In 2022, the Town Council, under a Democratic majority, approved a policy allowing Pride flags to be displayed at Town Hall during Pride Month in June. After retaking the majority in 2024, Republicans passed an ordinance banning all non-government flags from government buildings.
After forming a Charter Revision Commission, its chair, Mayor Ken Nelson, sought to include what amounts to a permanent Pride Flag ban in the town charter.
Changing the town charter requires voter approval through a referendum. If voters approve the measure, future councils must follow the rule unless a new referendum overturns it.
Mayor Nelson has been the strongest advocate for putting this on the ballot. "Can the town buildings be used to push a personal ideology on the residents of Enfield?" he asked at the Commission's final meeting. "It is a political issue—it's not our billboard."
Last week, the Charter Commission deadlocked the proposal in a 5–5 vote—an automatic defeat.
Under Connecticut law, that should have ended the matter. Rejected proposals are not supposed to appear in the final charter report, and the Town Council cannot unilaterally add them to the November ballot if the Commission didn't adopt them.
But my understanding is the next step is an open question, and I imagine that the town will conduct legal research to determine what's possible. I respect Mayor Nelson's passion for this issue. But if this isn't a dead issue, it's worth considering what a Pride Flag referendum would mean—and why it should not go forward.
A referendum like this will be seen by many as a public vote on Enfield's acceptance of its LGBTQ+ community. Even if some Council Republicans dismiss that perception, they should think twice about how it could damage Enfield's reputation—and its ability to grow and prosper.
Here are eight reasons to let this issue go:
1 — This Is Not About Veterans
It's unclear why this issue is getting framed around veterans and respect for the American flag vs. LGBTQ+. The Pride Flag didn't replace any other flag at Town Hall. As a veteran, I respect the voices heard at the recent public hearing, but I struggle to understand the connection.
The military discharged tens of thousands of LGBTQ+ service members under discriminatory policies. Many served with distinction. That injustice only officially ended in 2011.
Flying the Pride Flag doesn't diminish veterans—it honors those who served while being denied dignity.
Why the Pride Flag? Because LGBTQ+ people have faced exclusion. Flying it signals that Enfield is a place where everyone is welcome. That's all this is about.
2 — This Will Hurt the Town's Reputation
A referendum to ban the Pride Flag could brand Enfield as a place that values exclusion over inclusion. It risks making headlines for the wrong reasons.
Younger generations want to live in communities that reflect their values—openness, diversity, and progress. This referendum sends the opposite message.
Whether or not that's the intent, perception matters—and it will shape how people see Enfield for years.
3 — This Could Undermine Enfield's Economic Development
Enfield isn't just a town—it's a brand.
We've historically attracted major companies like LEGO, MassMutual, and Eppendorf because they viewed us as well-managed and forward-looking.
Today, businesses and site consultants also look closely at a town's values when deciding where to invest. Inclusive communities are better positioned to attract diverse talent. It's mainstream business practice.
When Costco's DEI policies were challenged in January, the board stood firm: "Our commitment to an enterprise rooted in respect and inclusion is appropriate and necessary."
Would Enfield still meet that standard?
With revaluation shifting the tax burden onto residents, we need commercial growth. How does this referendum help us attract investment? It likely won't.
4 — It Risks Stirring Division and Hostility
History teaches us that exclusionary rhetoric can fuel regrettable behavior.
As a newspaper reporter in the 1980s, I covered some of the KKK activity in Connecticut. In Enfield's history, records show at least two—and possibly three—cross-burnings aimed at Black residents between 1979 and 1980, often carried out by teenagers likely emboldened by adult views. How will this affect our schools?
Following the 2016 and 2020 elections, the FBI reported
significant spikes in hate crimes nationwide. After the 2022 Club Q shooting in Colorado Springs, investigators concluded that anti-LGBTQ+
rhetoric had contributed to an environment where such violence became more likely.
Enfield's Town Council is well within its rights to discuss a flag policy. Many towns have. But a referendum—one that risks inflaming community-wide passions and tensions—is something else entirely.
We don't want to go there.
5 — There's No Legal or Practical Reason for a Charter Ban
Towns across Connecticut—Wethersfield, Hartford, East Hartford—fly the Pride Flag without legal issues.
So why add a ban to Enfield's charter? This charter change isn't about legality—it's about one party trying to permanently impose its ideology on the town.
Future councils should retain the ability to consider this issue in their time, with advice from legal counsel. They deserve the same deliberative power this Republican majority council has now.
6 — This Isn't About Risk Management
When Sarah Hernandez, a deaf and autistic woman, was elected to the school board in 2017, she asked for accommodations. The Republican-led town government refused.
She sued and won in federal court. Enfield may now be
liable for over $1 million in legal fees.
So when Republican leaders say a Pride Flag ban is needed to reduce legal risk, remember: they ignored real legal risk when it mattered.
Their failure to accommodate Ms. Hernandez didn't appear malicious but resulted from leadership mistakes and stubbornness. However, that judgment may no longer stand if the Council proceeds with this referendum.
7 — Are Republicans Putting Party Before Community?
The push for this referendum may be more political than principled.
In 2021, after passing a budget with no tax hike, voters soundly defeated local Republicans at the polls. In a typical year, they should have coasted to re-election and kept their council majority. But this election followed January 6, when frustration with national Republicans may have spilled into local races.
With economic uncertainty ahead, this referendum could be a calculated distraction—a way to shift the conversation, rally the base, and change the subject from local governance to culture wars.
If so, that's not leadership. That's opportunism.
8 — Imagining Two Futures for Enfield
If Enfield Republicans find a way to push through a Pride Flag referendum, I imagine some lawns will fly Pride Flags, others will fly American Flags, and many will fly both side by side. That's who we are.
Still, no matter how the vote turns out, the vote may damage Enfield's reputation. Our appeal as a place to live, work, and do business will take a hit. No one truly wins with this kind of referendum.
The second future—the one I hope for—is simpler: the referendum never happens. No one sues the town because the Council didn't force this question onto the ballot. We move forward and focus on good governance—not culture war battles.
At the close of the Commission's final meeting, Charter Revision Commissioner Zach Zannoni appealed for unity. He didn't mention the Pride Flag but didn't need to. He emphasized that the charter revision should reflect the whole town and bridge political divides. While commissioners didn't get everything they wanted, they reached compromises they could live with.
"It's in the best interest of the town to put forward a document that we as a town can be as unified on as possible," Zannoni said.
Mayor Nelson dismissed his comments as "political speech."
But Zannoni wasn't being political. He said something essential to Enfield's future: we need pathways that unify—not divide—if we want to succeed as a community.
Comments
Post a Comment