I ended last week’s chapter of the sacred texts known as Don’t Rush Me (the column) thusly:
So, I have been hearing about an effort afoot to open up and change the Michigan Constitution to put in verbiage stating something like, ‘It is unconstitutional to discriminate against anyone based on their sexuality, gender identity . . .? Something like that.
Since I am running out of space here this week, I will bring it up later with a more thought-out column. What I will say here is, I don’t like the idea of specifying who cannot be discriminated against, if only because that means everybody else not listed is fair game for discrimination.
Quite simply, if the state’s constitution will be opened and changed, it should say something like, ‘No person shall be discriminated against for any reason based on being born, living and breathing and not hurting anybody else.?
Hmm? But, what about red heads?
* * *
Ever true to my word, it’s now ‘next week? — which makes it this week — and I shall endeavor to walk the walk because I talked the talk. Blah, blah, blah, Rush, spin your web of black magic mumbo-jumbo, already!
Late in October, The Detroit Free Press? Lansing chick reporter Kathleen Gray wrote an article headlined, ‘Ballot committee forms for LGBT constitutional amendment.?
In her article she wrote, ‘Dana Nessel, the Michigan attorney who took the same-sex marriage case all the way to the Supreme Court, is leader of Fair Michigan, which hopes to begin gathering petition signatures for the ballot proposal early next year.?
The amendment would add civil rights protections based on ‘gender, gender identity, sex and sexual orientation, which will cover both women and the LGBT community.?
She also wrote, Republican governor Rick Synder has ?. . . called on the Legislature to add the LGBT community to the Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in hiring and housing.?
The Elliot Larson Civil Rights Act of 1976 is ‘AN ACT to define civil rights; to prohibit discriminatory practices, policies, and customs in the exercise of those rights based upon religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status . . .?
* * *
Now that we have all the pertinent information on the table, let’s talk about it. Converse. Have civil discourse. Here’s what I think right now; and just so you know, with more information, I could change my mind. (I reserve that right as a thinking individual.) I do not think we need to add another group of people to be protected by the Michigan Constitution.
At first blush, you may say I am a vile, mean-spirited hater for wishing this amendment drive would go away. You, of course, would be dead wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I believe just the opposite. I believe we all should have all the same rights and protections enumerated by our Constitution. I think all honest, hard-working, playing by the rules people should be treated equally. Same-same.
What I don’t like, especially in this new, ever-changing society, is segregating people into narrowly defined groups — even if those same folks want to be narrowly defined. Let’s face it, some time down the line, there will be another group of people, who believe because their group is not defined they are being discriminated against and have no protections.
So, if the LGBT community is successful, and we open up the state’s constitution and change it, what happens next? Will it be okay to discriminate against the Wee Peoples? Guild? What about the Painted Nation of Tattooed Faces? The Non-English Speaking American’s Association? Are we gonna? have to open up the Constitution every time a new group gets large enough to have a loud voice?
Just because ‘your? group is not defined does not mean you are not protected. That is a fallacy. False thinking. I think the Constitution — whether the United States, or Michigan State — is quite clear, when common sense is applied.
I’ve come to the belief by letting ourselves be defined as ‘something? by the government only keeps us separate from each other. I have a longing for, a hunger for the time when we are all ‘one? — one group of human beings who celebrate each others? uniqueness.
So, I go back to this: let’s open up the constitution and change it, take out all the narrowly defined language and make it all inclusive instead. ‘No person shall be discriminated against for any reason based on being born, living and breathing and not hurting anybody else.?
What say you? Let’s have a civil discourse of ideas. E-mail Don@ShermanPublications.org.