News :: GLBT
Advocates, opponents of trans rights bill to have their say on Beacon Hill
(Continued from Page 2)by Ethan Jacobs
A question of civil rights
Despite the focus of groups like the Coalition for Marriage and Family on bathrooms, Levi said at its heart H.B. 1722 is aimed at guaranteeing the civil rights of transgender people in Massachusetts. She said MCAD has ruled that in at least some instances transgender people are protected under the state’s gender non-discrimination laws, but the scope of those protections is ambiguous.
"[Even with MCAD’s past rulings] there still remains significant confusion about the scope of the law," said Levi. "Having this kind of clarity in all of these areas, including housing and credit and employment, is essential both because it gives notice to the community being protected by the law but also because it gives notice to people who are subject to the law of its breadth."
She said contrary to claims made by Contrada in her report on the legislation, H.B. 1722 does not create any additional restrictions on religious freedom in the state. Levi said all of the religious exemptions for non-discrimination legislation apply equally to H.B. 1722.
Levi also said that the law would not force healthcare providers to cover expenses related to sex reassignment surgery. She said under the bill’s public accommodation protections medical facilities that are open to the public would be prohibited from turning away a patient because that person is transgender. But contrary to Contrada’s claims, Levi said the bill would not force Catholic hospitals to perform transgender-related surgeries. "If it’s specific trans-related coverage, that’s not addressed," said Levi.
The Coalition’s claims of transgender people attacking women and children in locker rooms and Contrada’s worries about hotel BDSM conferences may seem outlandish. But they’re par for the course when it comes to debating LGBT issues on Beacon Hill. During the 2004 marriage debates the Coalition and its national partner, Focus on the Family, took out a full-page ad in the Boston Globe claiming that children raised by same-sex couples were at higher risk for physical abuse, health problems, lower school performance, higher criminal behavior and higher sexual experimentation. The fact that many of the studies cited in the ad examined the children of single or divorced parents, not same-sex couples, did not stop the Coalition and Focus on the Family from using the studies to scare lawmakers and the public about same-sex marriage. MassResistance has regularly accused LGBT youth advocates of attempting to recruit teens for sexual purposes.
Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Mass. Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, part of the coalition of organizations coordinating the testimony in favor of H.B. 1722, said much of the rhetoric she has heard so far in opposition to H.B. 1722 has echoed the claims made by opponents of the gay civil rights bill during the ’80s and by opponents of gay parental rights in the ’90s.
"For example, they always said if they passed anti-discrimination laws for the gay community, there’d be constant lawsuits filed, inappropriate lawsuits filed by gay people. We said that was untrue. We’ve proven to be right," said Isaacson.
In particular Isaacson said opponents claimed gay rights legislation would threaten the right of churches to publicly oppose homosexuality and govern their affairs according to their religious doctrines. In her report on H.B. 1722 MassResistance’s Contrada claims that pastors could be charged with hate crimes for preaching in opposition to the transgender movement. But Isaacson said those same arguments proved hollow in debates around gay rights legislation.
"In the ’80s and ’90s they always claimed that gay people would sue the church. We reminded everyone that there’s a separation of church and state that prevents that," said Isaacson. "Time has shown that we were telling the truth and they weren’t. There have not been lawsuits."
Rep. Byron Rushing (D-Boston), who is co-sponsoring the bill with Sciortino, said he does not expect opponents to turn out in force at the hearing. He said the fact that the Coalition has focused its statements against H.B. 1722 on issues like abuse of women and children rather than on the central issue of non-discrimination protections suggests that they do not feel comfortable arguing against the transgender community’s civil rights.
"One of the things you can see that’s come out already, they want to relate this to something else like child abuse, but I think there’s a lot of reluctance to just say, we are in favor of discriminating against these people," said Rushing. "When they raise the question of child abuse they open themselves up to, if we can take that off the board, are you okay with this? And they know that, too. So I don’t think we’re going to see a lot of the vehement discussion [that we had] around the marriage thing. It might change if they see this moving, but I don’t think you’re going to see it at the hearing."
Sciortino said going into the hearing MTPC and its allies have met with nearly all of the members of the Judiciary Committee or their staffs, and he believes that the debate over H.B. 1722 will in many ways be easier than the marriage debate.
"This is different because it’s about basic civil rights, the ability to get a job or live in an apartment or walk down the street without threat of violence. ... That’s an easier question, even for some of our more conservative colleagues," said Sciortino.
Ethan Jacobs can be reached at ejacobs@baywindows.com
|
|
|
