There are a variety of reasons I won't be quiet on gay rights. I should rather think that the issues at hand are obvious, but to clarify which issues we are discussing: the overarching umbrella of rights where must define specifically for the GLBTetc community the same rights responsibilities privileges and obligations that are otherwise afforded to the greater community without such definitions. Or in a less legal context, not just gay marriage and the right to serve openly in the military, but job and housing equality and all other forms of legal separation and discrimination between the GLBTetc Community and the greater community.
While this legal mouthful covers a lot of issues that converge across a wide spectrum of issues, it is equally important to address these issues as it is to address the issues regarding the war and other issues some feel are more important. Gay rights conveniently weave into each of these issues. The War issues include should gays be allowed to serve openly or would such an ability be a detriment to the military. As we debate health care rights, we must consider how gay partners (whether of one year or 50 years together) should be allowed to exercise their rights as we do not recognize their relationship. My point, is that it should be impossible to address an issue archetype (eg: military, health care reform, etc) without addressing the GLBTetc community's issue(s) under this category.
More than the forced conversation by relation to the topic, we should never tolerate a minority's subjection to partial rights. Separate is never equal, as demonstrated multiple times throughout this nation's history (and upheld by the supreme court). In the end, the debate centers on what sort of nation we want. I want one where nobody has to fear that their boyfriend could lose them their home or job or pension. Sexuality is no less a distinct and integral part of a person than their gender, or race, or religion. Each of these are things we have fought hard to protect. Our laws do not say all religions are protected except Unitarian Universalists. They do not say you cannot discriminate by race except hispanic-asian-native/aboriginal Americans. They say all religions are protected and that you cannot discriminate on the basis of race. This should be no different for the GLBTetc Community. In doing so, we have thus ensured that all rights are protected. Not only would such a blanket right ensure the rights to Gays and Lesbians but also ensure that the majority's rights shall not be infringed. Although rare, reverse discrimination does occur and that should not as well(whereas the generally accepted majority is discriminated against in certain situations by the minority - consider a non GLBTetc person being fired for such by the GLBTetc small business owner).
A solution provided by some (GLBTetc or otherwise) is to grant "special" rights to the GLBTetc community. While we prevent such things as gay marriage, we proffer up gay civil unions as the GLBTetc equivalent under the law. The difference is not just semantics. Marriage is considered a universal right widely recognized as valid in most jurisdictions (state to state, and nation to nation). Civil Unions are not. There is not a legal plethora of rulings that would support that this secondary category would be separate but still equal. Indeed, if they were separate but still equal before the law, there would be no legal cause or barrier to gay marriage. A similar case exists in public schools with open enrollment policies. Whereas neither has a restrictive membership requirement (as a public school it is rather difficult to do such), a student may be openly enrolled into either without any consequence to educational requirements. This has been reinforced again by the supreme court.
Ultimately, i have faith that this nation will unite behind equality bills and legislation that ends any separate but equal policies in place, establishes the rights for all regardless of gay rights and gives legal responsibilities to anyone despite their sexuality. No doubt, there were few considering this a pressing issue in 1776. I would doubt that any such farseeing forefathers would have been able to establish such matters. Remember, in 1776, we couldn't decide if blacks were citizens, if slavery was a good or bad economic construct, or if women should be allowed the vote (provided they were recognized as a citizen). Just like i doubt anyone in 1776 considered the rights to riding the public bus. And yet, it was a bus that helped spark a political debate on civil rights for one American community several years ago. Today, the discussion before us is on gay rights.
In truth, today's gay rights struggle is different than the fight by women, blacks, asians, and indians had in the past. No two groups face the same issues, astigmatisms, or struggles; even as we continue to debate who can serve openly in the military, own housing, or be protected on the job. As we move forward, we allow some rights to trickle out to others but not all. The greater GLBTetc Community may not need to fight for the right to vote, but only because that right has been granted to all US Citizens because of past struggles for equality.
Now some may find the responsibility of ensuring all citizens are equal to be less important that pretending to address the financial market crisis. Some may in fact not be inclined to agree on what rights we are addressing. This is not new. In each past civil rights argument, there were some who argued against the expansion of the rights. Some felt that this was not an issue in their area and therefore not a national matter. And yet, not everyone impacted lives in the GLBTetc safe areas. Not every african-american lived up north where racial discrimination was less severe than the southern states. It was the advice of some apologists to move north and avoid the discrimination. That ultimately is not what we found beneficial to the nation. Again, we should not tell people to move when we would not otherwise tell them so.
I find civil rights to be a cornerstone of this nation. I am confident we are only as free as our least free members. I cannot imagine anything more important than ensuring civil rights are protected, and available to all of our members. should we have the freedom of religion despite which religions we are discussing? Yes. Is there such a thing as a freedom of speech? Absolutely. Should we abridge these rights to certain groups and subsets of the American populace? No. Absolutely not. And should we defer the fight until some issue is discussed first? No. There is nothing in that argument that will ensure GLBTetc rights will ever be most important. We should never settle for second best. Not as a community within a community and not as a nation. We can move forward on both civil rights and the economy and we should. While i understand where my
No comments:
Post a Comment