The equal-rights debate worth having

The curious way we divide and subdivide ourselves often finds people transformed without actually changing. By “we,” I mean you, me, western civilization. An idea is introduced, doubted, debated, struggled against. A couple of decades pass, a new social ordering arises, and who was there before remains but is now perceived differently. Happens all the time. During the last 25 years, a majority decided both that conservatives were splendid people after all and gays, at least, weren’t awful. Conservatives and gays: Just two kids who grew up together and made good.

You could see how much attitudes have changed toward gay people when Gov. John Baldacci recently submitted a bill to protect them against discrimination when it comes to employment, housing and education, and the reaction was nearly nonexistent. The bill – is this the eighth or tenth time it has been introduced? – had a nostalgic sense about it, as if the governor was exhibiting a historical document.

During the decades Maine has been arguing over this question, the rights of homosexuals have been protected legislatively in states that represent nearly half the population. Better, they’ve been protected more broadly by the transformed perception of who gays are. A generation ago, “gay” was linked to “pervert”; now more people are likely to think, “hit TV show.” Maybe that’s not comforting, but it’s progress. It means that Maine better hurry up and pass the governor’s legislation before it is no longer needed.

You will protest. You will say, “What about all those instances of overt and subtle discrimination that gay-rights advocates have gathered as evidence over the years?” You will say, “What about Exhibit A: Michael Heath, chief protester of the Christian Civic League?”

Yes, these certainly exist, and they are reason enough to pass the protections the governor seeks. But they are also the equivalent of an argument against a woman’s right to work outside the home. When Mr. Heath in his last fixation on homosexuality asked the public to send him “tips, rumors, speculation and facts” about the sexual orientation of legislators and bureaucrats, he was renewing his membership to the wrong side of history. Gay rights have support from Democrats and at least some Republicans. The Legislature last year passed a bill granting domestic partners inheritance rights and next-of-kin status. Corporations here, nationwide and worldwide have nondiscrimination policies and offer partner benefits because they want to be part of the mainstream, where a civil society accepts gays generally and in their relationships. Even George Bush says he doesn’t want to kick gays (well, not if just a poke with a pointy cowboy boot would suffice).

Anyway, the gay-rights issue many other legislatures have had before them recently is not about employment but marriage, which is like employment only with longer hours. This is not just a question of legal benefits but a demand to rethink the identity of gay people, again, and it is not only that. Notice for all the scary talk about how homosexuals might mistreat marriage by enjoying it too much or leaving it outside in the rain or something, the debate is often over not the homosexuality part but marriage itself. No one had to define marriage before because we all knew what it was; now there is doubt, and where there is doubt there is fear and hostility.

Some advocates say they don’t want to debate gay marriage because they believe Maine is not yet ready for it, meaning any bill to allow it would lose and little would be gained. Based on the history of the equal-rights bill, they have a point. But no one is ever ready for a new idea, so let’s get on with it. At least ask lawmakers whether they believe marriage has a civilizing influence and, if so, why they might oppose expanding that influence here. Ask them, in a friendly way, what business they have poking around your marriage. Who do they think they are, Michael Heath?

Advocates are right that any proposal to allow gay marriage would lose, badly. Lawmakers would talk about the state’s deep and abiding responsibility in sanctioning marriage, as if they cared. Protesters from various churches would show up with matching signs and demand their state accept no such blasphemy. That’s fine. All ideas start somewhere, often on the losing end of an argument.

If Maine is going to have a gay-rights debate, let’s have one in which the question is not settled, in fact if not in law. Let’s have one that has the power to transform perceptions. If conservatives could do it with their agenda over the last quarter century, surely anything is possible.

Todd Benoit is the editorial page editor of the Bangor Daily News.