Our nation takes pride in the freedom and equality offered to all citizens. Almost a century ago, the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote and a voice to demand equality. Between 1954 and 1968 Americans fought to extend civil rights to citizens regardless of race or ethnicity by disbanding school segregation and workplace discrimination and restoring voting rights.
Consequently, our generation has been fortunate to grow up in a democratic country that affords prosperity, choice, tolerance and understanding to its people. But certainly the work is not done and glaring discrepancies in the rights of some persist.
On Oct. 7, 1998, a gay American college student named Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered by two men who sought to “teach” him a lesson: stay in the closet or else. Although the two men are serving life sentences for their crimes, these types of vicious acts were never considered to be “hate crimes.” The Senate’s recent passing vote of The Matthew Shepard Act aims to amend this injustice.
Recognition for gay rights has always been a controversial subject; as the Presidential primaries creep closer, however, the issue cannot be ignored. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, stating that the federal government will not recognize any union between same-sex partners. However, this has not stopped Connecticut, New Jersey, California, New Hampshire, Vermont, Oregon, Washington, Maine, Hawaii, the District of Columbia and most notably Massachusetts from extending rights granted to opposite-sex unions to any pair of citizens in a loving, long-term, monogamous, same-sex relationship.
It may make you feel uncomfortable knowing that two men are embarking on the rest of their lives together, sharing the same bed and parenting children; but there is one truth you cannot deny about these relationships: if you devote your life to another person, you are making a commitment and that’s what counts. Yet legal discrepancies abound.
Tax benefits and mortgage rates afforded to married couples are not the same as those given to homosexual partners. Furthermore, knowing that your family exists in the eyes of the law is something we tend to take for granted. When two married heterosexual parents file for divorce, each parent has a legal responsibility for that child’s wellbeing. However, if a same-sex couple separates, there are no court records to enforce child support or establish custody rights.
But the issues don’t end there. I am sure many of you attended the recent job fair on campus. As you spoke with company representatives or read the recruitment brochures, the subject of employee benefits likely came up. Most of the companies I spoke with mentioned health care among their list of incentives and, although I didn’t implore, I wondered how many of these “family health plans” equally recognized domestic partnerships. Or how many of these career opportunities might require relocation to a state that doesn’t offer equal recognition of same-sex unions? How seriously would anyone consider moving to a state that explicitly makes no differentiation between spouses and roommates? Why are we forcing people (supposedly free and equal under the law) to make these choices?
In 31 states you can be fired for being perceived as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, 39 if you’re transgender. The workplace should not be a battleground for moral agendas. This is not just a private-sector issue. In fact, the most blatant display of unfair treatment under the law and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is perpetuated by an organization that collectively receives the largest amount of federal spending – the U.S. Military. Among other qualities, our military is known for its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue, Don’t Harass” policy. Most troubling to me is that this creed trumps the anti-discrimination policies of any other institution they are affiliated with, including Cal Poly.
CSU bylaws state that no campus entity shall discriminate against students or faculty based on their sexual orientation. However, our Army ROTC program (which operates on campus within the military sciences department) is able to deny acceptance to any openly homosexual students who wish to join.
Sadly, by tolerating this discriminating policy, Cal Poly, along with other universities around the nation, is sending a clear message to their students: we value federal funding over your rights, especially if you are gay. Remarkably, Cal Poly continues to propagate this message of exclusion toward certain minority students. However, looking at all the facts, it’s yet another demonstration of what our society offers the “queer” community.
Erica Janoff is an industrial engineering senior, the president of the Cal Poly Democrats and a monthly Mustang Daily liberal columnist.