On May 18, 2026, the Boonton Town Council considered Ordinance 11-26, formally titled “An Ordinance Amending Section 52-3, Flag Display Policy of the Town Code.” It was a specific amendment to Boonton’s municipal flag policy, not a vague gesture or a hastily written symbolic act. The ordinance would have authorized the town to fly the LGBTQ Pride flag each June at Grace Lord Park. The council approved the measure 5-4, but Mayor James Lynch vetoed it. (boonton.org)
That veto was disappointing. It also missed the point.
The Pride flag is not a partisan campaign sign. It does not endorse a candidate, a political party, or a ballot question. It is a symbol of dignity, visibility, safety, and belonging for LGBTQ residents, families, students, seniors, neighbors, business owners, and visitors. Flying it during Pride Month would not force anyone in Boonton to change their beliefs. It would simply affirm that LGBTQ people are part of the community we claim to be.
Opponents often argue that if Boonton flies the Pride flag, the town will then be legally required to fly every flag requested by every interest group. That concern has been repeated often enough that it has started to sound like settled law. It is not.
Ordinance 11-26 was written to address exactly that issue. The ordinance stated that “Town-owned flag poles are not intended to serve as a forum for free expression by the public” and are instead for official purposes set by the town. It also invoked the government speech doctrine, stating that a government organization such as Boonton may advance its own expression when the government itself is the speaker. (boonton.org)
That language matters. Boonton was not opening the flagpole to every private organization. It was not creating a free-for-all. It was doing what municipalities are allowed to do: deciding what message the town itself wishes to express on town property.
And the message was clear. Ordinance 11-26 provided that “the Town shall display, as adopted government speech, the LGBTQ+ Pride Flag in June of each year on the flagpole located at Grace Lord Park.” (boonton.org)
That is not legal recklessness. That is legal clarity.
In Boonton’s form of government, the mayor is not merely ceremonial. The town describes its governing body as a nine-member board made up of the mayor and eight council members, and recent meeting minutes show the mayor participating in roll-call votes along with council members. So the issue is not whether the mayor was legally permitted to vote. The issue is that Ordinance 11-26 passed by a 5-4 vote, only to have the mayor use a second power, the veto, to block the result. In practical terms, the same elected official’s opposition counted first in the vote and then again in the veto. (boonton.org)
That matters because the ordinance had already cleared the town’s governing body. It had been debated. It had been voted on. It had passed. The veto did not correct a reckless ordinance. It overrode a carefully drafted policy that expressly stated the Pride flag would be displayed as adopted government speech.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Shurtleff v. Boston is often cited by opponents of Pride flag ordinances, but it does not say towns must fly every requested flag. In that case, Boston lost because its flag-raising program did not qualify as government speech. The city had allowed outside groups to use the flagpole and then denied a Christian group’s request, which the court found to be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. (supreme.justia.com)
The lesson of Shurtleff is not “never fly a Pride flag.” The lesson is: write a clear policy. Keep the flagpole as government speech. Do not turn it into an open public forum and then pick and choose among private requests.
That is exactly what Boonton’s Ordinance 11-26 attempted to do.
The government speech doctrine is not new. In Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, the Supreme Court held that a city’s selection of monuments in a public park was government speech. In Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, the court held that Texas could reject a proposed specialty license plate design because the plates constituted government speech, and when government speaks, it may determine the content of its own message. (supreme.justia.com)
So the legal objection falls apart. Boonton did not need to choose between flying no commemorative flags and flying every flag. It needed a clear policy saying that town flagpoles are for the town’s own official expression. Ordinance 11-26 did that.
Boonton also would not be alone. Across New Jersey, municipalities have raised Pride flags publicly, often with mayors, councils, commissions, and residents participating directly.
Woodbridge Township lists a “Mayor John E. McCormac & Human Rights Commission Pride Month Flag Raising” at Town Hall for June 9, 2026. Ewing Township’s own calendar states that “Mayor Bert Steinmann and Council will raise the Pride Flag in support of our LGBTQ community” in front of the municipal building. (twp.woodbridge.nj.us)
Other New Jersey towns have done the same. Guttenberg reported that Mayor Wayne Zitt and a council member hoisted the Pride flag above Town Hall during the town’s sixth annual Pride Month celebration. Kearny reported that Mayor Alberto G. Santos and council members joined residents to raise the rainbow Pride flag for LGBTQ Pride Month. Princeton has announced municipal Pride flag-raising programs at Monument Hall, and Westfield has described its annual Pride celebration as beginning with the raising of the Pride flag at Town Hall. (insidernj.com)
That context matters. Boonton’s Ordinance 11-26 was not some strange local experiment. It was a carefully drafted version of something New Jersey municipalities already do: use public symbols to say that LGBTQ residents belong in the public life of the community.
And that public message would matter beyond the boundaries of Boonton. A Pride flag at Grace Lord Park would not speak only to people who already feel at home here. It would also be a beacon to those passing through, visiting Main Street, entering our parks, considering opening a business, raising a family, or wondering whether this town sees them. Public symbols travel farther than the flagpole itself. They tell people, sometimes before a single conversation begins, what kind of community they are entering.
That is why this matters.
A town does not become neutral by refusing to recognize LGBTQ residents. Silence is not neutral when the question is whether some members of the community deserve public dignity. Boonton already uses public spaces to express values. We honor veterans. We mark civic occasions. We recognize service, sacrifice, history, and community. The Pride flag belongs in that same civic tradition.
It says: you are safe here.
It says: you are part of us.
It says: this town’s public spaces belong to everyone.
Some say the American flag should be enough. In principle, the American flag represents all of us. But history shows that many Americans have had to fight to be fully included in that promise. The Pride flag does not replace the American flag. It reminds us to live up to it.
Others say the Pride flag is divisive. But the flag itself is not what creates division. The division comes from treating LGBTQ belonging as something up for debate. A symbol of welcome feels threatening only if one believes some people should remain unseen.
Boonton should be better than that.
The council’s vote reflected a majority in favor of allowing the Pride flag to fly. The mayor’s veto stopped Ordinance 11-26, but it should not end the conversation. If anything, it should sharpen the town’s responsibility to act with clarity, courage, and care.
Boonton should revisit Ordinance 11-26 or adopt a substantially similar measure. It should keep the strongest part of the ordinance intact: the clear statement that town flagpoles “are not intended to serve as a forum for free expression by the public” and that the Pride flag would be displayed “as adopted government speech.” (boonton.org)
That language answers the legal objection. The purpose answers the moral one.
The Pride flag does not ask everyone to believe the same thing.
It asks the town to treat everyone as belonging.
