In the ongoing and often fractious debate around equality rights in the US, and just when you think you’ve heard it all, our American cousins come out with a new wrinkle.
While we in Canada certainly had a long drawn-out struggle around equal marriage, it wasn’t anywhere near what Americans are going through. As has been pointed out in past columns, while we had some fierce debate around it all, often accompanied by dire predictions of the collapse of civilization as we know it by those opposed to granting same-sex couples the exact same rights enjoyed by the other 90 percent (give or take a percentage point or two) of Canadians, it was fairly straight-forward (no pun intended). This was largely due to the political structure of Confederation, which is essentially a federalist entity.
However, since states have more autonomy than our provinces, the struggle for LGBTQ equality rights in the US has been a long and complex process, with some states passing Constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage and/or benefits and others instituting various levels of legal acceptance. The fight for equality rights in the US is being waged state by state, resulting in a hodge-podge of often conflicting rights amongst various states. The latest strategy instituted by those opposed to LGBTQ equality has been in Arizona.
In late February, final approval of Senate Bill 1062 was given by the Republican-controlled Arizona legislature. The bill would have allowed businesses to refuse service to individuals if doing so was believed to violate the business owner’s religious beliefs.
The bill passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 33-27 on February 20th, a day after it had been passed in the state Senate. It was heralded by one of the architects of the bill - Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy which helped draft the bill - as sending a "clear message" that, in Arizona, "everyone is free to live and work according to their faith."
Of course, the bill would have ensured that while some citizens would be free to do so, others would be denied access to service based on the perception of a business owner that to simply serve them as customers would somehow compromise or negatively impact that business owner’s religious freedom. So much for getting a cup of coffee at a café, or a meal somewhere, or a new suit or a car or....well, you get the idea.
The bill was largely seen as discriminatory against lesbians and gay men but, of course, if it became law after being signed by Governor Jan Brewer, it could also have been used to discriminate against anyone a business owner perceived as somehow being a threat to his or her own religious beliefs. Your faith dictates that marrying outside your own faith or ethnic group is wrong? Service refused. You believe having to deal with members of another faith somehow compromises your faith? Sorry, can’t and won’t serve you; go somewhere else. Dealing with a female who is not a family member against your religion? Don’t touch me and go away.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticized the legislation as "unnecessary and discriminatory", adding it had nothing to do with God or faith and would legally permit private individuals and businesses to "use religion" to discriminate and to be intolerant.
The ACLU played a key role during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s in dismantling the "Jim Crow" laws of various states whereby it was legal to have segregated lunch counters, water fountains, and businesses; Whites Only here, ‘coloureds’ over there, away from white folk. Bill 1062 is really nothing more than another version of Jim Crow laws.
That Bill 1062 is specifically targeting lesbians and gay men pretty much goes without saying. That’s exactly what it was designed to do during a time when LGBTQ activists have won several court victories in the US.
Seventeen states, along with the District of Columbia, now recognize equal marriage as a legal right. The United States Supreme Court ruled in June 2014 that legally married same-sex couples all across America are eligible for federal benefits, something such couples, despite being legally married or in recognized domestic partnerships, had been denied due to the federal Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), since repealed by President Obama. Federal judges have, since mid-December 2013, ruled that restrictions against equal marriage in Oklahoma, Virginia, and Utah are unconstitutional, although those decisions are currently under appeal by those states.
Arizona, however, is amongst 30 states still banning same-sex couples from marrying, either by constitutional amendment, statute, or both. Bill 1062 was widely seen by critics as an attempt to shore up anti-LGBTQ legislation, adding one more layer against any attempt by federal judges to dismantle existing anti-gay laws..
However, the bill even though passed by a Senate and House majority, cannot become law unless signed into law by Governor Brewer. To her credit, she vetoed the bill less than a week after it had been passed, stating it would "create more problems than it purports to solve," adding, "[it] does not address a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona."
With her veto the bill is effectively killed. If conservative legislators want to pursue similar sanctions, they must now essentially go back to square one and draft a new bill and, in so doing, it cannot be a copy or thinly-veiled version of the original. Her veto has, it is hoped, stopped this train in its tracks.
That such a bill was even proposed, let alone seriously considered and then passed by a majority in the Senate and House of Representatives, is astounding in a nation that puts itself out there as a bastion of freedom and equality. Legalized discrimination in the United States of America? Such legislation flies in the face of over half a century of struggle to attain equality for all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, class, physical ability, or more recently, sexual orientation.
Interestingly, various Republican state politicians are now distancing themselves from Bill 1062. Republican Senator for Chandler, Steve Yarbrough, who sponsored the original bill, has now said he would "have to think" about sponsoring any similar bills given the uproar 1062 caused.
Representative Bob Robson, R-Chandler, has said, "I didn’t come down here to hurt people," adding, "There are times you take a vote, then you feel queasy." He later issued a public statement expressing "deep regret that I had been unable to foresee the consequences of passing this legislation." Seriously? What did he think would happen?
He is not alone in his back-pedaling, either. Rep. Jeff Dial, R-Chandler, and Sen. John McComish, R-Phoenix, have both said the bad publicity brought on by the bill’s passage have made them now question the need for the bill.
Rep. Frank Pratt, R- Casa Grande, said the reaction surprised him, as apparently it did many other Republican lawmakers. He has since stated that if he had known the bill would spark the level of backlash it has, he "Probably would [have] reconsider[ed] my vote."
These are veteran politicians and, one would think, well-versed in the intricacies of politics and law-making. That they now are coming out saying they misread or misunderstood the level of public reaction against the bill is a bit disingenuous. It really doesn’t take much to look at a bill like 1062 and go ’whoa...hold on. What are the ramifications of this?’ and then vote against it. That they not only didn’t do that, but actively supported it, speaks volumes. They supported it...or did, until the public rose up and called them to account, as the public should in a democracy.
To now bat their lashes and go ‘gosh golly gee....oops!’ just isn’t good enough. Better than nothing, I suppose, but really - were they really that naïve (okay...stupid) to think this bill was legit, that it was reasonable and acceptable in a democracy? That, somehow, legislating a discriminatory practice as opposed to legislating against one, was even remotely acceptable? If they did, maybe they need to find another career.
