Archive: Opinions

I was shaken up when I read a headline that said New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo imposed a travel ban on Indiana Tuesday.  I am used to the federal government issuing travel bans on countries like Iran and Cuba, sometimes because of politics, and often because it is just not safe for Americans to be in those countries.  So when I learned that Cuomo added a U.S. state to that list it caught my attention.

Indiana's 'Religious Freedom' law has stirred up such a high level of controversy that at least three states (Washington State, Connecticut, and now New York) have imposed travel bans.  The law pits freedom of religion against equal rights.  Gay-rights advocates argue that under the new law if a gay or lesbian couple wants flowers or cake for a reception, providers could lawfully choose not sell to them if he has a religious objection.  Conservatives argue the law permits people to act according to the teachings of their religion.

I fall in the equal rights camp.  I don't want to kiss another man, but if you do you should have the same civil rights I have, not because you are gay but because you are an American.

The Constitution says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It says all men, not just men who like women.  And while it is no longer politically correct to say so, 'men' in English can refer, in contexts like this, to women as well, and I believe it does in this case.  Androgynous people as well.  Anyone who is a person.  Except felons.  Felons are people who have earned not having rights.

The troubling piece of this brouhaha is that religious people fall in the category of 'all men are created equal'.  If you have any doubt, note the second word in the phrase 'religious people'.  And we Americans are not the only ones struggling with which equalities trump others.  Last year Israel passed a law that said ultra-Orthodox citizens would be required serve in the national army despite their religious beliefs.  They had been exempt, and there had been quite a bit of resentment about that from men and women who felt the ultra-orthodox practitioners had as much to lose as everyone else did if the Israeli army didn't remain strong.

Some people argue that the very name Indiana is discriminatory, that it is disrespectful to native Americans who were mistakenly called Indians because Christopher Columbus thought he had landed in India.  Columbus figured the world was round, but evidently didn't know there were a couple of really big continents between Spain and India if you happened to be travelling west.  He probably hadn't updated his Garmin.  Maybe that's why Indianians want to be called Hoosiers...  And it's probably too late to rename the place Native Americiana.

If I were the king of America I would dictate no discrimination against anyone.   Except people I don't like.  After all, I'm king.  There have to be perks to being king!  But that would be a much smaller list than those who can be discriminated against in Indiana right now.

That said, I was initially alarmed about Tuesday's headline about Cuomo banning all travel to Indiana.  My friend Eric lives in Indiana, and, while I have no immediate plans to visit him, I'd like the option to drop by if I want to.  Because I like Eric and, to my knowledge, he has no problem with selling stuff to gays and lesbians.  So I read the rest of Cuomo's press release:

"Today, I direct all agencies, departments, boards and commissions to immediately review all requests for state funded or state sponsored travel to the State of Indiana and to bar any such publicly funded travel that is not essential to the enforcement of state law or public health and safety," he said. "The ban on publicly funded travel shall take effect immediately.  New York State has been, and will continue to be, a leader in ensuring that all LGBT persons enjoy full and equal civil rights. With this action, we stand by our LGBT family members, friends and colleagues to ensure that their rights are respected."

Phew!  It just refers to official state business trips.  While I could support a voluntary citizen's ban on New Yorkers doing business with restaurants, florists, or whatever business discriminates against gays, lesbians or anyone else -- I would be one of those citizens banning, I wouldn't support a total ban on travel that would punish people like Eric.

And while my sympathies lie with those who oppose the law I am troubled by the clash of rights it has highlighted.  My religion's sixth commandment says 'Thou shall not kill'.  I believe that people who kill should be discriminated against in the sense of being prosecuted and punished.  Unless they kill bugs -- I hate bugs.  My point being that if my government didn't happen to agree with my religion on the topic of murderers I would be pretty upset if I were forced to abide by that.

However there is a distance between the bars of sexual preference, which, in general, is a private matter, and murder, which is a public menace.  I understand that some religions have particular ideas about what constitutes acceptable behavior.  But what business it is of theirs?  Gays and lesbians are not inviting merchants into their bedrooms (except maybe bed merchants, and then only for delivery purposes), and I can't make the leap that selling a muffin to a gay person implicitly condones homosexuality.

So, while I tend to disagree with just about everything our governor pulls out of his political hat, I am on the same page with him on this issue.  Our founding fathers took a stand on equal rights, and that obligates all of us to do the same.

v11i13