In my previous posts (part 1 and part 2) I introduced the topic of same-sex marriage as a civil right, discussed how many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) people might actually live in Howard County and how many of them might be living as same-sex couples, and concluded that in this particular context Howard County seemed to have no special claim to being more diverse than the rest of the nation or the rest of the state. In fact, Howard County and Maryland both appear to be below average in terms of the LGBT population and the number of same-sex couples. ...

In my previous post I introduced the topic of same-sex marriage as a civil right, only to digress into a discussion of how many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) people might actually live in Howard County. Now I’ll return to the question of same-sex marriage, starting with an discussion of how many people in Howard County might be candidates for it (or even already married). As I noted previously, the US Census Bureau does not create or publish direct estimates of the LGBT population. However since 1990 the Census Bureau has surveyed the population to determine the number of unmarried partners (in addition to the data that’s always been collected on married couples), and as part of that survey has collected data on the sex of each partner. This data has in turn been used by others to create estimates of the number of same-sex couples as well as the overall LGBT population both nationally and at a state level.1 ...

In this post (actually the next three posts—I do run on so) I continue my focus on how the Columbia vision of tolerance and diversity might translate into Howard County as a whole as it moves further into the 21st century. In a recent post I cited an article on mixed-race couples and multiracial individuals in Columbia. The article notes that when one mixed-race couple moved to Columbia in 1972 the Supreme Court decision striking down prohibitions on interracial marriage in Virginia and several other states was only five years old. In fact that decision, Loving v. Virginia, occurred on June 12, 1967, only a few days before Columbia’s dedication ceremony on June 21. ...

In my previous post I looked at the reality of ethnic diversity in Howard County today, and concluded that Howard County is in fact significantly more diverse than its position as a semi-rural Washington/Baltimore suburb might otherwise predict, and that immigration is likely to be the primary driver of increased diversity in Howard in the 21st century. This would seem to be wholly in the spirit of Columbia’s founding vision, and thus an unadulterated good thing for all concerned. ...

Continuing my series on Howard County in the 21st century, in my next two posts I address the question of ethnic diversity. As described in an article on Columbia published by the News 21 project, promotion of ethnic diversity was part of the Columbia founding vision: “Simply stated, we are “color-blind,”” [Jim Rouse] wrote in a 1967 memo to Columbia developers. “This means that every person or family coming to Columbia to seek a lot, an apartment, a house; to start a business; to play golf, tennis, ride horseback, sail, swim, or use any other facility open to the public will be treated alike regardless of whether the color of his skin is white, black, brown or yellow.” ...

I’m taking a brief break from my series on Howard County in the 21st century to pick up a topic I commented on some time ago at 53 Beers on Tap, namely why does Howard County have an elected school board? I don’t mean, what’s the history behind why school boards exist in their present form; rather I mean, what purpose does it serve to elect a school board, rather than simply having an appointed board or no board at all (i.e., just an appointed school superintendent)? ...

In a previous post I discussed how Howard County and Columbia could be “better suburbs,” not by the standards of the 1960s and 70s but by the standards of today and years to come. In my next few posts in this series I’ll consider whether and how the traditionally heralded Columbia virtues of diversity, tolerance, and inclusivity might translate into 21st century terms. This post addresses economic diversity, i.e., the relative balance between low-income, middle-income, and high-income households, and Howard County’s inclusivity toward families of modest means. ...

Today On Wednesday I had to drive over to drop something off at a co-worker’s house in Kentlands, the “neo-traditional” residential and commercial development in Gaithersburg. (For those interested in traffic, the trip took almost exactly an hour, starting from Oakland Mills Village Center and heading down US 29, around the beltway, and back up I-270.) My visit, short though it was, prompted some thoughts about future development in Howard County. My usual disclaimer applies: These are not the opinions of a trained professional, just those of an ordinary person who might be a visitor to or even resident of future developments. ...

I’m still working on the next blog post in my “Howard County in the 21st century” series. In the meantime I thought I’d take a break and revisit the proposed Taxpayer Protection Initiative to require a supermajority vote for the Howard County council to raise taxes. First, noted without comment, from a blog post by Wordbones about his attending a fundraiser for Dennis Schrader: There were also people at the event enlisting signatures for the petition drive to put the Taxpayer Protection Initiative on the ballot this fall. The [Republican] party faithful I spoke with last night were somewhat divided on the wisdom of this effort. ...

In a recent post I opined that three things made Columbia (and by extension Howard County) the kind of place it was and (to a greater or lesser degree) still is: It was a “better suburb,” relative to other suburbs. It had a more socially diverse and inclusive environment, again relative to other suburbs. It had a prosperous economy driven by steadily growing government spending. No sooner had I done that post than the Columbia 2.0 blog quoted Jim Rouse on the first goal of Columbia: ““To provide a real City—not just a better suburb” [emphasis added]. It was as if Rouse himself had risen from the grave to contradict me. (And wildelakemike further reinforced the point in his comment on my post.) ...