The article said that in exchange of that decision, opponents of gay-rights legislation will drop any effort to prevent local government from passing their own non-discrimination laws. I'm a little concerned about that "in exchange". Was this an official or unofficial exchange? Was a deal brokered between the opponents of gay-rights legislation and the state legislature? Or did opponents of gay-rights decide to let up on their own because they were happy with the decision? I hope it's not the former. The state legislature shouldn't be cutting deals with those that protest gay rights in an attempt to appease them. They should do what's right for the citizens of Utah -- and no citizen of Utah should be discriminated against (and have it be legal to discriminate against them).
"Gay-rights advocates had hoped to build on recent momentum created by the Salt Lake City Council, which passed nondiscrimination ordinances last year. Those ordinances passed after The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints said it would support the measures. In Utah, few law changes occur if the church disapproves. More than 80% of state lawmakers are Mormon, including Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican." The person that wrote this article really understands Utah. I don't think most people realize how powerful the Mormon church is in Utah politics (and some politics outside of Utah, as well. Proposition 8, anyone?). So if the church supported the measure passed by the SLC council, why not support it state-wide? Maybe they feel that SLC is such a hot bed of sin and that it's so long-gone that there's no reason to protest it. But the rest of Utah is still pure. So they want to keep all the gays within the confines of Salt Lake City. They don't want to go and make other places in Utah look desirable by passing anti-discrimination laws there (though I don't think there's much desire among Utah's gay population to relocate to too many places outside of SLC).
The governor of Utah, Gary Herbert, said that he disapproves against discriminating against gay people, but that he does not think it should be illegal. I don't know how you even explain that one. So he personally thinks it's wrong to discriminate, but he doesn't want it to apply to everyone? Does he think that if other people think it is fine to discriminate, they should be allowed to? So he think it's wrong to discriminate, but he doesn't want people to face consequences for discriminating? It just doesn't make any sense. If discrimination is wrong, a standard (a law) should be set in place that declares that discrimination is wrong and no one is has the right to do such a thing; and if you do, there are consequences.
But here comes the real reason. State legislature fear that if they make this a state-wide law (or vote against making this a state-wide law), Utah will become a battleground for gay rights. "In calling for a type of legislative cease fire, lawmakers are hoping to avoid drawing national attention to Utah in the battle over gay rights during an election year." So are they just hoping to always ignore this bill? Or just until the election year passes? But in the past, gay-rights bills in the state legislature have repeatedly been shot down because of fears that it could legalize same-sex marriage. A lot of efforts have been done to stop that -- including a constitutional ban on the practice and stopping short of saying there should be no discrimination against gay people (instead just a ban against discrimination in the workplace and in housing). But even a ban against discrimination in the workplace and in housing is scary for many state legislatures. 'If we allow them to not be discriminated in housing or the workplace, what's next? We can't discriminate against them in their right to marry?' And that's exactly right. Gay and lesbian couples have every right to get married. And how can you say they shouldn't be discriminated in one realm, but they can be in other realms? So that's why they don't want to allow too many rights. And I think that's terrible. (Full Story)
No comments:
Post a Comment