Daly Fondles Scepter of Purity: Plans to Ban City Hall Romance in Tuesday's BoS
Have you ever noticed that the further progressive politicians go to the left, they eventually cross a line in the space-time continuum and all of a sudden they find themselves on the far right?
That’s apparently what happened to Supervisor Chris Daly, who has been promoting a couple of anti-sin ordinances that could have been taken out of Savonarola’s playbook.
Daly wants the Board of Supervisors Tuesday to outlaw consensual sex between city department managers and the employees who work … err … under them. And it’s not just sex: Daly would also make romantic sentiment grounds for disciplinary action and possible termination, unless of course, any romantic feelings or hormonal urges are reported toot sweet to the Human Resources Department.
Daly reasons an ardor-free workplace is a more efficient, ethical, and potentially less litigious workplace. Therefore “marriage, domestic partnerships, and cohabitation that includes physical intimacy” between employees and their bosses would be verboten.
Daly’s ordinance somehow feels … I mean, seems out of place in San Francisco. The city was, after all, the spiritual homeland of the sexual revolution in the 1960s and the gay liberation movement in the following decade. In fact, the City Attorney’s Office couldn’t remember the last time an ordinance was approved that restricted sex between consenting adults that didn’t involve prostitution.
Daly, who has also been touting a new city policy that would restrict alcohol and drug use among elected officials, may be using the proposed ordinances to indirectly spite Mayor Gavin Newsom, who was busted for having an affair with his campaign manager’s wife, which led to a public confession about a drinking problem.
In any case, Daly would only have to call for mandatory prayer at city meetings to his crusade and he’d have a dandy campaign platform … in most red states.
Oh, by the way, Daly’s ordinance defines sex as “physical intimacy involving the sexual organ(s) or sexual gratification of either participant.” If you read the legal description closely, you’ll notice it only applies to one-on-one sex and doesn’t include threesomes and up. … Yeah, baby, yeah.
For more government stories, check out our weekly feature SFGovernmentInAction.