Two women seeking equality in a state where some couples are more equal than others.

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Dear Houston: You Just Cut off your Nose to Spite your Face

Most of my readers have probably already heard that Houston voted down a measure barring discrimination for a variety of groups, including (but very much NOT limited to) the LGBT community. If you haven't, read the HuffPo piece here.

I could write about the constitutionality of voters deciding whether people should have rights (hint: a majority voting to oppress a minority isn't constitutional, and it's not what the Founding Fathers intended for democracy). I could write about gerrymandering, the attempt in many places to disenfranchise certain voting blocks, or the inaccurate campaign to convince voters that this measure was somehow about allowing men in women's bathrooms.

Instead, I want to point out the hypocrisy of this single-issue-voter, reactionary conservative mindset to withhold protections from the LGBT community, share which other groups are left vulnerable, and assert that this will have an impact on the perception of Houston and the willingness of young professionals to relocate there.

So, here's the list of other groups who are now unprotected in the name of allowing people to discriminate against my group, and reasons this is horribly hypocritical:

Race - if we want to say that everyone has an equal opportunity, that racism no longer exists, or that White privilege isn't a thing, then no one should be bothered by this. If you're still trying to protect people's right to discriminate based on race, well, then, admit that the Civil Rights Movement isn't over.

Age - If you say you love senior citizens, if you're opposed to physician-assisted suicide, if you believe that the elderly have much to offer and should be protected, well, why wouldn't protecting them make sense? And if you believe "kids these days" need to work hard, why wouldn't you want them to have opportunities for employment and safe housing?

Pregnancy - Big one here, Houston. If you're pro-life, you have to be pro-pregnant women. Protecting them from discrimination in employment and housing might be the single easiest thing you can do to reduce the rate of abortions.

Sex - again, do you want to admit we still need feminism? Or do you want to pass something that you're effectively arguing is unnecessary, in the name of getting protections for the other groups on this list you purport to care about?

Color - see Race comment.

Disability - if every life matters, then protecting the disabled is our duty as humans, and as adherents of any religious background.

Military Status - our military serves every day to protect us. Isn't it time to protect them? If this measure would keep even one active member of the military or veteran from homelessness, wasn't it worth passing?

National Origin - Houston is an incredibly diverse city. Kind of thought y'all would want to keep that up.

Ethnicity - see Race comment.

Religion - believe it or not, the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and this would actually protect all the Christians that the right is claiming are under attack, if they really are.

Sexual Orientation - So this was what you supposedly actually objected to. I obviously disagree, but that's not the objective of this post.

Gender Identity - See Sexual Orientation comment.

Genetic Information - You know who has different genetics? People with certain predictors of breast cancer. People with Down's syndrome. People with Huntington's. If the Right is actually pro-women and pro-women's health, pro-life, pro-disability, again, why would they pass up the opportunity to protect such groups?

Marital Status - this is a critical one for many women. Marital status has been demonstrated to be a point of discrimination in situations like hiring and promotion. Again, if you're truly pro-women, pro-pregnancy, and pro-life, why not pass this?

Family Status - want to truly be pro-family and promote family values? Preventing discrimination here would be a key step. Allowing employers or housing offices to discriminate against those with children isn't pro-life, pro-pregnancy, or pro-child, since guess what? Most pregnancy end with a child and a change in family status.

I have already spoken to people who refuse to move to Michigan because of a lack of these kinds of protections. In fact, my wife and I refuse to relocated to Texas given the disregard for civil rights there (and maybe you think that isn't a loss, but I happen to know you have a shortage of people who can care for pregnant women, and my wife is a family med physician with a lot of training in managing pregnancies and deliveries. I also know that you have a teacher shortage, especially in ESL and bilingual, and I'm looking to get back into public school education.).

So maybe, if you could set aside the details about people that you don't like and look at the bigger picture, you would see a world that's a little more just, a little kinder, and a little more principled.


No comments:

Post a Comment