Tat. and Daynes, Gay Rights:

1. Framing the Issue:

CON
 --non-action thus non-condoning
 --conduct and not state of being
 --not a religion question  but society protection question
 --national defense
          --note von Steuben counter example
          --note civil war counter example
 --protect children

PRO
 --privacy
 --human dignity and choice – identity and not conduct
 --constitutional right of non-discrim
 --pluralistic society
 --free speech

2. Values:

• Constitutional

– equal protection of the laws

• federal, state, local non-discrimination laws where in existence

• “group” re: const. protection or simply conduct?

– privacy

– non-taking of “liberty” without due process of law

– religious freedom [i.e., interpretation of sacred texts different from majority opinion – “sacredness” of marriage]

– Art. IV: “full faith and credit”

– speech [parades and participation]

– “hate crime” legislation

• Personal

– self-identity without fear of persecution or harm in any manner

– human dignity and choice of lifestyle

• not “second-class” citizen re: “civil union” instead of “marriage”

– tolerance of “the other”

– security and financial and legal benefits

• Social

– military efficiency [yes or no?]

• note von Steuben counter example

• note civil war counter example

– family values [Whose? What are they?]

– protection of children [evidence or assumption?]

• from influences

• when being raised

• look for evidence and not simply assumption in evaluating this – usually full of emotion and short on facts since it raises one of everyone’s primary value concerns – the lives of children

– social harmony [cuts two ways]

• could come from not disturbing majority values or from a society tolerant of various life styles

– moral fiber of society [Whose morality?]

• assumes one sense of morality rather than plural

• Political

– pluralism and tolerance

– “liberalism” [classical, libertarian] and individual freedom

• ACLU and Robert Barr and Barry Goldwater in agreement

• fascism especially harsh on homosexuals [extreme nationalism and one moral code for all of society]

– victimless crime

– minority rights

– federalism

• marriage laws

• community laws for different communities

3. Presidents -- do they make a difference?

 --pragmatism and incrementalism: note carefully the discussion on p. 106 re: presidential policy making --- does pragmatism mean no values are involved? (The text doesn't address this question. What do you think?)

 --S.CT. appointments -- hinges on whether judges see discrimination as of the kind protected by the Constitution or not -- note "liberal-conservative" split and who is on each side.

--Clinton yes -- Note Clinton's attempt to change policy without clear popular mandate and the resulting "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. See pp. 110-111 and study concerning effectiveness of policy.

 --Bush/Dukakis no -- note the moderate positions each adopted

--Goldwater and gays in the military -- worthy of note given his credentials as a very respected "conservative" politician

--Bush [George W.]/ Kerry yes re: marriage constitutional amendment but Cheney/Kerry no

4. Do political parties make a difference?--Dem. yes for gays / Rep. no for gays ----   But note gay Republicans organization [Log Cabin Republicans] and last election with Cheney and Lieberman of one mind in their debate

5. Congress make a difference?

 --Helms and no funds -- note his reasons re: protecting public
 --prohibition of funds for safe-sex education
 --prohibition of funds for NEA and Maplethorpe
 --prohibition of same sex marriages --- but Art IV and  full faith and credit?
                ---Clinton signed law although not supporting it. Why? (text doesn't discuss, so why do you think he would do this -- or perhaps any Democratic president even though against it?)

6. Judiciary:

 --argument = state of being or sexual conduct thus is it a question of discrim. or privacy and does each entail the same protection against discrimination?

--question: inborn trait, immutable and healthy psychological condition? or acquired/learned behavior? – Why should it make a difference?

 --“special privilege” – already have regular civil rights? – still blatant discrimination  even if not same as gender, race?

--Bower v. Hardwick – 5-4 – note what is meant by rational basis standard --- note Powell admission later that he made a mistake (not discussed in text but I'll comment on in class)

--Hurley case – unanimous – gays didn't frame around first amend. -- why might it have made a difference? See p. 118 and discussion on this framing question.

--Romer v. Evans – 6-3—note majority and dissent -- who dissented and why?
              --majority rests on moral foundation for argument -- note p. 119 and the role of morality in the argument and decision
                --significant that Colorado established law through referendum and court struck down -- majority doesn't always determine the law.

7. Federalism

     --Art IV and full faith and credit clause

--states and non-discrimination – cities and counties and non-discrim. ordinances -- note p. 121 and Dade County ordinance reference. It was repealed but later reinstated.-- tried again recently to repeal again but failed to do so

-- same-sex marriages [only Massachusetts at the moment]-- Vermont and civil unions

          --impact of marriage or civil union: housing, wills, medical decisions, loan guarantees, group health, etc. –social security, pensions

--No adoption but note the estimation of gay parents and children cared for (The Bird Cage – an interesting, and humorous, film involving gay parents and child)

8. Bureaucracy:

 --NIH and AIDS -- note discussion of funding and why/why not at pp. 124 - 125

--military

9. Interest groups

 --morality politics cf interest group model -- read carefully

 --business groups – Disney and Southern Baptists re: "gay day" at Disney World (not sponsored by Disney but simply accepted) -- Baptists asked to boycott Disney. -- Business tend to be adjusting to more gays in workforce and have benefits for same-sex partners. Stetson University provides for benefits such as health care to cover domestic partners. This isn't discussed in text but is an important aspect of what is happening re: gays in the economic world.

 --Catholics

 --Christian Coalition

--note that not all leaders in churches against gays -- various degrees of tolerance -- not discussed in text but an important part of the mixed social reactions to gays

10. Public Opinion

--note different responses (a) re: responses involving marriage and (b) responses re: tolerance

--note why changes in attitudes: p. 130

--growing support re: social regulatory policy ought not be discriminatory

--cities and counties adding gay rights ordinances