Nevada passes LGBT inclusive anti-bullying bill, and what that tells us

Timothy Kincaid

May 15th, 2015

It is the nature of social struggle that we tend to focus more on the next mile than on how far we have come.

As we approach the deadline for the Supreme Court’s ruling a lot of attention is given to the raving loons in Texas who are putting on a good show of defying the Court and the nation’s constitution (without quite actually doing so). We hear the absurd positions of some of the more extreme GOP presidential contenders ranting about constitutional amendments and executive powers. And we can be tempted to think that the nation remains polarized on gay issues, with Democrats in support and Republicans dead set on opposing anything and everything that would make the life of a gay person have more rights, dignity or respect.

But that isn’t how things are.

Yes, it is definitely true that Democrats are, as a whole, supportive of our community. And it is also true the Republicans are, as a whole, less supportive, especially relating to the legal parameters of marriage.

But though blowhards like Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz rant and spew invective, they do not represent all Republicans. And even within positions like marriage equality, there are subtleties and nuances that suggest that today’s GOP is far from the party that in 2004 seemed hell-bent on showing gay couples just how much they were despised.

One such shift is the way that Republicans now view policy differently from personal action when it comes to same-sex marriage. While the numbers are marching steadily towards equality, still only about 32% of Republicans say that same-sex marriages should be given the same legal status as heterosexual marriages. However, in a seeming contradiction, 56% would personally attend the wedding of a same-sex couple they knew. This double position is also reflected in some front running presidential nominees, with some not only saying they would hypothetically go but already have or are planning to.

This suggests that a significant portion of opposition to equality for gay people is rooted in identity rather than personal opposition. They support the traditional definition of marriage being opposite sex as a Republican or as a conservative or as a Christian, but not out of personal hostility.

And I believe that those who feel some identity-based obligation to support a position will find it easy to capitulate to equality once their obligation is lifted. And for many of them, this is the final hurdle to full acceptance and inclusion.

As an example, let’s look at Republican Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada.

Sandoval was a supporter of civil unions, but has never endorsed marriage equality. And he felt some obligation to support the state’s restriction on same-sex marriage.

Yet when the Ninth Circuit ruled the state’s marriage ban to be unconstitutional and determined that anti-gay legislation is to be subjected to an enhanced scrutiny, Sandoval found his obligation lifted. So the State of Nevada ceased its defense of the ban.

And unencumbered by some duty to be anti-gay, Sandoval and the Republicans in his state are now free to approach legislation based on what they believe to be good for the state rather than on obligation to anti-gay policy. As they have just demonstrated.

Governor Sandoval has been pushing the state to adopt anti-bullying legislation that would protect students in schools and hold principals and administrators liable for the well-being of students. The bill specifically includes protection based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Earlier this month the state Senate, which has a Republican majority of 11 to 10, voted 18 to 1 in favor of the bill. Yesterday the House, which holds a Republican majority of 25 to 17, voted 36 to 6 in favor of the bill.

This does not mean that opposition is dead. Or that politicians in places like Indiana or Arkansas or Texas will not go out of their way to show contempt for gay people. Nor does it suggest that Republicans are now somehow on par with Democrats when it comes to respect and inclusion.

But it does suggest that once the nation has crossed the great hurdle of marriage equality (and unless we find some foolish way to alienate the public), the changes in public policy, partisan posturing, and social inclusion will be significant.

Ben

May 16th, 2015

You want so badly Timothy for Republicans to be an acceptable party. Even if they adopted full gay marriage equality today, I would never vote for the party of misogynist, racist, regressive landed gentry that makes up the Republican Party. Their being dragged kicking and screaming into modern times on gay rights is the least of most decent people’s objections to their terrible politics.

Timothy Kincaid

May 16th, 2015

Yes, Ben I do want the Republicans to be an acceptable party.

I want for all parties across the political spectrum to grow up, become responsible, put aside their petty differences, and place the nation’s needs ahead of their own personal gratifications and egos.

Sadly, I’m not overly optimistic about any of them.

Ned Flaherty

May 16th, 2015

Timothy Kincaid excuses those who restrict marriage rights to 90% of society (the mixed-gender couples) and deny it to the last 10% (the same-gender couples).

He argues that they discriminate not out of “personal hostility” (his words), but only because of some minor flaw he blames upon their being Republican / conservative / Christian. He parses this obvious prejudice by slicing the delicate onion skin of bigotry into some razor-thin difference. He imagines that the sheer bigotry of marriage discrimination is somehow different from “personal hostility.”

Kincaid is wrong. This ultra-fine distinction that he imagines doesn’t even exist.

Bigots who fight for marriage discrimination do not get excused just because Kincaid blames their prejudice on politics / socialization / religion, as though that somehow negates their bigotry. It doesn’t.

The official Democrat Party Platform promotes LGBT rights at every opportunity, but the official Republican Party Platform specifically opposes LGBT rights — in 12 separate places (http://www.marriageequality.org/political_party_platforms). Republicans have held those 12 anti-LGBT stances for 4 years, and now they’re renewing them for another 4 years.

For Kincaid to classify his beloved Republicans as merely “less supportive” of LGBT rights than Democrats is an absurdly understated euphemism.

His own party isn’t embarrassed by how hard it opposes LGBT rights, so Kincaid should stop hiding behind euphemisms like “less supportive” and just call them what they are: bigots opposed to equality for others.

enough already

May 17th, 2015

One of the reasons so many gay men don’t vote for the Democratic Party is, quite simply, because they value their human and civil rights less than other matters.
It’s been enormously hard for me to grasp this.
Then again, there were Jews for Hitler, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that there are gays who support Republicans.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.