Where I Stand: Some American workers lose 50-49

Saturday, Sept. 14, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.

LAST WEEK, the U.S. Senate voted 85-14 defining marriage as a male-female relationship and allowing states to ignore gay marriages licensed in other states.

So what did the promoters of the bill expect? They knew it was bound for success, but other members of Congress must have wondered why and if it was even necessary to pass such a law. The logical answer is because there are rumblings from Hawaii that a marriage between two women may be allowed and legally recognized. The gay games in San Francisco also sent up social flares.

Sen. Ted Kennedy called the bill "mean-spirited" and tried to compare it to the days gone by when interracial marriage was against the law. This kind of baloney hardly pushes my acceptance button. I see no similarity between the two issues. In fact, it reminds me of the argument put forth by supporters of allowing gays to enter the military and continue their lifestyle openly in the armed forces. There was shouting about "remember the battle to integrate the military." All this did was irritate the men and women who fought for racial integration.

No doubt, there have been attempts to pass mean-spirited legislation that affects some gays. A good example was California Rep. Robert Dornan, who attempted early this year to have all HIV-carriers thrown out of the armed forces within six months, regardless of their ability to perform their duties. He wanted them to continue receiving medical care, but disability pay and benefits for dependents would end, as would commissary privileges, after two years. This would have affected only 1,049 active-duty members, but it was clearly mean-spirited.

The Colorado law that attempted to keep homosexuals from having full access to the political process and the courts like other Americans was mean-spirited. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned it earlier this year.

Just as mean-spirited was the 50-49 Senate vote last week that killed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would have protected gays from job discrimination. Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., pointed out that it is "shameful" that 41 states allow the firing of a worker for his sexual orientation. I have to agree.

I've known gays as co-workers and friends. Their lifestyle didn't affect our professional relationship nor did it disrupt our work. Their sex life was quite properly never a topic of conversation. There were probably some homosexual co-workers whose sexual orientation I was not aware of. Nor did I, or do I, care.

Personally, I believe it's a shame that legislation to protect gays in the workplace is even necessary. Evidently, there are enough violations of their rights in workplaces for such a law even to be introduced. Just like the anti-gay-marriage bill, there has been enough smoke to result in an attempt to douse a fire that large numbers of Americans don't want to spread. This fear resulted in one reasonable bill passing by a wide margin and another reasonable bill failing by a narrow margin.

Incidentally, the job-bias ban bill would have exempted religious groups, private clubs, small companies and the military. Why small companies would be allowed to fire a person because he or she is a homosexual was beyond me. One advocate of the bill says the small companies were excluded to protect them from expensive lawsuits that could result if they were charged with violating the law.

On the other hand, most companies, even without a law, will protect good employees, no matter what their sexual orientation. Some companies also include gay mates in the insurance benefits of their employees. This is their prerogative in a free capitalistic society. Using tax dollars for these benefits creates an entirely different set of circumstances in our society.

A USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll last spring found 67 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage. The Midwest shows 78 percent disapproving and the South having 71 percent disapproving. The West and East both showed 59 percent opposing gay marriage. The difference in opposition is probably because of the large population of California and cities like New York, Boston and Philadelphia.

I haven't seen a reliable poll on how Americans feel about gays receiving equal protection at work but can't imagine that a large majority doesn't believe in fair play in the world of work. Evidently, there are enough mean-spirited people to require a law to ensure fair play. If they continue their thoughtless and unreasonable practices, they can be assured of just such a law as that defeated by one vote last week.