|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
October 6, 2001Semantics of Proposal 1 simply clouding the issueSaying something is so doesn't make it so. Saying it isn't doesn't mean it's not. That applies perfectly to the rather absurd assertion by a New York priest earlier this week that Traverse City's Proposal 1 is somehow not a civil rights issue. Just saying it isn't doesn't make it so. And it certainly doesn't take Proposal 1's backers off the hook to explain why the rights of homosexuals to be protected from discrimination aren't civil rights and, further, why public policy should be based on the religious belief of some that homosexuality is a sin. For the record, Proposal 1, if adopted by city voters in November, would prohibit the city from adopting any policy, rule or ordinance that would include homosexuals or bisexuals among groups granted protection from discrimination. It was put on the ballot through a petition campaign organized by a group with a name - Traverse City Citizens Voting Yes for Equal Rights, Not Special Rights - that reflects the same verbal gymnastics Proposal 1 backers are using to push their proposal: The rights of homosexuals to be protected from discrimination are somehow "special" rights, not civil rights. The Traverse City petition drive is part of a wider effort being promoted across the country by the Tupelo, Miss.-based American Family Association, a conservative Christian organization. The aim of the AFA-sponsored petition drives here and elsewhere is to block or overturn local government personnel policies that extend protection from discrimination to homosexuals. Votes on virtually identical proposals are taking place next month in Kalamazoo and Huntington Woods. On Monday, Proposal 1 backers brought the Rev. John Harvey to town to offer the city commission some spiritual guidance on the issue. What the commission got, however, was Harvey's assertion that equating the rights of homosexuals to be free from discrimination and the civil rights movement somehow puts a "one-sided emphasis" on personal rights without recognizing that homosexual activities are "serious sins" in the eyes of some. How can civil rights be anything but personal? The broad aim of the civil rights movement of the 1960s was to give all Americans of African descent the same rights as everyone else. But its triumph has come person by person, every time someone of color got a job or promotion or got into his or her school of choice. And we've all seen where the assertion that God is for or against one group or another can lead. The spin being put on Proposal 1 by Harvey and the AFA is intended to somehow make those who support it appear to be the victims here. Harvey said, "Such laws interfere with freedom of conscience for religious persons and organizations." In reality, of course, the freedom he's talking about is the freedom to discriminate based solely on what someone does in the privacy of the bedroom. While it's too bad both sides of the debate didn't get a special invitation to bring in an out-of-town speaker, Harvey's presentation did help clarify that Proposal 1 is indeed about civil rights, not special rights. |
|
