Sexual Orientation Anti-Discrimiation Bill Stalled By WA Senate

OlyScoop reports that The Washington state senate today blocked passage of a bill that would have expanded the jurisdiction of the human rights commission to include sexual orientation. The bill, passed in the house by a vote of 61 to 37 in February. It has now been delayed in the senate by "parliamentary maneuvering" according to representative Ed Murray. Progressive Majority Washington indicates the procedural motion passed by 1 vote, put over the top by a couple of Democratic senators, Sheldon and Hargrove, who voted with the Republicans.

The details of the bill can be found at the Washington State Legislature Bill Information site. There you can read the arguments for and against the bill.

Senate testimony for the bill stated:

This bill is not about quotas, affirmative action, or gay marriage. Rather, it is about protecting people that have been and continue to be discriminated against in many contexts. Sexual orientation is not a choice, but even if it were a choice, immutability is irrelevant. Creed is not an immutable characteristic, but creed is still covered by the Law Against Discrimination. Fifteen other states, several municipalities, and many businesses throughout our state have already moved to protect sexual orientation from discrimination. The time has come for our state as a whole to follow suit. Businesses will profit from this anti-discrimination policy by attracting a diverse talent pool, and the gay community will profit by knowing that they have the same opportunity to succeed as the rest of the citizens in the state.

Testimony against proclaimed:

This bill has nothing to do with equal rights, and it will allow the minority (the gay community) to crush the majority (those who oppose gay rights). This bill will force companies to hire people with reprehensible lifestyles, and business owners will have to accommodate those people with things like special bathrooms. Sexual orientation is not biological or genetic; it is not an immutable characteristic, and nobody knows how to distinguish when someone is a homosexual or a heterosexual. Under this bill, someone could claim to be a homosexual one day, invoke class protections, and be a heterosexual the next day. The bill's definition of sexual orientation is too broad and can include all kinds of sexual disorders. Sexual orientation labels are meaningless because they are self-proclaimed.

This testimony against the bill is exactly the kind of thinking the bill aims to protect people against. Homosexuality, such a huge topic during the last elections, continues to be seen by opponents as a disease or deviant behavior, rather than a fundamental definition of a person's core being. Recall how Bush ducked the question during the third Presidential debate:

SCHIEFFER: Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

BUSH: You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that.

And I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live.

And that's to be honored.

Bush didn't know if he believed homosexuality was a choice? Or was he saying he simply didn't know enough about homosexuality to decide one way or another? At least he appears to be supportive of the rights of homosexuals, and would appear to be stating a position of support for a bill that would protect those rights.

The fact the question of sexual choice is being argued so much these days either points to the desperation of the religious right or a feeling of strength in their political sway. While certainly thirty or forty years ago homosexuality was considered, wrongfully or not, a deviant lifestyle to most Americans, I believe we have come a long way since then in understanding that it is not merely a matter of choice, but derives from the essence of a person's being. Politicians nevertheless are still putting a wet finger to the wind as they try to figure out what side of the issue to vote on.

Ours is not a society built on principles of intolerance and prejudice, at least not the one I want to live in. The Republican party claims to be the party of "values", yet they champion discrimination and 19th century thinking. Shame on them. (NWPT34)