There are several things I wish to make clear about Proposition 5 from my point of view.
Let's start by giving perspective on my point of view.
I am gay.
I am physically attracted to men, and I am not physically attracted to women.
I have never been physically attracted to women, and at 25 I do not expect that to change.
There
is not scientific proof that humans are born with a sexual orientation;
however, I tell you honestly that I have never consciously chosen to be
attracted to men and not women.
I am a Christian.
I was born on a Saturday morning, and was at church Sunday night.
I
went to a Christian school K-12 (Muldoon Christian K-6, Anchorage
Christian 7-12) and attended a private Christian University for my
undergraduate work (Olivet Nazarene University).
I first invited Christ into my life when I was four years old, and have since recommitted my life to Him many times.
From the wording of the proposed change which can be found in its entirety on the One Anchorage website at http://www.oneanchorage.com/pdf/initiative.pdf,
my understanding of the change is the additions of "sexual orientation,
or transgender identity" to the Anchorage Municipal Code list of what
is legally protected in the municipality in the realm of sale or rental
of property, financing practices, employment practices, public
accommodations, educational institutions and practices of the
municipality. There are no changes to the religious exemptions listed
under AMC 5.20.090.
Next, I would like to respond to the FAQ from the website of Protect Anchorage (http://www.protectanchorage.org/why-vote-no) which is the forefront opponent of Proposition 5.
Protect Anchorage lists 10 reasons to vote no:
1: There is no need for Prop 5.
2:Prop 5 will violate the conscience rights of numerous small business owners.
3: Prop 5 is vague and poorly written.
4: Prop. 5 forces our city government to take sides in the "culture wars."
5: Religious institutions are not adequately protected.
6: Prop. 5 does not exempt individuals who act based on sincerely held religious beliefs.
7: The provision allowing for "gender-segregated" restrooms is meaningless.
8: The provision allowing for "dress codes, work rules, and codes of conduct" is meaningless.
9: Complying with Prop.5 will be expensive for businesses.
10: Tolerance must be a two-way street.
My thoughts:
According to the first point
of the Protect Anchorage FAQ, there is no need for Prop. 5. The
assumption is that Prop 5 attempts to address a non-existent problem.
They quote Mayor Dan Sullivan as saying "My review shows that there is
clearly a lack of quantifiable evidence necessitating this ordinance.
My review also shows that the vast majority of those who communicated
their position on the ordinance are in opposition" in 2009. This
statement may have been accurate and fair at the time he made it. In
2012, the Anchorage LGBT Discrimination Survey by Melissa S. Green was
published. Although I have not fully digested the report it shows in the
Key Findings at the beginning of the report that the description of
"non-existent" is at the very least misguided, and quite probably
grossly mistaken now. A few of the key findings quoted directly from the
survey:
-Verbal abuse/namecalling was by far the most frequently experienced form of anti-gay/antitrans
bias reported by respondents. 76.5% of the total study sample of 268 respondents and
68.0% of the subsample of 50 respondents who have lived in Anchorage for less than five
years have experienced verbal abuse/namecalling at least once while in Anchorage.
-Experiences of various forms of harassment, intimidation, and bullying were fairly common.
Of the total sample of 268 respondents, 42.5% had been threatened with physical violence,
32.8% had been followed or chased, and 29.9% had experienced property damage attributed
to anti-LGBT bias. 18.3% had experienced actual physical violence in Anchorage because of
their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender presentation, and 6% had been sexually assaulted.
-Harassment and bullying were also common on the job and in rented housing. Of the total
sample of 268 respondents, 44% had been harassed by their employer or other employees —
16% to the point of actually feeling forced to leave their jobs. 18.7% had been harassed by
their landlord or other tenants.
-The second most common issue reported by respondents (after verbal abuse/harassment)
was hiding their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender transition in order to avoid job
discrimination. 73.1% of the total sample and 62% of the respondents who had lived in Anchorage
less than five years reported hiding in this way at least once to avoid job discrimination
in Anchorage.
In
addition, 20.9% were turned down for work they were otherwise qualified
for, 17.5% reported being denied a promotion at least once. 14.6%
reported being fired for sexual orientation or gender
identity/presentation. If there were too many percentages there, suffice
it to say that discrimination happens in Anchorage to GLBT people. It
is definitely an issue that needs addressing.
The second point
of the FAQ from the Protect Anchorage website indicates a potential
violation of the conscience rights of small business owners. Two things
about this point bother me: "sincere religious or conscientious
objections..." and the reference to a law in New Mexico and ensuing
drama. Regarding the first, "sincere religious or conscientious
objections" should not be reason enough to not do business with another
person. That is essentially the point of freedom of religion – if you
sell cars, you should sell cars to Christian, Jew, Islamic and Atheist.
The cartoon commercial with a gay bar owner and Christian bookstore
owner does not point out that the Christian bookstore owner would have
to hire someone of a different faith to them under the law as it stands -
which violates their "sincere religious or conscientious objections."
Regarding the second, it bothers me to no end to reference a law in
another state and not allow me to go read the law myself. They tell a
nice story and let you draw the parallel to Anchorage’s change without
actually pointing us to the law in NM which it supposedly mirrors.
The
third point is that the wording of the proposition is vague and poorly
written. I can grant several of the points made here. Bisexual and
transgender are difficult terms to define, especially for those who are
not bisexual or transgender and for those who have not interacted with
others who are either bisexual or transgender. They are difficult
definitions in an academic setting, political setting, and personal
setting. But that does not remove them from our lives. I have often
heard a broad definition of bisexual and transgender as those who cannot
decide if they like having sex with men or with women. This is perhaps a
misunderstanding, but more probably an outright deceit to influence the
opinion of another. Those who are gay, bisexual or transgender are not
just thinking about who they can have sex with. For transgender people,
the expression of who they are is inconsistent with the societal norms
for how they were born. The transition from a man to a woman for a
transgender person is as much about finding how they fit into society as
it is about justifying who they sleep with. Bisexual people are
physically attracted to men and women - they fall in love with a person,
not a sex. Again, this is difficult for many people to understand. With
that in mind, this may be the most valid point in the FAQ.
The fourth point
assumes that the government would be taking sides in a cultural war.
The biggest problem with this point is the disparaging and hateful
language included in expounding the point. The pop quiz asks "would you
hire a so-called 'transgendered' person to care for small children?
Would you be comfortable with an openly 'bi-sexual' person teaching your
child's Kindergarten class?" The quotes around transgendered and
bi-sexual and the use of the word "so-called" is disgusting. Belittling
the struggles of another human being is unloving, and I cannot think
that Jesus would ever use such descriptions. The hinting that a bisexual
person would be less trustworthy around children than a straight person
is offensive. It strongly implies that someone who is bisexual would be
more likely to attempt something sexually inappropriate with a child.
The fifth point
does not even deal with Prop. 5, it deals with the religious exemptions
which currently exist in AMC 5.20.090, accusing it of being poorly
written and vague. If you want greater protection for religious
institutions in law, then propose a change yourself. Proposition 5 makes
no change to the current religious exemptions.
The sixth point is a rehashing of the second point but with some added fear mongering for personal rights.
The seventh point
is a rehashing of the third point about vague language making it
impossible to determine if someone should use the men's or the women's
restroom or changing room again with some fear-mongering in the form of
stories.
The eight point almost makes a
good point - is a transgender person required to dress as the sex they
feel most comfortable as, or according to the sex which seems evident
from their DNA. However, it ignores the fact that many companies
currently have dress codes which make no reference whatsoever to the sex
of the employee. Dress codes which I have interacted with do not tend
to be in the form of “men do this, women do this” with some exceptions
(men be clean shaven or women do not wear skirts about your knee). The
idea that there would be a question of whether a transgender man should
remain clean shaven or be required to wear skirts past their knee
becomes moot – if you wear a skirt it needs to be past the knee, if you
have visible hair on your face it needs to be clean shaven.
The ninth point
references the potential expense to businesses. Seriously? It's too
expensive to do the right thing, let's just not do it? I think not.
Companies already spend money on diversity training for race, religion,
age, etc; there is no reason to believe that additional training
regarding sexual orientation or transgender is so exorbitant as to make
it unobtainable.
The tenth point argues
that tolerance must be a two-way street. I laughed when I read this.
There is currently no street between Christianity as a whole and LGBT
people.
My last thought on this for now: as it stands in
Anchorage, I could be fired from a job (or not even hired in the first
place) or asked to leave a restaurant because I am attracted to men. Not
because I have interacted with men romantically or physically (which I
haven’t). Allow me to reiterate: I am gay and I have never chosen to be
attracted to men and not women (which isn’t to say that I wouldn’t have
chosen it – just that I didn’t). Because of this, I feel that this is a
protection that needs to pass. In the same way that I did not choose to
be white, male of (many, many, many) mixed European background, I did
not choose to be gay. I did however choose to be a Christian. Because of
these things, I will be voting “yes” on proposition 5.
***Copied from my Facebook account***
No comments:
Post a Comment