Boise and Salt Lake City Sidestep Pride Flag Bans with Official Designations
In a move signaling defiance against recent legislative efforts to restrict the display of LGBTQ+ symbols, city leaders in Boise, Idaho, and Salt Lake City, Utah, have strategically adopted new official city flags, including the rainbow pride flag. This maneuver effectively circumvents state laws that prohibit the display of unofficial flags on government properties, laws widely interpreted as targeting pride flags and other symbols of inclusivity.
The legislative landscape in both states shifted earlier this year with the passage of bills spearheaded by Republican-majority legislatures. These laws, enacted in Utah and Idaho, imposed limitations on the types of flags permitted to be flown on government-owned land, effectively banning the display of pride flags, Black Lives Matter flags, and potentially other flags deemed to represent specific ideologies or groups. The justification often cited by proponents of these measures was the desire to maintain neutrality and avoid the appearance of government endorsement of particular causes.
However, critics argued that the laws were discriminatory and aimed at marginalizing LGBTQ+ individuals and communities. They contended that pride flags represent a message of acceptance, equality, and support for a historically marginalized group, and that their removal from public spaces would send a chilling message of exclusion.
In response to these restrictions, Boise and Salt Lake City have taken a proactive stance. Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall and city council members introduced and adopted three new city flags, including a rainbow pride flag, a flag recognizing Juneteenth, and a transgender visibility flag. The move, according to a city news release, was intended to “most accurately reflect the values of the city and its residents.”
Boise City Council followed suit, designating the rainbow pride flag as an official city flag. This strategic decision mirrors Salt Lake City’s approach, allowing the flag to be displayed on government property as an officially sanctioned symbol of the city. Boise also added a flag promoting organ donation to its official collection of city flags.
Mayor Mendenhall of Salt Lake City, a Democrat, emphasized the significance of these flags, stating, “Our city flags are powerful symbols representing Salt Lake City’s values. I want all Salt Lakers to look up at these flags and be reminded that we value diversity, equity, and inclusion − leaving no doubt that we are united as a city and people, moving forward together.”
The decision by Boise and Salt Lake City to embrace these new flags represents a bold assertion of local autonomy and a commitment to inclusivity in the face of state-level restrictions. It highlights the growing divide between urban centers, which often embrace more progressive values, and state legislatures, which may be more conservative.
Utah’s law, which went into effect on March 27, specifically restricts government agencies and public schools from displaying flags on public property unless they are explicitly named in the bill. The list of approved flags includes the American flag, the state flag, city flags, flags of other countries and states, military flags, and flags of universities and public schools. Republican Gov. Spencer Cox allowed the bill to become law without his signature, signaling a level of discomfort with the legislation but also a reluctance to veto it.
Idaho’s law, signed into law by Republican Gov. Brad Little on April 4, imposes similar bans and exemptions. The law prompted concerns and criticisms from city leaders and advocates for inclusivity.
Boise Mayor Lauren McLean released a statement expressing her concerns about the Idaho flag bill, stating that it created “division, confusion, and conflicts” in the capital city and across the state. She affirmed the city’s commitment to displaying flags that represent the community and its values. “The City of Boise will continue to fly the flags on City Hall Plaza that represent our community and speak to our values of caring for people and welcoming all,” McLean said. “This resolution formalizes which flags are considered the official flags of our city.”
The actions taken by Boise and Salt Lake City have been met with both praise and criticism. Supporters have lauded the cities for standing up for their values and sending a message of inclusion to LGBTQ+ residents and visitors. Critics, on the other hand, have accused the cities of playing political games and undermining the intent of the state laws.
The legal implications of these moves remain to be seen. It is possible that legal challenges could be filed, arguing that the cities are circumventing the spirit of the state laws. However, the cities are likely to argue that they are simply exercising their right to determine which flags represent their official identity.
The controversy over flag displays highlights the ongoing cultural and political battles surrounding LGBTQ+ rights in the United States. While progress has been made in recent years, with increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage and greater visibility of LGBTQ+ individuals in mainstream society, there remains significant resistance in some quarters. The debate over flag displays is just one manifestation of these tensions.
Ultimately, the actions taken by Boise and Salt Lake City underscore the importance of local governments in shaping the social and political landscape. By taking a stand on issues of inclusivity and diversity, these cities are sending a powerful message to their residents and to the nation as a whole. The decisions made in these cities are likely to inspire other municipalities to consider similar actions, further complicating the debate over flag displays and the role of government in promoting inclusivity. These actions demonstrate the power of local government to create a more welcoming and inclusive environment for all residents, even in the face of state-level opposition. They also serve as a reminder that the fight for LGBTQ+ rights is far from over and that ongoing vigilance and advocacy are needed to ensure that all individuals are treated with dignity and respect.
