by Stephanie Mackler
Every so often, I drift off into my own dream world where everyone is happy and nice, and we all get along. But then something always shakes me back into lucidity, and I realize just how far the real world is from my imaginary vacation spot. When I went home to Northampton, Massachusetts for fall break, an anti-gay rights pamphlet I received in the mail was the most recent reason I was forced to return to "real life." At first, I was simply attracted to the leaflet's bright yellow paper and bold graphics, but what kept me reading was my absolute disbelief that people actually believe the kind of rhetoric it contained.
The pamphlet was distributed by an organization called the "Northampton Traditional Values Committee." It argues against a "domestic partnership ordinance" recently passed in Northampton that would legally recognize homosexual partnerships. The Committee, angry that the issue was not decided by a citywide vote, gathered over three thousand signatures to get the issue on the November 7 ballot. It now wants to influence voters to reject the proposed ordinance. The pamphlet came as a great surprise to me since such anti-gay rights arguments are rare in a city that prides itself on its tolerance of all types of lifestyles and is nicknamed "Lesbianville, USA" for its large lesbian population. I might actually expect that kind of propaganda in more conservative towns, but I really could not believe that people in liberal Northampton would be distributing homophobic material. No matter how much I may have wanted to deny their existence, people are actively fighting against Northampton's attempts to legally recognize homosexual couples (not to mention those who remain silent on the issue - no one really knows what goes on behind the voting-booth curtains). I decided it's time I finally take a close look at what they argue. After all, isn't this supposed to be America, the country where no one is right or wrong, and where factions battle it out in the legislative arena? Don't get me wrong - I wanted to tear up that brochure and feed it to my neighbor's dog. But, the fact is, whether I like it or not, the Northampton Traditional Values Committee has a right to their opinions, and they also have a right to share their opinions with all those who will listen. I'm not sure where to draw the line between freedom of speech and bigotry, but I figured I should prove just how tolerant I really am by reading this pamphlet, which, they tell me, explains the ordinance's "hidden agenda and its long term destructive impact on [my] family values and traditions."
First, they express their fear that this is only the first of a long line of demands of gay rights activists. They say that in other places where similar ordinances prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation have been passed, "lawmakers are being asked to pass new legislation that would grant job-related benefits to 'domestic partners.'" "On the surface," they continue, "the Domestic Partner Ordinance policy appears to be logical and humane. On closer scrutiny, however, many problems become apparent." Feeling generous, I decided to give them the benefit of the doubt and kept reading, just to find out what exactly these "problems" are.
Apparently, the "problem" is that the "hidden purpose of this kind of policy is to advance the homosexual agenda." Specifically relevant to the ordinance is Demand #12, set in 1972 by the National Coalition of Gay Organizations: "Repeal all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers." They argue against this, saying that homosexual families are "more unstable and avoidance of long term commitment and responsibility is the tendency." The result, they say, is that children are at "great risk" and custody battles can become a "legal nightmare." "Or," they add, "if one member of the relationship dies, custody also becomes a very difficult and disruptive situation with no one really sure to whom the child belongs." They explain that the US. Census Bureau's definition of "traditional family" refers only to heterosexual couples with at least one child under the age of eighteen living in the same household. Furthermore, they acknowledge that homosexual relationships must be normalized "in the mind of society" if "homosexual behavior is to be accepted and promoted." Aware that society could potentially be changed by teaching children that homosexuality is "normal," they oppose the ordinance which would work toward this goal of the "militant homosexual agenda."
Finally, in a last-ditch appeal to America's affinity for capitalism, they argue that the ordinance would harm individuals financially. The next step in the "agenda" might be to pass family-leave legislation, under which employers of gay employees would extend benefits to their partners. This would mean that the government would be "legislating immorality," something they correctly point out we all oppose. It seems to me that the would find any gay rights laws to be "legislating immorality," but for some reason they only make this claim directly when discussing employee benefits. The result would be that "through our tax dollars and consumer purchases, we would all help pay for the benefits extended to domestic partners." In other words, every purchase you make would inadvertently support a gay person.
Obviously, Northampton is not the only city with an active anti-gay organization. Homosexual rights are being challenged at the local, state, and national level using the same type of rhetoric found in my little yellow pamphlet. For instance, a similar coalition in Colorado is working to get a law passed that would exclude gays and lesbians from having legal protection against discrimination. They have argued that "The community does not affirm homosexuality to be moral, ethical, or legal equal to heterosexuality. Our community must unconditionally advocate heterosexuality ONLY, through our institutions and policies...It should be obvious that 'love' is not the only thing that defines a family, but rather love as it is exhibited within the historical and reasonable patter of the nuclear family." At the same time, on the national level, Congressional Republicans are opposing a bill that outlaws job discrimination against homosexuals. In fact, the New York Times reported this month, currently in "forty- one states it is legal for a person to be dismissed from a job because of sexual orientation."
I'm actually really glad I read the brochure, because now I better understand the arguments being made against homosexuals' rights. I cannot deny that I read it from a skeptical stance, and that I wanted to find things wrong with it, but at least I read it. And if nothing more, it has strengthened my own views so that I may more effectively argue for homosexual rights. At this time, however, I have deliberately resisted my immediate impulse to refute the ideas in the pamphlet, not because I fear doing so or because I do not know what to write, but rather because my true purpose is simply to share the information with others out there, those who might just have forgotten that for every "Queer Alliance" group, there is a "Northampton Traditional Values Committee."
Now that I'm done writing about this dreadful yellow leaflet, I'd like to throw it out. To me, it's garbage, and it belongs with banana peels, candy wrappers, and dirty tissues currently taking up space in my trash can. But something holds me back; I'm not yet ready to part with this piece of propaganda. I think I'll keep it just in case I ever forget what I'm fighting for. Or in case I lapse back into my dream world and foolishly believe that the gay rights battle has been won. I think I'll hang onto that yellow thing until it's over. It may be a long time, but it'll sure feel good to throw it out.