Let's not put discrimination into Minnesota Constitution
For proponents of constitutional amendment barring gay marriage, "hate" is an accurate description
by Fred Slocum, Ph.D.
In the April 2 Mankato Free Press, Minnesota State Rep. Tony Cornish (R-Vernon Center) decries the association drawn between Eliminate Hate Week at Minnesota State University, Mankato, and Minnesota State Rep. Michele Bachmann’s proposed ‘marriage amendment’ to Minnesota’s Constitution.
Unfortunately for Cornish, that association is amply warranted. My March 6 column in the Free Press (“A history of meanness”) documented anti-gay initiatives in Colorado, Oregon and elsewhere. Nobody has challenged that column or its incontrovertible facts. So, let’s examine the arguments against gay marriage and gay rights in general.
First, consider the “no special rights” argument. Opponents regularly portray gay rights as “special rights” – as if gays and lesbians enjoy privileges that others don’t. The fact is, federal law bans job and housing discrimination based on race, nationality, gender, and religion – but not sexual orientation. Fortunately, Minnesota’s anti-discrimination law does cover sexual orientation. Predictably, conservatives favor repealing that: in 2003, Tom Prichard’s Minnesota Family Council unsuccessfully lobbied the Legislature to strip gays and lesbians of legal anti-discrimination protections. When anti-discrimination laws protect gays and lesbians, they also protect other groups, based on gender, race and other characteristics. Therefore, only in the religious right’s Orwellian reasoning can those laws provide “special rights” for gays and lesbians. Indeed, many governments have targeted gays and lesbians for discrimination: consider Florida’s gay-adoption ban, Texas’ former anti-sodomy law, and the other hostile actions documented in my March column. The bottom line: conservatives may claim to oppose “special rights,” but their record indicates that no right granted to other groups, in housing, jobs, relationships, sexual privacy or hate-crimes protection, should extend to gays and lesbians. For the religious right, “no special rights” really means “no rights whatsoever” for gays and lesbians; rights are only for other, more favored, groups.
Second, consider the “protection of marriage” argument. Nobody can seriously claim that a same-sex marriage or civil union in one household poses any ‘threat’ to a marriage next door, much less anywhere else. Yes, some marriages and families have troubles – and Bachmann’s amendment does nothing to combat them. Instead, it prevents any legal recognition for same-sex relationships, banning not only marriage but civil unions also. It’s time to stop scapegoating gays and lesbians for the problems that some traditional marriages face.
Third, consider the “gays can’t reproduce” argument. The right justifies gay-marriage bans because only traditional marriages can produce children. If conservatives are serious about limiting marriage to couples that can produce children, then consistency demands also banning marriage for couples that (1) don’t want children, or (2) are infertile. No group favors such an absurd position. So, the “can’t reproduce” claim is a smoke screen for conservatives’ real rationale for discriminatory marriage laws: lashing out against homosexuals.
Fourth, consider the “let the people vote” argument. In the February 12 Minneapolis Star Tribune, Bachmann wrote that voters should decide society’s rules. I doubt African Americans in the pre-civil rights South would have appreciated that view. Nor would 19th century women pressing for voting rights, when majority opinion opposed them (women could not vote nationwide until 1920). Constitutional rights, if taken seriously, must apply to everyone, and cannot be eviscerated because a popular majority wants to.
Some might object that sexual orientation is behavior-based, and can’t be compared to race, gender and other characteristics. That claim fails, too. Sexual orientation is mere attraction to the same or opposite gender. Sexual behavior is one’s sexual actions, regardless of orientation. Conservatives repeatedly equate the two – wrongly. Neither Bachmann’s amendment nor other anti-gay initiatives distinguish between sexually active and celibate persons. Instead, they target gays and lesbians across the board. Undoubtedly, some gays and lesbians are celibate, while many others are monogamous. For conservatives, no matter: mere attraction to the same gender should trigger discrimination, period.
Government anti-gay discrimination violates the 14th Amendment (see my last column) and the constitutional ban on ‘bills of attainder’ – singling out an individual or group for punishment without trial. No anti-gay law, ballot initiative or court ruling applies only to individuals tried for, much less convicted of, criminal sexual behavior. Instead, the right eagerly and presumptively brands all gays and lesbians as misbehavers, using stereotyped language like “the gay lifestyle,” without any evidence that all behave irresponsibly. A better approach would be to target actual sexual behavior, evenhandedly. But on gay and lesbian issues, far be it from the religious right to demonstrate one iota of evenhandedness.
Eliminate Hate Week is aptly named and well-timed, and Cornish’s effort to distance anti-gay persecution from the marriage issue fails. Bachmann’s amendment singles out gays and lesbians, and slams the door on legal recognition for their relationships, no matter how long-term and/or committed – but nobody else’s relationships. This is discrimination pure and simple, based on orientation, not actual behavior, and no amount of invoking a particular version of “God’s law” or “Biblical morality” can justify it.
Fred Slocum is an associate professor of political science at Minnesota State University, Mankato. A version of this article originally appeared in the Mankato Free Press April 13, 2006.
by Fred Slocum, Ph.D.
In the April 2 Mankato Free Press, Minnesota State Rep. Tony Cornish (R-Vernon Center) decries the association drawn between Eliminate Hate Week at Minnesota State University, Mankato, and Minnesota State Rep. Michele Bachmann’s proposed ‘marriage amendment’ to Minnesota’s Constitution.
Unfortunately for Cornish, that association is amply warranted. My March 6 column in the Free Press (“A history of meanness”) documented anti-gay initiatives in Colorado, Oregon and elsewhere. Nobody has challenged that column or its incontrovertible facts. So, let’s examine the arguments against gay marriage and gay rights in general.
First, consider the “no special rights” argument. Opponents regularly portray gay rights as “special rights” – as if gays and lesbians enjoy privileges that others don’t. The fact is, federal law bans job and housing discrimination based on race, nationality, gender, and religion – but not sexual orientation. Fortunately, Minnesota’s anti-discrimination law does cover sexual orientation. Predictably, conservatives favor repealing that: in 2003, Tom Prichard’s Minnesota Family Council unsuccessfully lobbied the Legislature to strip gays and lesbians of legal anti-discrimination protections. When anti-discrimination laws protect gays and lesbians, they also protect other groups, based on gender, race and other characteristics. Therefore, only in the religious right’s Orwellian reasoning can those laws provide “special rights” for gays and lesbians. Indeed, many governments have targeted gays and lesbians for discrimination: consider Florida’s gay-adoption ban, Texas’ former anti-sodomy law, and the other hostile actions documented in my March column. The bottom line: conservatives may claim to oppose “special rights,” but their record indicates that no right granted to other groups, in housing, jobs, relationships, sexual privacy or hate-crimes protection, should extend to gays and lesbians. For the religious right, “no special rights” really means “no rights whatsoever” for gays and lesbians; rights are only for other, more favored, groups.
Second, consider the “protection of marriage” argument. Nobody can seriously claim that a same-sex marriage or civil union in one household poses any ‘threat’ to a marriage next door, much less anywhere else. Yes, some marriages and families have troubles – and Bachmann’s amendment does nothing to combat them. Instead, it prevents any legal recognition for same-sex relationships, banning not only marriage but civil unions also. It’s time to stop scapegoating gays and lesbians for the problems that some traditional marriages face.
Third, consider the “gays can’t reproduce” argument. The right justifies gay-marriage bans because only traditional marriages can produce children. If conservatives are serious about limiting marriage to couples that can produce children, then consistency demands also banning marriage for couples that (1) don’t want children, or (2) are infertile. No group favors such an absurd position. So, the “can’t reproduce” claim is a smoke screen for conservatives’ real rationale for discriminatory marriage laws: lashing out against homosexuals.
Fourth, consider the “let the people vote” argument. In the February 12 Minneapolis Star Tribune, Bachmann wrote that voters should decide society’s rules. I doubt African Americans in the pre-civil rights South would have appreciated that view. Nor would 19th century women pressing for voting rights, when majority opinion opposed them (women could not vote nationwide until 1920). Constitutional rights, if taken seriously, must apply to everyone, and cannot be eviscerated because a popular majority wants to.
Some might object that sexual orientation is behavior-based, and can’t be compared to race, gender and other characteristics. That claim fails, too. Sexual orientation is mere attraction to the same or opposite gender. Sexual behavior is one’s sexual actions, regardless of orientation. Conservatives repeatedly equate the two – wrongly. Neither Bachmann’s amendment nor other anti-gay initiatives distinguish between sexually active and celibate persons. Instead, they target gays and lesbians across the board. Undoubtedly, some gays and lesbians are celibate, while many others are monogamous. For conservatives, no matter: mere attraction to the same gender should trigger discrimination, period.
Government anti-gay discrimination violates the 14th Amendment (see my last column) and the constitutional ban on ‘bills of attainder’ – singling out an individual or group for punishment without trial. No anti-gay law, ballot initiative or court ruling applies only to individuals tried for, much less convicted of, criminal sexual behavior. Instead, the right eagerly and presumptively brands all gays and lesbians as misbehavers, using stereotyped language like “the gay lifestyle,” without any evidence that all behave irresponsibly. A better approach would be to target actual sexual behavior, evenhandedly. But on gay and lesbian issues, far be it from the religious right to demonstrate one iota of evenhandedness.
Eliminate Hate Week is aptly named and well-timed, and Cornish’s effort to distance anti-gay persecution from the marriage issue fails. Bachmann’s amendment singles out gays and lesbians, and slams the door on legal recognition for their relationships, no matter how long-term and/or committed – but nobody else’s relationships. This is discrimination pure and simple, based on orientation, not actual behavior, and no amount of invoking a particular version of “God’s law” or “Biblical morality” can justify it.
Fred Slocum is an associate professor of political science at Minnesota State University, Mankato. A version of this article originally appeared in the Mankato Free Press April 13, 2006.
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home