The legislative leadership would like to move the start of the legislative session so that it doesn't begin on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Now this raises, for me, a thought about the idealogical divide separating conservative thinkers, from liberal ones.
Conservatives are, generally, most concerned that government address issues that strike at all people. Liberals take an added interest in the well being of minorities. For them, the government is the individual. They draw no distinguishing line between the activities of the government, and individual acts. To a liberal, the impact of government actions are felt, most keenly, by the minorities. Broad, overarching, concerns, are considered less important to solve than small issues. To a liberal, present dangers have decidedly less emphasis than far distant dangers. For reference compare 'global warming', which will have its greatest impact-all evidences being equal--years hence; to our economic dependence upon oil--a concern right now. Our economic vitality was a concern, cited by the U.S. administration, leading to our rejection of the Kyoto accord.
Now back to the start of the legislative session which is written into Utah's constitution. KSL reports that there are one million residents of Utah that are black. This is not to say that there are one million critics of the start day of the Utah legislature. It does not follow from being a member of the black race, that one will take offense at MLK sharing the day with the legislature. In fact, we can't, say that King himself would be offended at the collision of the two days. I would think that the very existence of such a constitutional activity would have cheered King. We, also, might just find more significance in Kings life if we mark the passage of another session of the legislature alongside Kings memorial.
Then again, we might want King to have his own day, which is why I support a vote of the people.
Let the majority decide.