Representative Dan Frankel (D-Pa) is the lead sponsor of the reintroduction of a bill in Pennsylvania banning anti-gay discrimination in employment, housing and credit (HB 3000). While a similar bill failed to move out of the committee in the last session, this bill, apparently, has 57 sponsors. The bill would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of discrimination categories already banned by Pennsylvania's Human Relation's Act.
The Senate has a similar bill (SB 912) with 19 Senators backing it, including lead Democratic supporter, Senator Jim Ferlo.
Is it possible Pennsylvania could be acting in a "diverse and tolerant" fashion as Frankel describes the state? While the House bill having 57 sponsors may be a relatively strong support for anti-discrimination, 19 supporters of the Senate bill hardly is.
Frankel said, “The fact that someone is gay or straight has nothing to do with his or her ability to do a good job or the ability to be a good neighbor or tenant. It is long past time for Pennsylvania to join the 17 states that already ban anti-gay discrimination on the job.”
Frankel also commented, “This is the right thing to do, and it also makes economic sense to improve our standing as a diverse and tolerant state. This is the kind of indicator that matters to forward-looking companies and individuals.”
But the question remains: If the bill didn't pass in the last session, why would it pass now?
As I sat here pondering Representative Frankel's comment that Pennsylvania is "diverse and tolerant," I wondered why he would take this position. Maybe it's a position of wishful thinking. But I don't necessarily think it's the position of groups who are continually discriminated against in Pennsylvania - I could be wrong though. But my guess is groups that are discriminated against probably have a bit more realistic perspective on tolerance. One thing I can say for sure, though, is it certainly wasn't the position of the man I am about to tell you about.
So I'm sitting in my office composing this post and a knock came at my door. I opened it to a nice looking man who introduced himself as a candidate for State Representative. His name is Lou Guerra, Jr. He wanted to put a "face to the name" and offered to answer any questions I had. Initially I told him I didn't have any. So he handed me his brochure with a picture of his wife, Linda, and their happy family - four kids, Amy, Ryan, Katie and Timmy, all gathered on a lawn, smiling, and invited me to check out his website and offered that if I had any questions, I should feel free to contact him via email.
I told him I did have one question, "Where do you stand on gay rights?" His silence spoke volumes. Eventually he responded in this manner, and I'm paraphrasing, "Well, that's a broad issue." He took a long pause.
I'm thinking, "Okay, not a difficult question, regardless of the scope of the issue. Either you're in support or not." I already know what his position is. Now it's just a matter of how artfully he's going to answer the question.
"While I don't support gay marriage, I also do not support discrimination of any kind."
"Hmmm," I responded, "that doesn't make much sense."
So according to Mr. Guerra, his ability to reap the benefits of the institution of marriage as a heterosexual man and my inability to do so as a lesbian woman does not constitute discrimination.
Sorry, Mr. Guerra, I think I'll vote for the other guy. But thanks for putting a face to the name.
Check out HRC's list of endorsed candidates to see if your candidates are gay-friendly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I was taken back at first by the intensity of your question. While you already "knew" my position before I said anything, I did not know yours. Though obviously interested in the issue, from my perspective you could just as easily have been an anti-gay activist, in which case you probably would not have liked the second part of my answer. But note that unlike some I did give you a real answer even though you did not like it.
I stand by my answer. I believe every citizen of this country is entitled to the rights accorded them in the constitution. I will vigorously defend your rights, including the right to be heard, and most importantly the right to be free from harm, regardless of whether or not I agree with you. In that regard I am a strong supporter of "gay rights". I do not believe that marriage is a civil right.
I note your call for open dialogue to find common ground. I see room for that discussion, and When elected state representative my door will always be open.
- Lou Guerra, Jr.
Amendment XIV of the Bill of Rights reads "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
JMHO that Marriage is absolutely a legal contract and clearly there are many legal protections that go with a marriage certificate. There are financial protections,health benefit protections if one person works and the other does not, child custody protections, separation/divorce financial protections.............
Signed,
'straight(hetero) & supportive of rights for ALL citizens and YES I VOTE !!!'
Lou,
Just to clarify, I didn't "know" your position on gay rights when I asked you the question. I "knew" your position when you didn't answer the question right away. I further "knew" your position on the topic once you did answer that you do not support gay marriage, but you also do not support discrimination.
My position is: denying anyone the ability to get married and, subsequently, denying them the benefits afforded married people as a result of the institution of marriage is discrimination.
I'm curious why you would be "taken aback by the intensity of [my] question." I asked what your position is on gay rights. It's a pretty forward-thinking question and one that is high on many people's agenda come election time - especially in the minds of the LGBT community. Would you have been as equally taken aback if I'd asked you, for instance, what your position is on ... I don't know ... environmental protection? Or, what about gun control? They're all political questions, so why is asking about gay rights any more intense than any other topic?
Anonymous brings up a good point. Because I can't get married, I am being denied basic rights, and you are being afforded them because you can get married. A thought that has occurred to us is this: Why not remove marriage as the means of obtaining these rights? If marriage is the only way to get "equal protection of the laws" then either quit discriminating against LGBT (and, consequently non-married heterosexual couples who will suffer because of insane discrimination laws against gay people) so we can all have "equal protection of the laws," or remove marriage as the means of attaining them.
You said you do not believe marriage is a civil right. If it's not a civil right, then what kind of right is it?
I appreciate your thoughts and I'm glad you felt comfortable sharing them. Honestly, I don't believe you can call yourself a "strong" supporter of gay rights if you support discrimination against LGBTs of any sort. And labeling yourself as such is probably going to end up being quite offensive to some people.
Finally I'd like to say, I don't think your lack of knowing which side I fell on should have made a difference. Either you stand by what you believe or you don't. It shouldn't matter who I am or what I believe. You're either going to give me an answer I like or you're not - and you can't please everyone. But doing so with strength and conviction ... without hesitation ... would probably convince some people to overlook an answer they didn't necessarily want to hear.
Post a Comment