The Last Gay Rights Legislative Battle
There's a battle beginning in Congress over civil rights. Those in favor of gay rights are attempting what might become the last legislative battle they ever have to fight. Those against gay rights are attempting to legalize discrimination against gay people -- married gay people in particular. Both are reactions to the Supreme Court ruling that gay marriage is a civil right for everyone in America, of course. And, because of the timing, both issues will likely resonate in the presidential nomination contests currently underway.
The pro-discrimination folks are attempting to frame their argument in the same language the civil rights folks have always used. They're fighting for freedom, they insist, but they never admit that the "freedom" they're fighting for is actually the freedom to discriminate. The bill they've introduced is called the "First Amendment Defense Act," but they're really only concerned with the part of the First Amendment which deals with religion. The bill would permit people (and companies) to refuse to serve anyone based solely on their personal religious beliefs. It would bar the government from punishing such behavior in any way.
The problem, of course, is that if this bill passed it would open up a can of worms that few have even fully contemplated. As written, for instance, the bill would allow an unmarried pregnant woman to be fired or refused service by any business, solely because she (obviously) had had sex out of wedlock. That's just scratching the surface, really, because the bill would allow all sorts of discrimination to take place which is now forbidden (I wrote a satire about the fallout from such laws a while back, to point out all the repercussions). This problem stems from the fact that the bill can't come right out and say "discrimination against gay people -- but only gay people -- will be allowed." That's too obvious, and too obviously unconstitutional as well. So the language is couched in "freedom of religion" terms, with the authors thinking "my branch of Christianity" when they wrote it. However, if passed it will be interpreted by all kinds of people with very different religious beliefs, leading to many unforeseen consequences.
The anti-gay crowd was forced to retreat on laws banning gay marriage. When the Supreme Court smacks you down, there's nowhere else to turn except a constitutional amendment -- and the chances of a "Defense of Marriage Amendment" being ratified in three-fourths of the states is now precisely zero. So they've regrouped their forces and are now pushing back in the area where religious freedom and civil rights in the world of commerce overlap. Gay people can (they begrudgingly now must admit) get married, but we want to make it possible for them to still be denied services and live a second-class life. That's really their position in a nutshell.
Those in Congress who support gay rights are -- wisely -- not just going to play defense in this fight, though. They're on the offense as well, with the Equality Act. This legislation is pretty much the end of the road for gay rights and the law, because it would add LGBT people to the list of those groups covered by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Right now, discrimination is illegal on the basis of things like sex, religion, ethnicity, and race -- but that list doesn't include "sexual orientation" or "gender identity." The Equality Act would add such classifications. This would give federal protection from discrimination to all Americans, which is the whole point. Right now, less than half of the states have such laws. This means that while a gay couple can get married in all states, in over half of them they can also be fired from their job just for being gay. Or kicked out of an apartment. Or be turned away from a business. Just because they're gay. It's fully legal to do so in over half the states. A federal law would supercede this situation, though, and provide equal rights for gay people in every state. Ironclad civil rights -- the same kind now guaranteed to people no matter what their skin color happens to be.
Passing the Equality Act wouldn't end the legal struggle for all, of course. Anti-discrimination cases still happen for groups that have been protected for over 50 years, after all. There will always be those who try to continue to discriminate, and hope nobody notices. The legal fights will continue. But the legislative fights will be over (except perhaps at the state level, to provide a double layer of protection). All of the nonsense that began with both the Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy in the military and the federal Defense Of Marriage Act will be over, once and for all. Gay people will be equal. With equal rights. Period.
This is a good issue for Democrats to fight on, especially during a presidential contest. Most people don't even know that it is still legal to fire someone for being gay in half the states. Most people, when informed of this sad fact, support a federal law to fix the problem. Gay marriage has won its battle, so extending full civil rights protections isn't seen as that radical an idea anymore. "Of course gay people should have civil rights" is the usual reaction.
Opposing such a law is standing up for bigotry. There is no other way around it. In the fight for marriage equality, the opponents could claim they were fighting for the sanctity of the idea of marriage, but that isn't possible when you're essentially fighting for the right to fire gay workers for being gay. There is simply no other reason to oppose granting civil rights to gay people.
Of course, the pro-discrimination side would prefer to define their stance differently. They claim the religious right to disapprove of their fellow citizens' lives by denying them services. But by doing so, they are also allowing for claims (for religious reasons, of course) of other people who might want to fire someone who gets a divorce. Or someone in a mixed-race marriage. Or an unmarried mother. Books of religion (most definitely including the Christian Bible) have been used as a basis for such beliefs for a very long time. Since the Constitution forbids writing the law explicitly (to allow discrimination solely against gay people), the broader language used will form the basis for many varied instances of bigotry.
Democrats should push the Equality Act as hard as they can, starting right now. They should make it an unavoidable issue in the presidential race. Candidates should devote entire speeches to this legislative effort, in fact. It's a winning issue for them, and it forces the opposition to stand squarely for the right to fire gay people for being gay. Obviously, with the Republicans in charge of both chambers of Congress, the bill isn't going to pass any time soon. But this allows the argument to be made in the 2016 race for all, even further down the ballot. "Elect me to the House/Senate and I will champion the Equality Act because it is who we are as Americans -- equal rights for all!" Democrats can use this argument to take back control of Congress, if they do it right.
This needs to be a relentless and sustained effort. It has to be one of the first things any Democrat mentions in just about any interview. "I'll answer that question in a minute, but first I'd like to talk about the importance of passing the Equality Act..." is a good opening to try. Democrats have to bring the subject up continually, and never miss an opportunity to do so. As I said, most Americans aren't even aware that such discrimination is fully legal in over half the country. Raising this awareness is the first step. And by raising it, the obvious and fair solution is presented to the public at the same time.
Many people (and many Democratic officeholders, even) thought that when the Supreme Court ruled on marriage equality, the gay rights cause was done. It had won the biggest victory of all, many thought, and therefore it was a done deal -- no need to worry about it any more. This is wrong. There is one final legislative battle to be fought. Winning it would absolutely shut down the opposition's attempt to legalize discrimination on religious grounds. The time has come to guarantee full equal rights to gay people, by federal law. That -- not gay marriage winning a court victory -- is the real victorious end of the road for gay rights. And now, it is within reach.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Ahhhhh And so it begins...
It was widely expressed here in Weigantia that the FIRST PART of the FIRST AMENDMENT is sacrosanct and that NO ONE "would ever" try to deprive a person of the right to freedom of religion..
At the time, I asked if ANYONE was willing to take a Sherman in defense of religious freedom..
Nobody wanted to...
Now we know why... :D
Michale
Gay people can (they begrudgingly now must admit) get married, but we want to make it possible for them to still be denied services and live a second-class life. That's really their position in a nutshell.
Actually it's not, by why quibble... :D
This legislation is pretty much the end of the road for gay rights and the law, because it would add LGBT people to the list of those groups covered by the 1964 Civil Rights Act
In other words, it would make the gay lifestyle choice equivalent to a race..
ANOTHER thing that Weigantians strenuously argued AGAINST in recent history..
Two fer....
This would give federal protection from discrimination to all Americans, which is the whole point.
EXCEPT for those who want religious freedom..
It would legalize discrimination against christians..
Basically what the Left is saying is that it should be illegal to discriminate, but ONLY against those who are politically/ideologically acceptable..
Those who are NOT politically/ideologically acceptable??
Discriminate away!! The Left has no problem with that..
Yea.. Nice attitude..
Michale
Remember the hairdresser in New Mexico who discriminated against a GOP governor and was treated as a conquering hero by the Hysterical (and not so Hysterical) Left??
Like I said.. The Left doesn't mind discrimination and bigotry..
As long as it's the RIGHT people being discriminated against.
Now the Left wants to codify that attitude into law...
Michale
"Blessed are the Leviticus cherry-pickers for they shall inherit the religious freedom to persecute." - Mr Christ
As opposed to the Left Wing fanatics who shall legislate the ideological freedom to persecute...
That's the point ya'all just never own up to..
It works both ways...
If you want tolerance, BE TOLERANT..
If you want respect, BE RESPECTFUL...
It's not rocket science.. It's common sense...
Michale
The problem ya'all have is that the right to be part of the gay lifestyle and NOT get dinged for it is NOT enshrined as the VERY first part of the VERY First Amendment of the US Constitution...
Freedom from religious persecution is...
It's that simple...
Michale
6 - Freedom from religious persecution....
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/10/06/1412553798686_wps_25_Title_LAUREL_AND_HARDY_Pe.jpg
"Ehhhh I don't get it."
-Pork Chop, TOY STORY
:D
Michale
Michale wrote:
"At the time, I asked if ANYONE was willing to take a Sherman in defense of religious freedom..
Nobody wanted to..."
Actually Michale, you are WRONG. I DID. And I STILL DO. But being able to persecute someone else because of your religion when that other person does not share your religion, and no longer being able to do so, is NOT the same as being persecuted FOR YOUR OWN RELIGION. I don't understand why you keep failing to grasp that simple concept.
Christians can still hold their beliefs, practice their beliefs, etc. They are not forced to perform a gay marriage ceremony in THEIR religion or House of Worship, NOR WILL THEY EVER BE.
What they cannot do is IMPOSE their religion on someone else, force someone else to LIVE by THEIR religious rules. They can still discriminate in the PRIVATE sphere as much as they want. Not being able to DISCRIMINATE in the PUBLIC sphere, is NOT REVERSE DISCRIMINATION.
Look at it this way. If I am a Moslem, and my religion says I must kill you because you are a Christian, and I am not allowed to do so, aren't you persecuting ME for MY religion by NOT allowing me to kill you? That is essentially what you are arguing regarding Christians and gays. Don't you see how ridiculous a position that is???
Michale wrote:
"In other words, it would make the gay lifestyle choice equivalent to a race.."
In that point, I agree with you, you are CORRECT for ONCE. Because being gay is NOT a choice. Just like being heterosexual is NOT a choice. Being sexually active or not IS a choice, but that is NOT the same as ORIENTATION. I can be gay and BE a virgin.
"It would legalize discrimination against christians.."
NO< IT WOULD NOT. Stopping Christians from being able to discriminate against NON-Christians is NOT discrimination AGAINST Christians. Pure and simple.
"If you want tolerance, BE TOLERANT..
If you want respect, BE RESPECTFUL..."
Then why aren't Christians practicing what they preach? Why aren't Christians being tolerant and respectful Michale??? If they were, they would NOT have opposed gay marriage in the first place! That WOULD have been the tolerant AND respectful thing to do, would it not???
Actually Michale, you are WRONG. I DID. And I STILL DO.
Did you? I thought we discussed it before hand but that you never actually took the Sherman..
If so, my bust... :D
NO< IT WOULD NOT. Stopping Christians from being able to discriminate against NON-Christians is NOT discrimination AGAINST Christians. Pure and simple.
Not allowing christians to follow the scriptures of their religion, to practice their religion as they see fit IS discrimination against christians.
Pure and simple...
Then why aren't Christians practicing what they preach? Why aren't Christians being tolerant and respectful Michale???
Why are fanatical muslims beheading infidels and shooting up recruiting stations??
Because it's their religion....
That WOULD have been the tolerant AND respectful thing to do, would it not???
So, what you are saying is it's ok to be discriminatory and intolerant of christians because they were discriminatory and intolerant first..
Hay, don't get me wrong. That's a perfectly valid, if a tad childish, reason...
So, in other words, the Left has decided that in order to FIGHT the monster, they must BECOME the monster...
Well, aww right... :D
Michale
In that point, I agree with you, you are CORRECT for ONCE.
I was resoundingly ridiculed for suggesting that the Left thought of being gay as a race..
It's true.. He who laughs last DOES laugh best!! :D
Because being gay is NOT a choice.
That's your opinion that does have some science to back it up..
Other people have the opposite opinion and they ALSO have science to back it up...
My personal view??
"Being born that way" is the gay person's version of a christian's "The Devil made me do it"..
Absolves them of any and all personal responsibility...
Michale
So, in other words, the Left has decided that in order to FIGHT the monster, they must BECOME the monster...
Well, aww right... :D
Or put another way..
"The ends justifies the means"
I love it!! :D
Michale
Don't you find it a tad.... weird... that the Left wants to base a complete and separate RACIAL designation solely and completely on who a person decides to have sex with??
I find that weird to the point.... PAST the point of absurdity...
Michale
Refusing service to someone just because they are a Republican is JUST as discriminatory, JUST as bigoted as refusing service to someone just because they are gay....
Am I wrong???
Michale
Ya'all see, that is EXACTLY the problem with the Left's position on discrimination and bigotry..
It's not based on MORALS or ETHICS...
It's based SOLELY and COMPLETELY on partisan ideology..
Even here in Weigantia... For months, I have been bringing up the gay hairdresser in New Mexico who refused to provide services to the GOP Governor..
His position??
"I have the right to refuse service to anyone I want!!"
Sound familiar??
And this bigot was treated like a conquering hero by the Left...
Only ONE person here in Weigantia condemned the actions of this bigot..
ONE person..
So to the Left I say,
"Oh Puhleeeze... Your condemnation of christians who discriminate is not based on any morality or ethics.. It is solely and completely based on your political ideology. Your partisan agenda.... Booo Hoooo... Cry me a river.."
You want to end discrimination against gay people??
Fine and dandy.... Knock yerselves out..
But don't insult my intelligence and pretend that it's all based on a moral foundation...
It isn't...
It's nothing more than pushing a partisan agenda at the expense of those who don't think the same....
Michale
"Oh Puhleeeze... Your condemnation of christians who discriminate is not based on any morality or ethics.. It is solely and completely based on your political ideology. Your partisan agenda.... Booo Hoooo... Cry me a river.."
"He has been brought up on insubordination several times!"
"General, I've read your own file. Puuhleese...."
-STARGATE ATLANTIS
:D
Michale
"Opposing such a law is standing up for bigotry. There is no other way around it. In the fight for marriage equality, the opponents could claim they were fighting for the sanctity of the idea of marriage, but that isn't possible when you're essentially fighting for the right to fire gay workers for being gay. There is simply no other reason to oppose granting civil rights to gay people."
I don't think the issue can be refined any better than this.
I don't think the issue can be refined any better than this.
Then you obviously haven't read everything.. :D
This law is nothing more than putting one groups rights before the rights of another group..
In and of itself, that's not that big of a deal. It happens all the time..
What makes THIS such a big deal is that the group being persecuted is protected by the VERY FIRST part of the VERY FIRST Amendment of the US Constitution..
To put it into context that ya'all would readily understand, it would be as if the courts forced Left Wingers to actively support, defend, encourage AND facilitate the Citizens United ruling..
I bet if THAT were to happen, ya'all would be screaming from the rooftops to the high heavens...
It's all nice and easy.. Until it's ya'all who are on the receiving end of the persecution..
"It's all fun and games til someone gets shot in the leg!!!!"
-AJ, ARMAGEDDON
:D
Michale