Yesterday, Dan Savage mentioned the brave stance of “the leader of British Columbia’s Conservative Party, John Cummins, [who] told a radio interviewer that gay people shouldn’t be covered by the BC Human Rights Act because being gay is ‘a conscious choice'”.
Mr. Savage went on to complain about us “choicers”, and invited Mr. Cummins to prove you can make a choice by choosing to suck Mr. Savage’s dick.
Well, Mr. Savage, Mr. Cummins and his followers (like me) won’t be fooled that easily! Especially since that sounds yucky, (no matter how hot your dick might be)!
Mr. Savage has obviously made bad choices and is just bitter now that he’s being asked to accept being judged in things like housing and employment because of them. This is why we lovingly bully gay teens, Mr. Savage–we want them to truly think about their choice while they’re still young. If we can beat them up enough, threaten their lives, and convince them that they’ll never be happy or loved by anyone, especially God, then they’ll make the right choice. Each fist reminds them of the consequences of their choices, in the name of the Lord.
Of course, you might claim that God is accepting of everyone, just because there are a few Bible passages which indicate that. But you can’t be Christian, Mr. Savage, because you’re gay. If you were Christian, you would know that Jesus only said those things about love and equality because he was cowed by the politically correct pressures of the time. We refuse to be cowed in the same way.
There are several Bible passages that support holy prejudice. Of course, since Canada is not a theocracy (yet, fingers crossed!), we need to remember that our founding fathers were no great believers in equality. Since founding fathers are always the best judge of morality, we should listen. (Thinking that morality evolves and changes is just a gateway to accepting Darwin’s wicked ideas.)
Our founding fathers, for example, knew that women were not the same as men. We’ve tried to change the old ways, allowing women to have jobs, demanding that they be paid the same, etc. Luckily, however, even our Human Rights Code acknowledges that it’s sometimes perfectly acceptable to treat women as the inferior bodies they are. It explicitly says, “A person does not contravene this section by discriminating (a) on the basis of sex, if the discrimination relates to the maintenance of public decency or to the determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of life or health insurance.” That’s right! We need separate bathrooms AND separate insurance rates! Since it’s perfectly legal to charge a woman more for insurance just because she’s a woman, we know then that it’s fine to discriminate about things that aren’t choices.
Speaking of choices, I would like to argue, Mr. Savage, that you’re taking Mr. Cummins’s statement too personally because he only mentioned the choice of being gay. We mustn’t forget the other implications of Mr. Cummins’s statement. Our Human Rights Act currently says that we can’t discriminate “because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, age or lawful source of income of that person or class of persons, or of any other person or class of persons.”
As you’ll note, most of these things are also about choices, which is why Mr. Cummins’s ideas should be applied so liberally. For example, marital and family status is usually a matter of choice. All “single mothers” are such by choice, yes? So shouldn’t I get to tell them they can’t rent an apartment in a building I own? Shouldn’t I be able to tell them to raise their bastard brood somewhere else?
Similarly, I could choose not to hire a married woman–for certainly she wouldn’t need a job since she chose to do the right thing and marry a good man to take care of her. And to encourage women to make that right choice (thus preventing the aforementioned bastards), I could also refuse to hire women who have chosen not to marry yet–once a women realizes she can’t support herself, she’ll do the right thing and settle down.
Religion is another obvious choice. If my neighbour chooses to worship differently than I do, as is his or her right as a Canadian, I should be able to choose to allow them employment and housing or not. I should also be able to publish pamphlets about how their religion is of the devil and thus that their house of worship should be burned. Sadly, the Human Rights Act discriminates against my right to try to wipe the heretics off the earth in the name of my God. Thankfully, Mr. Cummins’s modest proposal that we think more clearly about choice will fix that.
Finally, we need to be honest about a few other choices on the protected list. People of the lower classes are protected from discrimination, but we all know that if they’re poor, it’s because of their choices, yes? In this great land, they must be lazy or morally inept to still be in the lower classes. After all, the economic downturn affected all of us–I had to lay off thousands of workers, but I still managed to say in the upper class! Those workers should have used all their new free time to climb the social ladder.
We must also think about all those people with physical and mental disabilities. I’m sure we all feel badly for those people who did not choose to be disabled, but quite a few people in this protected class have made bad choices. Born blind? That’s bad luck. But if you’re blind because you looked at an eclipse–after your grade nine teacher said not to!–then that was your choice!
Is your limb gone because you were unfortunately hit by a drunk driver or because you didn’t follow the safety protocol at work? Or because of diabetes, which surely is an indication of bad choices?
I propose that we take Mr. Cummins’s ideas just one step further–let’s have an honest discussion about choices so that we can once and for all decide who gets to be treated with decency and respect in our society. As you know, fellow citizens, equality isn’t meant for everyone!
