Many heterosexuals argue that they want lesbians and gay men to be treated fairly, even equally in the society, and at the very least to be tolerated - with the proviso that they must also be tolerant of others.
But what does that fairness or equality or tolerance look like in law?
Equality Utah decided to find out. They offered a package of five bills, ranging from health care coverage for partners in same sex relationships to laws prohibiting discrimination in employment and housing to one setting out the simple ability of same sex couples to inherit one another's property.
All of them failed in the legislature.
In doing this, Utah has become the test case for good faith in the debate over gay rights. What legal rights will the vast heterosexual majority pass that will assure lesbians and gay men are treated fairly, equally or with tolerance?
Many legal rights have nothing to do with a person's sexual orientation, so of course they apply equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals: the right to own property; the right to apply for a driver's license and, if obtained, use the public highways; the right to a lawyer when accused of a crime. . .
But the test is not whether homosexuals are citizens - virtually no one believes they are not. The test is how the law treats them in contexts where sexual orientation matters. Stated another way, many times the law presumes citizens are heterosexual, and has been designed to account for this fact. Given that the vast majority of citizens are heterosexual, and that in the past homosexuality was at best a personal vice not to be publicly acknowledged, and at worst a crime for which imprisonment could be and was imposed, it makes sense that the civil law would not, historically, have taken homosexuality into account.
Today, homosexuality cannot itself, be made criminal, putting it, finally, on the same legal footing as heterosexuality has always been. But that is not yet true in the civil laws where heterosexuality matters and is presumed. Utah has failed the test of good faith. It has said, on the one hand, that it wants to treat homosexuals fairly and equally and with tolerance, but has left intact laws which take heterosexuality for granted and treat homosexuals quite unfairly and unequally.
Ironically, it was the constitutional principle of equal protection that was designed to guard against exactly this kind of treatment of a minority by a large majority. But in today's political discourse, constitutional equality is not only minimized (by attacks on judges who try to apply it), it is, in fact, being withdrawn by voters as a principle to rely on at all when homosexuality is involved.
That leaves lesbians and gay men to rely on the good will of the voters. Utah shows how the promises the majority makes can be empty of any meaning at all.
2 Comments for “Testing Tolerance — Utah edition”
posted by TS on
The terrible insight of this problem is that the heterosexual majority, claiming to proffer tolerance and equal rights, are not hypocritical at all.
It is perfectly consistent to declare: I do not hate my homosexual neighbor. I wish him no ill and bid him be treated no differently by the law or other institutions. I think the practice of homosexuality is a bad one to have at large in society, and thus I think the law should ignore their relationships, while continuing to support and sanction ours.
I think that idea is wrong, but it’s consistent, mature, and self-contained. Looks like we’re back to the old fashioned way: changing the minds of beings who have a great vested interest in not changing them.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
The Northern part of this country had no vested interest in what was happening in the Jim Crow South.
There was a considerable lack of interest in the media coverage of what were human rights abuses in places that were behaving as if not a part of the US.
And until extremely GRAPHIC and confrontational information kept the rest of the country from ignoring it, then yes…TS, this country might well behave as if they have no vested interest in changing their attitudes about gay lives in America and elsewhere.
Unlike the gay issue, the color bar was the easiest tool of isolation. And segregation was completed so thoroughly and for a long, long time.
But the issue of homosexuality is UNIVERSAL to all cultures and history of man. This is undeniable.
Perhaps the most effective tool of segregation at this point IS marriage. Because without it, gay people cannot fully integrate, NOR be fully independent in society.
But the expectations and challenge to the dominant culture is an indictment on gay people similar to that of blacks and Jim Crow.
To live like and with the status of children.
To be as dependent and un challenging to the dominant power structure AS children.
Reliance on the goodwill of the masses, is essentially that of being an obedient child, but with no reward for that obedience, but with expectations to participate in the least personal and rewarding and socially secure of adult responsibilities as other citizens.
Gay men and women are victims of a long, long legacy of isolation and threat, and like blacks, only have a very recent visibility that is grudgingly accepted. But not much outside of the realm of entertainment and service.
The regard as a PRODUCTIVE class of people should be enough to convince the masses of INVESTING in that productivity, rather than repressing it.
A sure sign that our society IS wrongful in that repression.
There is a difference between a group actually being harmful and unproductive, as opposed to being KEPT from their full potential to do otherwise.
As minorities, blacks and gay people, or even Jews…have had to utilize unique ways in which to engage the public of their worth.
It shouldn’t take brutally graphic involvement.
The murder of Matthew Shepard was one such disruption in the smooth course for those who thought gay people had everything they needed.
It was an opportunity for this country to finally deal with the brutality and frequency of such crimes and lack of justice when they occur.
And here we are again, only now, people are SO ignorant about how vulnerable gay people are WITHOUT marriage, that dependence on the kindness of strangers is a scary thought or should be if people really understood that such kindness doesn’t exist, LAWS do to protect those who need them.
I see a public thinking they are exhausted from hearing the victim card being played, although it’s certainly a real issue and not one of perception, as the dominant culture is easily convinced it is THEY who are victims of the ‘gay agenda’ already.
I don’t have all the answers, except that education, not IGNORANCE and fear are better encouraged. And if that education because too frank or brutal, then WE have URGENCY on our side.
It hasn’t profited this country or any other to humiliate and segregate gay people for treatment that can’t affirm ANYTHING, especially the CREED of this nation.
We know what tools would help us all GET along, and why NOT get along?
And marriage equality is but ONE degree that gay people are showing how MUCH they are trying to get along.
And wouldn’t getting along, committing to the SAME affirming social structures be better than the tradition of distrust and fear that’s informed the issue thus far?
That would be my approach. And telling them that isn’t THIS better than having to be shown the horrifically brutalized body of a gay bias crime victim to convince them?
After all, it almost wasn’t until Mamie Till left the casket of her son open did this country actually realize that even black children weren’t free from typical anti black violence.
And frankly, as the deaths of Sakia Gunn, Freddie Martinez and Lawrence King indicate, neither are gay children.