Sunday, February 25, 2007

R.I.P. Bigotry and Homophobia

Can't say I'll shed a tear over it.

Bigotry and Homophobia, all that gay-bashing that makes me sick to my stomach, is probably the unnoticed casualty of the 2006 elections.

For years under Republican rule, Gay and Lesbian Americans fell victim to Christian fundamentalist pandering and social conservative that ran rampant among the elected officials who needed the ignorant to vote for them. With Democrats in power, LGBT Americans can finally live without fear and live openly among everyone else.

Sure bigotry and homophobia still exist, but if you've noticed the brouhaha that erupted over the recent anti-gay remarks made by Isaiah Washington and Tim Hardaway, the rejection of the gay marriage ban in Arizona (and near rejections in Colorado and South Dakota), and the recent legalization of civil unions in New Jersey (which was popularly supported), LGBT rights are beginning to seem perfectly normal and accepted.

Having said that, I'm not a big fan of Hate Crime legislation. If someone kills someone because they're black or Mexican or gay, how does that change anything? You're going to prison for life or getting a needle in the arm anyway, what difference does it make if you're guilty of a hate crime or not? I do understand their existence. Murder aside, a person should be treated and sentenced differently if they purposely do harm to somebody because of their sexual identity (or race, religion, gender, etc.) than if say they beat someone up for kissing their boyfriend. The person who would physically harm another human being for a reason like them being gay is not a mentally-well person and should not be re released into society after the same amount of time as someone who committed a crime for another reason. That I understand.

I've been a strong supporter of gay rights since the Matthew Shepard incident in 1998. As a high school sophomore, I was appalled about the fact someone would kill him because he's gay and even more appalled at what appeared to be the lack of conscience by our government and the government of the state of Wyoming to do something about it. Even more so, I was appalled by the response of my Catholic school teachers who preceded to use Shepard's brutal murder to "scare any sodomites in this school straight." I distinctly remember a certain nun informing us that if any of us thought we were gay we'd better "find favor with the Lord or risk being tied to a fence and beaten to death."

Today, eight and a half years later, LGBT rights is one of the main reasons why I support Democrats (or socially liberal Republicans, as they exist in New York.) It is welcome news to me that the new Democratic Congress is looking into reviving the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The ENDA nearly passed in 1996, but fell one vote short in the Senate (Damn you Harris Wofford to losing that Senate race in 1994.) It is my sense that this time, it will pass. The question is, what does President Bush do?

I find it unlikely our born-again, preaching, bible-thumping, talks-to-Jesus, Texan President is going to allow such a law to pass. To a fundementalist Christian, firing somebody because they're gay is like firing somebody because they slept with the boss' 15-year-old daughter. To somebody like President Bush, this is essentially legalizing something he probably believes should be illegal. After all, it was in Texas until 2003 and despite six years as Governor and with a Democratic state legislature, he never did a damn thing to decriminilize homosexuality there. If the President vetoes this bill (as it won't pass the House and Senate by veto-proof margins), it will expose him for what he is, a bigot...or a politician pandering to the bigots.

Some may argue that hate crimes laws or laws like the ENDA seek to criminilize criticism of homosexualiy. You can still say what you want, you're just going to have to deal with the consequences of what you say. We would find it offensive today to call a black co-worker to "n" word that I refuse to use, and we would find it offensive today to call a female co-worker "tootz" or say something derogatory about her body, so why is it such a surprise that homosexual people find it offensive if you call them vulgar names too? Whatever happened to "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything?"

Some may argue passing these laws indicate that we don't trust each other to NOT be prejudiced. News flash: Americans have not historically been the most accepting people. When European Catholics began arriving, the blue blood Anglicans began accusing Catholic nuns and priests of having sex, getting the nuns pregnant and then eating the babies as the host at Communion, when the Jews began showing up in droves in the early 20th Century, they were accused of bringing Communism to America and seen a threat to the Christian monopoly over America. Anti-semitism existed all over the United States, take for instance the lynching of Leo Frank in Georgia in 1915. Speaking of lynching, I think we all know how the African-Americans were treated down south for about 100 years. Also, let's not forget how in this shining beacon of democracy, we didn't even let women vote until 1920. Are we surprised today's victim of American unacceptance are the LGBT community? Yes, Americans have not been the most accepting of people over time.

Therefore, in my opinion, if we are going to act like children, then our government should treat us like children, and that's why we need hate crime laws and the ENDA.

Thanks to the new Democratic majority, LGBT Americans will finally have a chance to come out fo the closet they've been forced back into over the last decade and live amongst the rest of the loyal American population.

No comments: