The American Family Association of Indiana’s Micah Clark has launched a vicious and deceitful campaign to defeat Indianapolis’ proposed Human Rights Ordinance (HRO). An alert he sent to his Christian right faithful begins: “[T]he Indianapolis City-County Council is re-considering raising homosexuality and cross-dressing to the status of skin color and religious identity for employment and housing purposes.”
Just like it did last spring to convince city-county councilors to vote against the HRO, the Christian right is communicating deceitful and false information about the proposal to confuse and distract from the proposal’s central focus. An image prominently displayed on the American Family Association of Indiana’s web site with the rainbow flag and a message reading "Hire that Transvestite" is a transparent and bigoted attempt to play on people’s worst fears.
Clark’s e-mail alert claims that the HRO “will force all companies operating in Marion county, including companies doing business with Marion county, to prove that they are open to hiring homosexuals and cross dressers.” The HRO, in fact, applies only to employers with 6 or more employees. Proposal 622 adds “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to Indianapolis’ civil rights ordinance, which already provides protection from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, sex, disability and veterans.
Clark is willing to take full advantage of the civil right protection he is granted under federal, state and local laws to be free of discrimination on the basis of his religious beliefs. Yet he, like other members of the Christian right, deems it a “special right” when the same protection he enjoys is offered to gays and lesbians.
As a scare tactic, Clark tells councilors that the HRO will “pave the way for non-profit organizations as well, like churches, to submit to the same hiring rules”, and that “it will pave the way for legal acceptance of gay marriage.” The HRO, like the existing civil rights ordinance, specifically exempts religious and non-profit organizations, and Indiana’s Defense of Marriage Act already prohibits recognition of gay marriages. Clark interjects these divisive issues in an effort to distract councilors from the real issue, which is to eliminate discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
Public opinion polls consistently show overwhelmingly that the public believes that a person should not be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. That’s why the Christian right feels compelled to cloud the issue with false and misleading information. It is ironic that the same people who raise morality as the basis of their opposition to the HRO are so willing to do whatever it takes to stop the HRO, even if that means telling the public lies about its true impact, in an effort to achieve their ends of permitting the lawful discrimination of people with whom they hold a moral objection.
1 comment:
I'm a little confused. You claim Micah Clark is deceitful, and give as examples:
“[T]he Indianapolis City-County Council is re-considering raising homosexuality and cross-dressing to the status of skin color and religious identity for employment and housing purposes.”
Well, that sounds pretty close to what the I understand the ordinance is going to do.
Next:
" "Hire that Transvestite" is a transparent and bigoted attempt to play on people’s worst fears."
Well, if the transvestite is the best qualified. Then Yeah, those folks should hire him/her. That level of non-discrimination is my personal goal for our movement, and I hope the goal of many others. Micah Clark is not misrepresenting what we want.
That Clark said "all employers" instead of "all who employ six or more employees". That may be inappropriate, but not overwhemingly so.
Third:
You also quote Clark as saying:
"Clark tells councilors that the HRO will “pave the way for non-profit organizations as well, like churches, to submit to the same hiring rules”, and that “it will pave the way for legal acceptance of gay marriage.”
Well, yes. It certainly is an important step towards acheiving those larger goals, which will- to a certain extent- be made easier.
Finally, reiterating the old "special rights" argument is a form of deceit. I agree.
But the way you make these arguments imply many of us are not about equal employment opprotunities for cross-dressers, or that we don't have hopes that one day even churches and non-profits will abandon discrimination based on gender non-conformity.
People like Clark do deceive, but when you call someone out on deceit, you have to be squeaky clean honest yourself. In many ways Clark DOES accurately depict ours agenda and goals.
But we should be damn proud of that agenda.
Post a Comment