RSS 2.0 FeedThe Wrong Direction On Gay Rights
by Doug MataconisYesterday, the House of Representatives passed legislation that is already being hailed as a major victory for gay rights. Rather than a victory, though, I’d consider it a setback, since it places gay rights into the same entitlement category as other “rights” created by the state in the years since the civil rights movement took a wrong turn:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 — The House on Wednesday approved a bill granting broad protections against discrimination in the workplace for gay men, lesbians and bisexuals, a measure that supporters praised as the most important civil rights legislation since the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 but that opponents said would result in unnecessary lawsuits.
The bill, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, is the latest version of legislation that Democrats have pursued since 1974. Representatives Edward I. Koch and Bella Abzug of New York then sought to protect gay men and lesbians with a measure they introduced on the fifth anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, the brawl between gay men and police officers at a bar in Greenwich Village that is widely viewed as the start of the American gay rights movement.
(…)
The House bill would make it illegal for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation.”
Some might argue that there really isn’t anything wrong with this bill — after all, every other perceived “minority” is protected by Federal laws that prohibit them from being discriminated against in employment, so why not homosexuals ? Andrew Sullivan makes this argument himself even while noting that there’s something just fundamentally wrong with the bill:
I haven’t always supported this legislation, and my libertarian heart is not thrilled by it. But every other minority is federally protected from discrimination in employment; it is increasingly a form of prejudice to say that gay people can be fired at will from their jobs just for being who they are.
In other words, because the state has intervened in private contractual relationships and told employers that persons belonging to Category A must be given a protected status, we should extend those same special rights to other minorities, or, in this case, perceived minorities.
I support equal rights for homosexuals, meaning that I believe they are entitled to the same rights to life, liberty, and property that we’re all entitled to, and they’re entitled to equal treatment from the state with respect to those rights. That means that as long as the state recognizes and provides benefits to a relationship it calls “marriage,” it shouldn’t have the power to deny the benefits of that relationship to anyone based solely on their sexual orientation. Nor should homosexuals be prohibited per se from adopting children (adoptions should be judged on a case by case, best interests test to begin with, but that’s a subject for another day).
What they don’t need, what the rest of us don’t need, though, is the state stepping into private relationships in the manner that this bill does. Does that mean that some bigoted employer somewhere might fire someone because they’re gay ? Maybe, but why should the state concern itself with that ? We don’t live in the 1940s anymore, employers who do things like this are going to be found out and, in an era when most Americans are tolerant, they’re likely to face consequences for their actions in the marketplace.
Rather than protecting anyones rights, bills like this do nothing but reinforce the (false) idea that rights come from the state.
It’s a question of local versus global optima — or, if you prefer, a Bayesian approach. Given that we have these non-discrimination laws, and are not going to abolish them any time soon, it is not unreasonable (indeed I would submit that it is not unlibertarian) to advocate that these laws be crafted intelligently. And basic intelligence demands that sexual orientation (the last unsettled question of bigotry) be included.
It’s better to have a misguided law applied coherently than to have a misguided law applied incoherently.
Comment by KipEsquire — November 8, 2007 @ 6:44 amKip,
So you’re saying that we should accept bad laws because they’re inevitable? Sorry, but that’s about as un-libertarian and anti-freedom as you get. This law is horrible, as are any “minority” protection laws that give special protections to any group over another, and as Doug pointed out it sets a tone that right derive from the state (which they don’t). I’m all in favor of rights for individuals, but this kind of collective thinking works directly against that. Thankfully Bush will be very likely to veto this.
Comment by UCrawford — November 8, 2007 @ 8:11 amCrawford,
Don’t be so sure about a veto, the article I linked to suggests that he might actually sign it.
Yea, it would piss off the Christian Right but he’s alienated every other Republican constituency so why should they be left out ;)
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 8, 2007 @ 9:17 amSorry, but I don’t buy it. He’s basically shooting down Democratic proposals out of spite these days. That’s the one upside to Bush being a petty stupid fucker, he’ll veto Democratic proposals just to piss off Pelosi and Reid. That’s one nice thing about a bitter lame-duck president in a split government, he doesn’t have to get anything done and he’s more than happy to indulge grudges. He doesn’t have rifts with the Christian right like he does with the Democrats.
Comment by UCrawford — November 8, 2007 @ 9:37 amWhat a relief. Doug’s starting to sound like a libertarian again. :-)
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 8, 2007 @ 9:55 amIt’s probably more that he’s not discussing foreign policy…that’s where he goes all neo-con on us with all that “world’s oil supply” gibberish. :)
Comment by UCrawford — November 8, 2007 @ 11:53 amSo are all of you going to contact your Congressmen to introduce bills to remove protections in employement given for race, religion, sex, age, disability, and veterans status??? Or are you suddenly finding your “libertarian” roots now that gays might get equal protection? I don’t know which is worse- conservatives pretending to be libertarians, or bigots who hide behind christianity.
Comment by Daniel — November 8, 2007 @ 3:53 pmUh… Daniel – Most of the people on this site *have and would* advocate removing all special protections based upon all of the above, except possibly veterans status.
Comment by Quincy — November 8, 2007 @ 10:05 pm