When a tolerant city can't support a simple statement of tolerance

Posted by adn_jomalley

Posted: June 19, 2009 - 10:43 pm

Comments (0) |

I made it into the Anchorage Assembly chambers on Wednesday just about the time a Christian guy in a red shirt was testifying in detail about how gay people are into flogging. It was X-rated and creepy no matter how you cut it, but it was especially weird because my mom was in the room along with a lot of people carrying Bibles.

There had already been too many crazy-making, repetitive evenings of testimony about whether to add sexual orientation to the city’s non-discrimination ordinance. The ordinance defined “sexual orientation” as straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender. It covered housing and employment. It was not breaking new ground. Similar ordinances exist in more than 100 cities. Some are 30 years old.

But pressure from church groups led assembly members to tinker with it. By Wednesday it was absurd.
The Assembly was actually considering an ordinance that would exclude transgender people completely and would make discrimination against gays and lesbians legal for all private employers in Anchorage. So instead of protecting people from discrimination, they were writing the ability to discriminate into the law.

And they were letting the circular hours of testimony go on and on, including testimony from people who don’t live in Anchorage. I guessed it was because some of those who want the issue to go away were waiting for Dan Sullivan to take office. Sullivan is a conservative guy, and many expect him to veto whatever the Assembly approves. One way or another, it seemed the measure was destined to fail.

I was there because of a photo a friend had posted online of a big black Dodge Durango that showed up at the Loussac Library the day before. It had “Straight Pride. Say no to Homo!” painted on it in white. It shocked me because it tapped into something I don’t come into contact with that often in Anchorage: blatant homophobia.

The thing that was killing me as I sat there was that it was really just an ugly war over something symbolic. Was it going to make a huge tangible change in a huge number of lives? No. It was a simple gesture of tolerance. As it stands, only a tiny fraction of those who call the city’s Equal Rights Commission to complain about discrimination end up going through the process to find a remedy. It could pass and most of Anchorage would wake up the next day largely unchanged. But the Assembly lost perspective on that and couldn’t seem to get it back.

I stepped outside onto the library lawn. It had a tense carnival atmosphere. The Christians, wearing red shirts, waved anti-ordinance signs along 36th Avenue next to the gay people and supporters swathed in rainbow flags. There were hot dogs (Christian) and sandwiches (gay), techno (gay) and hip-hop (Christian). People bobbed heads to respective beats.

Jim Minnery, the head of the Alaska Family Council, caught up with me by the hot dog stand. He’s nice enough and we went around for a while even though we disagreed. His big thing was the issue of Christian businesses having to serve gay people. He gave the example of a Christian gynecologist who refused to do in vitro fertilization for a lesbian couple in California. They sued him under nondiscrimination laws and won, he said. I told him as a far as I was concerned, the Christian gynecologists could be excused from making gay people’s babies.

But I kept thinking about Minnery’s example. In vitro fertilization was one thing, but what about emergency surgery? When you sign up to be a doctor, do you have a right to refuse patients you don’t agree with? Where does religious freedom end and human rights for gay people begin? Is “religious freedom” in this case just a code word for prejudice?

And, what about common sense? Under the ordinance, churches would be allowed to discriminate in their hiring, but church-goers would have to follow the same rules as everyone else. That seemed fair. It’s not illegal for a doctor to say, “I’m obligated to treat you, but I don’t agree with the way you live your life.” If my doctor said that, I’d be getting another doctor in a hurry. If the ordinance passes, it might mean some uncomfortable conversations. I’m not sure uncomfortable conversations infringe on anyone’s religious freedom.

I walked through the crowd reading signs. “Truth is not hate.” “Hate is not truth.” “Everyone snuggles!” Then I ran into a kid holding a sign that said “Gays recruit children.”

“Do you really believe that?” I asked him.

He shrugged, and then looked straight ahead like I wasn’t there.

I went back inside just as Pastor Alonzo Patterson headed for the podium. He’s from Shiloh Baptist, maybe the biggest black church in town. He and my grandparents worked on civil rights issues in Anchorage 30 years ago.

About then I realized we weren’t just talking about Christian doctors, we were talking about any business in the city. Right now a restaurant owner can put a sign out front that says “No gays allowed,” and that would be totally fine. A health club could ban gay people from the pool. I really don’t think that’s the kind of city we live in. So why would it be so hard to make it part of the city code?

Patterson was getting worked up. He was outraged that anyone would compare the civil rights movement to the gay rights movement. Gays weren’t beaten down, he said. They weren’t lynched. I thought about Matthew Shepard, the gay kid beaten to death and tied to a fence in Wyoming in 1998. I thought of gays sent to concentration camps when my grandmother was a girl in Italy.

The ordinance change is about symbolism and that symbolism is important. It’s about making a statement that everyone is welcome here. It’s overdue. It’s common sense. I believe the majority of this town supports it.

But it appears a room full of red shirts is enough to convince some Assembly members otherwise.

login or register to post comments