Crosswalk controversy

How is a rainbow crosswalk all-inclusive if it creates controversy?

It is apparent that another local politician needs to brush up on his doublespeak. In the July 9 paper, we read that Mayor Jim Garlick is glad that a rainbow crosswalk is due to be painted at Kal Beach. He is quoted as saying that council agreed that “it’s inclusive for all.” If it is inclusive for all, why then is he next quoted as saying, “I’m sure there will be some controversy over it”? How can something inclusive for all possibly have any controversy? If he is absolutely certain of doing something that will be controversial, what is his goal in creating controversy? In what way is it “inclusive for all” if it is known that it stirs up controversy?

Perhaps the mayor and council is referring to a desire to include more people in controversies, as though he doesn’t see enough controversy in the world.

Mark Sladen, Vernon