Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

DULCIE LAWRENCE: The bill has had almost universal support from civil rights and humanist organizations. In fact, the only voice raised in lukewarm opposition was John Markin's, attorney from the Minnesota Catholic Conference. Mr. Markin said the term discrimination should not be confused with discretion. To deprive persons or groups of their right to exercise discretion, he said, would be just as discriminatory as to deprive homosexuals of employment. He likened the gay rights bill to a tacit acceptance of what he called the immorality of alcoholism.

JOHN MARKIN: It simply will not do to accept the argument and so-called logic that homosexuality is a common phenomenon of the human social environment. And therefore it is perfectly normal. And there is nothing wrong with it.

A strong comparison can be made between the compulsions found in homosexuality and alcoholism. It is argued that alcoholism is an illness or an anomaly, and as such, it is not a crime. In fact, this legislature some time ago legislated to that effect. But in so doing, you did not say that alcoholism is entirely, quote, normal.

The normalization of homosexuality would have a comparable effect on persons who are homosexuals or have homosexual tendencies. Failing to recognize their condition as being abnormal, but rather as being normal and acceptable, they would either fail to take prudent steps to avoid or cure their unnatural behavior, or even make the active positive choice to adopt homosexuality as their selective lifestyle. In addition, it would encourage many persons who have no predominant homosexual inclinations to consider it as an optional normal lifestyle. Such advice of itself borders on being illegal, wrong, and immoral by way of a deception, not based on fact, which would deprive such persons of their right to compassionate consideration and treatment.

DULCIE LAWRENCE: John Markin, the Minnesota Catholic Conference. The amendment, offered by Robert Vanasek of New Prague, was a political accommodation to those who felt the bill never would pass without it. That is the deletion of public accommodations and public services from the categories in which discrimination is unlawful. This leaves employment, housing, and education the three areas considered most crucial in the enforcement of human rights for gay people. Tim Campbell, representing Gay Educational Consultants, said the Amendment would make the law almost meaningless, because it would take all the teeth out of government enforcement in common services such as welfare relief and affirmative action.

TIM CAMPBELL: To me, the Amendment doesn't make any sense. It means that governmental agencies will not be able to discriminate against us in jobs. But they can get us on the other end with the system of discrimination and the other people who refuse to hire gays and provide services with accommodations included.

We will be explicitly authorized-- or bar owners will be explicitly authorized not to service. Hotel owners will be specifically authorized not to service. Restaurant owners will be explicitly authorized not to service. This is intolerable. It's as ridiculous as the reaction in the '50s against the Blacks.

Nobody minded the Blacks working like dogs for us. But they didn't want to eat with them. They didn't want to share hotels with them. They didn't want to go to the same bars with them. It's the boil on the head, so to speak.

DULCIE LAWRENCE: Tim Campbell, Gay Educational Consultant, in an interview following the judiciary subcommittee hearing. The bill now goes to the full Judiciary Committee. I'm Dulcie Lawrence at the Capitol.