November 17, 2008
Seth DiStefano
Gays deserve fair treatment
Advertiser
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- As a straight man who fully embraces the 14th Amendment ideals of our U.S. Constitution, equal protection for all Americans, I am disappointed in the passage of Proposition 8 in California.
However, as an advocate for the gay and lesbian community in West Virginia, I feel obligated to point out that marriage equality is not the number one concern of those affected by our state's archaic and out-of-date Human Rights Act and Fair Housing Laws. It is hard to get worked up over marriage equality in California when you know people can be fired from their jobs, thrown out of their houses or refused service at the grocery store right here in West Virginia because of their sexual orientation.
Those persons who have recently suggested an urgency to pass legislation dictating a special election banning gay marriage are offering up a red herring to distract from their real efforts.
As many will remember, landmark legislation protecting West Virginia's gay and lesbian community nearly passed the 2008 legislative session. Supported by a diverse coalition that included leaders from business, labor, faith and others, Senate Bill 600 passed the State Senate unanimously and was reported strongly out of House Judiciary before being held over in the Rules committee. The prospects for this legislation look very good for the upcoming legislative session, and those opposed to fair treatment for all West Virginians know it. Therefore, they have decided to try and change the subject, even going as far as to arrogantly assail our state's governor in two op-ed pieces and on local talk radio.
The promoters of this diversion have no intention of garnering support for their latest wild goose chase. What they are after is the defeat of comprehensive nondiscrimination legislation such as Senate Bill 600.
These right-wing ideologues learned a valuable lesson last time around. West Virginians do not believe that it is all right to take away a person's livelihood or home because of their sexual orientation. That sentiment is reflected in the tremendous progress Senate Bill 600 made during the 2008 Legislature, as well as in the continuity of support the measure has received since then. Legislators know that now is the time for West Virginia to remedy this wrong, and the right wing, whose hatred runs so deep that they would still fight to take away people's homes and livelihood based strictly on their sexual orientation, knows they have to change the subject, and quickly. So, they have set their sights on a non-issue here in West Virginia - marriage equality.
Many people, including myself, are disappointed in the passage of Prop 8 in California. However, legislators should not be fooled by the attempts of ideologues who maintain that the issue of marriage is a priority for the West Virginia gay and lesbian community.
Legislators know this is the right and fair thing to do, and even the minority of state lawmakers in opposition to legislation like Senate Bill 600 understand they can no longer fight against equal treatment in the workplace, housing, and in public accommodations without embarrassing themselves and their constituencies.
Fair treatment for a job well done is among the highest of West Virginia values, as is the sanctity of someone's home. No one should be fired from their job, have the roof taken from over their head or be denied service at a place of public business because of their sexual orientation. The people of West Virginia understand this, and understand that the time has come for West Virginia to pass comprehensive nondiscrimination laws.
DiStefano is with the American Civil Liberties Union, West Virginia chapter.
Advertisement - Your ad here
Advertisement - Your ad here
A name you have know and trusted for over 60 years for honesty, quality and fair prices.
The own...
in Retail
Advertisement - Your ad here
Post a comment
Your view of homosexuality being on the same level in threat to public safety as those three things is ignorant, idiotic and ridiculous, as is your view that laws should make us more moral. I'm through having a conversation with an idiot. I'm done here.
You always resort to personal attacks. Sad. In any event, again, without some form of legal recognition, the integrity of marriage, and its importance for the future of civilization, becomes degraded. Civil union status is an attempt to compromise--not legitimize. And I emphatically disagree with your view that a person can "marry his llama" (or any other animal for that matter). But this is essentially what the gay lobby is attempting to do: State that homosexuals somehow can not help being who they are, and that the law should both recognize and grant their abnormality equal legal recognition. And, as previously mentioned, that would indeed be the equivalent of formal legal acceptance of murder, rape, and terrorism as acts that are not morally wrong, but are simply that which the perpetrator can not help but commit due to some sort of inherent difference in programming.
And any government that legitimizes morally wrong behavior is ensuring its own doom.
You're right, a homeowner can exclude anyone from the property, but they are not free to refuse to rent property to someone based on that person's race. And a grocery store cannot refuse service to someone based on race. It's called basic human rights. And to call gay rights the equivalent of the rights of murders, rapists and terrorists does indeed imply that gays are a threat to public safety because that is what murders, rapists and terrorists are: a threat to public safety. Again you are right that there is nothing that is the "moral equivalent of marriage." I agree with you, but the key word there is "moral." The government has no place in marriage period. It's a religious ceremony. There should be no such thing as a marriage license. A law can say that a civil union is between two people. If some church decides it's ok for one of their congregants to marry his llama, fine. But the state wouldn't recognize it as a union. Aberrant indeed. Just like your view of rights.
I never suggested that homosexuality poses a threat to public safety. What does pose a clear threat to the future of our country's set of laws and values is to declare homosexual unions as the moral equivalent of marriage. I have no problem with a legally-recognized civil union; but to legally alter the definition of marriage simply to suit the alleged rights of a "minority group" offends my sensibilities.
To answer your questions, a home is private property and, as such, the owner is free to exclude whomever he or she wishes to exclude from both the grounds and the home itself.
With respect to your grocery store scenario, it depends upon the laws in place. If the law states that service can not be excluded, then provide service. If there is no legal requirement to provide service, then it is up to the management and owners of the grocery store to determine store policy.