Less stupid, more filling please

I can't argue with this logic on equality. When it comes to Gay Rights, and social equality, the first groups i automatically think of are Habitual Swearers, people who say "Yello" instead of "Hello" generally, and the "you betcha" crowd. In fact, the last groups of people i would think of when we talk about Gay Rights are African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Women, and any other protected class of citizens.

While the writer's advice to "deal with it and move on" because we (as a nation) "don't need the 'protection of government' to live full, productive lives" might possibly be true. Agreeably, not everyone will accept me or others for who we are. This man clearly does not (as he states it is a choice, not a reality to be GLBTetc). There are people alive today that do not accept African Americans as equal (see the crazy christian churches that condemn Blacks, or other racial minorities).

I pick the African American community as an example of why the LGBTetc community should continue fighting not because they are equal fights. Nor do i find the GLBTetc community the next African American community. I pick them because we have several laws upon which to build our argument already on the books for the African American Community. Laws of course are one layer of the dreaded 'protection of government' the writer opposes.

We did in fact pass a series of laws post civil war to ensure equality. We elevated some of these laws to the level of Constitutional Amendments. If we were to believe this writer, African Americans (whom he probably finds akin as a group to people who wear tartans religiously or refuse to wear less makeup) should have accepted these attempts however feeble and difficult they were as the best government could muster. Having failed to secure racial equality, they should have given up and moved on with their lives accepting the cards as they were dealt.

We know in fact this is not how things played out. There were a series of Civil Rights bills passed long after this point, up to and including the Civil Rights Acts in the 1960s. These laws have among other things, forced the hand of this nation to help foster racial equality and a broader acceptance of all people despite their race.

In no way am I implying or suggesting or otherwise stating that we have achieved a racial utopia. Nor am i so bold as to say that a series of LGBTetc Community centric laws would immediately create sexuality equality in this nation. They would benefit the nation, just like past laws providing redress and protection for one minority of the nation (be it by gender, religion, race, or other) have benefited the nation as a whole.

One councilmember, the core subject of the first article, implied her vote was one to protect a vulnerable subclass of society. Is the writer vulnerable? yes. Am I for my sexuality? Absolutely. I'm not as vulnerable as Matthew Shepard was when he was brutally murdered for his sexuality. This has a lot to do with him, the laws that stemmed from that horrific crime, and how those laws (and subsequent educational campaigns) have shifted our culture. I don't have to worry about losing my job. This is not because my boss, employer, and all their resources are enlightened, supportive, and respectful of my sexuality. It is in fact because the law prevents them from firing me over my sexuality. This law by the way, also would protect the writer as well from losing his job over his sexuality as it does not specifically state which sexualities are protected.

I wish we lived in a culture where we don't need this law. Or any other law that protects people from discrimination, hate, violence, or another crime because of their race, gender, sexuality, religion, or other values. The law that protects my job has in fact allowed me to prosper and thrive which in turn has benefited my employer immensely just like it has benefited me. I am well aware that I would have lost my job well before this point could have occurred had my previous boss had her way.

I'd be happy to respond to the writer's implication that homosexuality needs to be a protected class as much as prolific swearers. What about smokers (already protected), the obese (already protected), single mothers and mothers-to-be (already protected), and other groups of people like these? These comparrisons, and comparrisons to race, or gender, or religion, or the groups the writer picked are comparisons between Apples and Volkwagens and Nuclear Warheads. There are similarities and there are extreme differences. There is no need and I have no interest to be sidetracked by such a non sequtur complaint.

Protecting one class is not a detriment to the others. Some things are worth leaving to the marketplace of ideas. Some things need to be protected legally despite our abject objections. There are valid reasons to keep on the books laws that protect minors from pedophiles and equality in gender pay. These laws limit the freedom of pedophiles and chauvinists. They protect children and both genders in the workforce. Laws are best when they are written to protect both the minority but also the majority. Writing into law a protection of sexuality on the workforce protects me from a conservative employer or coworker that does not like me as much as it protects them from someone opposed to them.

I have no interest in limiting your right to swing your fist. Until you reach the bridge of my nose. The writer is free to practice his beliefs, much as i am free to practice mine. But in the common spaces of our culture, we must both sacrifice a bit of our freedom to ensure our cohabitation. I promise to tolerate scary culty Christians. That is only after i'm promised the same level of tolerance: on paper and in the common spaces of our culture. As soon as I don't have to worry about losing my job or my house or my benefits because i'm gay wherever i live in this wonderful nation of ours for any employer i am hired to work under, i can start living my life freely. I'm not sure why the writer (who isn't gay) is worried about these issues, but he too should perhaps start living his life.