A
popular topic in the news has been regarding Senate Bill 1062, also called the “Arizona
Anti-Gay Bill.” With a controversial
name like that it’s no real wonder why it is creating such a stir in the media
and in the public. I mean, how long have
the LGBT community been fighting for equality?
A simple internet search led me to “The
American Gay Rights Movement: A Short History” located at About.com Civil
Liberties. In the opening paragraph I
was horrified to read that “Thomas Jefferson proposed a law that would mandate
castration for gay men and mutilation of nose cartilage for gay women.” According to the article’s introduction, it
wasn’t until 2003 before “the U.S. Supreme Court finally put an end to laws
criminalizing same-sex intercourse in Lawrence v. Texas.” And
yet, it’s not over for the LGBT community.
They are still fighting for equality, the right to marry, and to raise
children.
I
located SB
1062 on the Arizona State Legislature website so that I could read for
myself just what this bill is proposing.
There are 3 key points that are proposed in this bill. One says that people cannot be prevented the
right to exercise their religion. Two
says that people who exercise their religion are protected from “state action”
unless their opponents are working to further a “compelling governmental
interest.” And three says that people
can claim their right to exercise their religion as their defense against
opposition and may even be awarded relief.
Bob Christie of the Associated Press wrote a very good article on February
26, 2014 called “Arizona
Bill Raises Complicated Legal Questions” that articulates these issues and
presents a fair amount of information of supporters and opponents of the bill. Fortunately Governor Jan Brewer vetoed the
bill on Wednesday, February 26, 2014.
Christie quoted her as saying, “[the bill] could divide Arizona in ways
we could not even imagine and no one would ever want.” She also said that “the bill was broadly
worded and could result in unintended negative consequences” and I couldn’t
agree more.
SB 1062 is just one example of a state law regarding freedom vs. equality. Other states have created similar laws that ban gay marriage or bans adoption by gay couples. There are also some states that grant equality to the LGBT community, like New York has by making gay marriage legal and employment, housing and educational discrimination illegal, as well as hate crimes based on sexual orientation. A news website called The Guardian has a revealing interactive chart which shows all of the fifty states categorized by region and illustrates gay rights and bans in each. This chart plainly shows that we are a nation divided on this issue.
How
does a bill whose sole purpose is to discriminate and divide our nations’
people even get through to the veto stage?
Have we as a society learned nothing from our own history? Discrimination pits groups within our society
against each other and leads to civil unrest. Discrimination of any kind should not be legal
in this country. Why do we elect
officials that want to make laws encouraging discrimination? We must take the time to vote responsibly and
learn what each of state reps stand for.
Don’t vote for a person because he had a good commercial or another
person simply because you recognize the same name. Our country needs officials who understand
that freedom and equality are best balanced when they do not infringe upon each
other. Both are important and both will
make our country strong. American
freedoms should not be a detriment or cause harm, physically or otherwise, to
others. And equality is not detrimental
to anyone because we are all equal. Those who believe otherwise really do not
belong in an elected office where they have the opportunity to create damaging
laws such as SB 1062.
What
we need is an amendment to our constitution granting equal rights to all
American citizens, period. We have the
Thirteenth Amendment (1865) which makes slavery illegal. Then we have the Fifteenth Amendment (1869)
which grants voting rights to African American males. Then we have the Nineteenth Amendment (1919)
which grants voting rights to women.
Each of these amendments proved to be great strides in our government
and in our society, but there is still so much left undone. Unfortunately, the
federal Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996 was enacted by President Bill Clinton and only
requires states to legally recognize marriage as a union between one man and
one woman. This allows too much
variation among the states as each state can decide for itself the legal status
of gay marriage within its boundaries. But
even this does not cover all of the various civil rights issues that the LGBT
community is fighting for. As with all
other minority groups throughout our history, the fight for gay rights is long
fought and painful, but I do hope that one day our county can unite its
citizens with freedom and equality
for all.
The Dallas Morning News presented a recap of how the veto to SB1062 was achieved with this headline, "How Corporate America forced veto of Arizona anti-gay bill." My classmate discussed this bill in her most recent blog, "Freedom vs Equality in America".
ReplyDeleteExcept the bill wasn't proposed as an "anti-gay" measure. The words "gay," "homosexual," "lesbian" or "sexual orientation" are not found anywhere in the legislation's text. Instead, supporters positioned the bill as a means of clarifying and strengthening the state's version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, introduced by then-Rep. (and now U.S. Senator) Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., passed by the House and the Senate in 1993 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
There are states that already provide heightened protection for the exercise of religion.
Thirty-one of them to be exact. Eighteen of which passed state laws based on the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The protections in an additional 13 states came through court rulings.
"These state RFRAs were enacted in response to Supreme Court decisions that had nothing to do with gay rights or same-sex marriage," explained University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock in an e-mail. "And the state court decisions interpreting their state constitutions arose in all sorts of contexts, mostly far removed from gay rights or same-sex marriage. There were cases about Amish buggies, hunting moose for native Alaskan funeral rituals, an attempt to take a church building by eminent domain, landmark laws that prohibited churches from modifying their buildings – all sorts of diverse conflicts between religious practice and pervasive regulation."
While some claimed that the Arizona bill is about discriminating against gays, Republican Sen. Steve Yarbrough explained that the decision to support the measure is more about protecting people of faith from discrimination. Yarbrough who is a sponsor of the bill, said, "It's about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith."
A similar religious exemption battle is brewing over the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius — which deal with the companies' religious reservations about providing the mandated contraception coverage — on March 25, 2014.
Why isn’t there an equal outrage when the rights of people of faith are being discriminated against?
As a person who struggles who with expressing herself in written word I really enjoy fellow classmate K. Vasquez’s writing. I both respect and envy her ability to be refreshingly clear. Not much of a compliment, I know but like I said I’m a poor writer. No matter the subject of her posts, there is an upbeat feel to them which I enjoy. Even with subjects such as disgruntling as LGBT discrimination with SB 1062 in Freedom vs. Equality In America I find myself wanting to read more not only because it’s informative but also genuinely heartfelt.
ReplyDeleteIn her latest post, she addressees the discretions against the LGBT community through Arizona’s proposed bill. Yes, it is a vague bill and as many on the opposite side of argument would state it doesn’t specifically identify the gay community as the purpose for it’s original draft but that’s the problem. Being so broad, to the point where you could interject any group, gender, race or sexual orientation into you it wouldn’t conflict is a problem in itself.
K. Vasquez includes many links that not only educate you on the issue at had like articles that inform the read on both sides but also inserts history. I mean, why wouldn’t you? It’s a major point to make in the argument. To introduce not only the latest national issue but the entire “American Gay Rights Movement: A Short History”.
She continues to jog your own thought process and personal beliefs by asking the reader what their own interpretation of the bill may be. She introduces queries that may make the reader wonder why they voted for the candidate they did.
So in conclusion I wish to say that I completely agree with my fellow classmates assessment of SB 1062 and applaud her not only in her ability to make her argument that this bill was completely discriminatory regardless of whom it was intended but also for her smooth application of education. Bravo, K. Vasquez!