My position is not personal animus. It is a deliberate choice to keep city government focused on equal protection rather than on symbolic division. As a home rule city under Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, Montrose holds authority over local ceremonial matters, and proclamations are discretionary acts within that authority. Residents remain free to celebrate, advocate, and live as they choose. In my view, the city’s role is to serve all of them equally under the Constitution, without favoring any group’s demand for official recognition of its identity. That is the standard I will continue to apply.