"Mentally Healthy Adult Human Beings"

Discrimination, Civil Rights, and Making "It" Better

2012-02-03T19:23:00.000-08:00

Want to know what we can do to make it better? We can put our money where our mouth is, stop making excuses for tolerating the bad behavior of people who refuse to tolerate good. We can stand up for what we know is right, no matter how people spin it after the fact, like Martha Boggs did this past Sunday when she used her Knoxville, TN, restaurant to explain to Senator Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville) the simple rule “be nice or leave.” She’s gotten a great deal of praise, but also some misguided criticisms, such as this letter to the Knoxville News-Sentinel by a writer who didn’t bother to read Campfield’s comments before scolding Boggs for her “discrimination.” It was one of two I read, and it was followed by two comments, one of which agreed with the letter’s author, comparing it to the “Lunch counter set-ins of the 60′s.”

First of all, declaring such a strong position on the subject without bothering to inform yourself of the whole story can never be considered “objective,” if that’s what the letter writer was going for.

Second, while there is an ironic similarity between this situation and the one referred to above, the difference between this and the 1960s lunch counter discrimination as referenced is the power balance. In that case, the people with ALL the power used that power to keep one group of people who happened to share one characteristic from (at the very, very least) simply enjoying a lunch at a “public” establishment that had existed to serve only members of another, much bigger, more powerful and self-aggrandizing group. The only reason change occurred was that those oppressed people, with the help of brave, morally upstanding people exactly like Martha Boggs, began to stand up for themselves.

In this instance, Stacey Campfield is one of the people with the power (and self-aggrandizement). He wasn’t even “discriminated against” on the basis of anything more than his continued use of his power to oppress a group of people who also happen to share one characteristic and who have done NOTHING to him or anybody else and simply ask to be treated like human beings, fairly and equally, nothing more, nothing less, and are kept from that by Campfield and others of his group. Martha Boggs simply exercised her right as a business owner to refuse to support him in his own discriminatory endeavors, and her right to not be just another complacent hypocrite. We have plenty of those.

He can have his "religious" beliefs. He can hate and fear gay people, light candles for our souls, discuss openly over coffee every, single day how we're all abominations and we are going to burn in hell. I completely respect his right to do that. But that is NOT all he's been doing, and he's not only a terrible bigot but a coward for not even owning that.

Bottom line, folks: you clearly think you’re looking at one side of the “lunch counter,” but you’re really only seeing the other and allowing yourselves to be fooled. In other words, since you insisted on using the 1950s and 60s and racism and segregation for your attempted parallels and I’m willing to work within the theme you’ve chosen, you’re looking at it from the WHITE side. Look again.

And for those who support Ms. Boggs, please don’t call her hero. It’s not that she isn’t one, because she damn sure is. It’s just that a label like that gives any of us on the fence another excuse to stay there, to put her in a category we’re more comfortable believing does not include all of us, every day. There’s not a person who might read this who can’t stand up equally strongly for their ideals, and frankly, I’d really like to hear more about the “ideals” used to help than the ones routinely used to hurt. Those have been getting plenty of action for years. Thank Senator Campfield and his ilk for that.

Tennessee: Race to the Bottom?

2012-01-28T14:03:00.000-08:00

What is wrong with the people holding office in the state of Tennessee? Specifically, what is going on in the eastern part of the state that the citizens' chosen officials actually seem to be competing for the title of Mr. Regressive of 2012?

Just last week, I received the most embarrassingly (him, not me, whether he knows it or not) ignorant and hateful email imaginable from Tennessee State Representative John Ragan (R-Oak Ridge), in which he, among other things, compared homosexuality to "pedophilia, prostitution, murder, etc."

Even though Ragan is merely a supporter of the litany of hate law being proposed by the Tennessee legislature over the past couple of years, his very publicly wielded beliefs made him the front-runner until Thursday, when State Senator Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville) challenged for the lead with his comments in a Sirius/XM radio interview with Michelangelo Signorile. As just one example, he summed up the AIDS contagion thus:

"A lot of people trying to gloss over and say it's an every person disease but really it's just those high risk people that are most likely to contract or spread that disease The odds of a regular man getting it from a regular woman are very low."

"Regular," huh? Experts in his own district were not pleased by his statements, according to a follow-up by WBIR News in Knoxville correcting Campfield. AIDS educator Wayne Smith told WBIR that "[u]ntil things like this happen, ... I get in this mode where I feel like we've made a lot of progress." As Jimmy Fallon would say...thank you, Senator Campfield.

Of course, to claim that his views are surprising would be equally ignorant at this point. Campfield has been pushing the "Don't Say Gay" legislation for years. He got it through the Senate last year, and it's presently under consideration in the House. He's terribly afraid that our gay agenda really does include pushing "sexually confused" youngsters into the gay service and is unconcerned about prohibiting educators from protecting bullied gay kids, adding in Thursday's interview that "the bullying thing is the biggest lark out there."

This accompanies the second introduction of a "bullying prevention" bill by Senator Jim Summerville on Thursday - SB3393 - which amends existing Tennessee anti-bullying law to protect the "expression of beliefs protected by the first amendment." Translation: If your bullying is done from a religious point of view, your victim is helpless. Go for it.

If both of these bills pass, bullying a child who is gay or even perceived to be gay will be no different from slapping a piece of duct tape over the victim's mouth (and everyone else's) and berating him or her until he or she literally can't take it anymore -- and doing it with the full sanction of Tennessee law.

These comments and actions come on the heels of the second teen suicide attributed to anti-gay bullying in Tennessee schools in two months. Such awareness. Such compassion. It's overwhelming.

"NO." Is a Complete Sentence

2012-01-27T15:39:00.000-08:00

That's what we tell our kids, especially regarding how to deal with their peers and present and future pressure to do things they know are stupid or wrong. They don't have to negotiate or explain or excuse. All they have to say is "No." And then stick to it.

The same day Senator Jim Tracy withdrew SB0760, the “license to bully” bill opposed in our previous blog, Senator Jim Summerville (R-Dickson) introduced SB3393 (yes, you read it right, the same day). There are reports that it’s an “improvement," a move “in the right direction,” etc. Frankly, I disagree. I don't believe there is not a way to "improve" on the previous bill, not even by naming it the "Bullying Prevention Act" (this is not Orwell's Ministry of Truth & we're not stupid). There is no purpose for a bill like this, at least as sponsored members of other groups like the Tennessee Eagle Forum.

As my wife said, we cannot trust that good bills protecting our kids from bullies will come from people who bully adults. More importantly, there is existing anti-bullying law in Tennessee, and proposed changes serve the bullies far more than they could ever serve the victims, especially if said victims are gay. If they really wanted to help, they'd be pushing for enforcement of existing law and more aggressive school policies.

These bills are still being cranked out by the same people, for the same purposes, both here and in Michigan, and supported by people like TN Representative John Ragan, whose not-isolated views have stunned good people across the country. Policies already in place will not be strengthened but instead crippled by this or any other similarly-functioning and -originating bill. Words like (as used here) "reasonable," "objective standard," "not to be construed to include mere discomfort and unpleasantness," "rather than on the characteristics of the victim," and always the kicker-- "any policy...shall not prohibit their expression of BELIEFS" make clear the position still being defended by this bill, and by this state legislature. It is a position of hate and discrimination and a downright predatory opposition to decency. And it MUST be opposed.

Why compromise with evil when you can simply refuse to accept it, without even coming to blows? Just say NO MORE and back it the hell down. Then we can all get on with our lives in comparative peace.

I understand that it's a process, but at the same time, the Tennessee General Assembly has passed too many like it already, which is the only reason they have the confidence to keep submitting them. There is momentum present right now that I believe must be used or will be given back. I read the "new" bill very closely this afternoon, and I'm frankly no less appalled by it than I was its predecessor. It's longer, added some things like electronic devices to make it sound more comprehensively "protective" and took out the protected class language, but it still places an overwhelming emphasis on protecting the "expression of beliefs," as opposed to placing it on the victims. In other words, there's still no mistaking how it is intended to be or will be used, and there is little, if any, substantive difference between its potential effects and those of HB1153 ("Bully Bill I").

In subsequent email responses to people I know, even Rep. Ragan at least had the sense to put a lid on the "gay stuff." That's what we need, because we're never going to change their beliefs, or at least we’re not going to change them first. They must, however, stop using them as weapons against people who have done absolutely nothing to them, and this new bill does nothing toward that end. As my wife and I tell our children, "'No.' is a complete sentence," and I think the same holds true here.

I cannot in good conscience hold my tongue while people forget about the hate they finally got a good clear look at this week. If the point had been taken, another nauseatingly similar bill would not have been introduced the very same day.

In 2006, people with these prejudices started a big snowball with a solid rock core rolling down the hill toward gays and lesbians. It's already wiped out too many, and it needs to be knocked the hell off the legislative hill to be stopped.

It’s 2012 - an election year. I'm hoping that the jobs of elected bigots (including Ragan) are in as much jeopardy as the emotional and physical well-being of gay kids, and they can't be allowed to forget it.

A few items for your consideration now and in November:

Hate Bill Sponsors (House and Senate)

"License to bully" bill/s (being considered; protest NOW):

House (HB1153) - Vance Dennis (R-Savannah)

Senate (SB3393) - Jim Summerville (R-Dickson)

“Don’t Say Gay” bill (passed Senate, being considered in House; protest NOW):

House (HB0229) - Joey Hensley (R-Hohenwald)

Senate (SB0049) - Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville) (and I thought Ragan was hateful)

"Police the Potty" bill (being considered in House):

House (HB2279) - Richard "Stomp Him Dry" Floyd (R-Chattanooga)

Senate (SB2282) - orig. by Bo Watson (R-Hixson) (withdrawn for now)

"Equal Access to Discriminate" bills:

Intrastate version (being considered):

House (HB0600) - Glen Casada (R-Franklin)

Senate (SB0632) - Mae Beavers (R-Mt. Juliet), Jack Johnson (R-Franklin)

Interstate version (passed 5/11):

House (HB0598) - Glen Casada (R-Franklin)

Senate (SB0630) - Bill Ketron (R-Murfreesboro)

Smaller government, less intrusion? Not this year. And by the way, exactly how many jobs will these laws create? I'm guessing...zero.

It Gets Better?

2012-01-21T11:23:00.000-08:00

"Public opinion is changing."

"It's just a few religious crazies that still think like that."

"It gets better."

How much are you willing to bet?

Tennessee HB1153/SB0760 "specifies that such task forces, programs, and other initiatives [formed to prevent bullying or harassment] may not include materials or training that explicitly or implicitly promote a political agenda, make the characteristics of the victim the focus rather than the conduct of the person engaged in harassment, intimidation, or bullying, or teach or suggest that certain beliefs or viewpoints are discriminatory when an act or practice based on such belief or viewpoint is not a discriminatory practice under present human rights law.

Under present human rights law, a 'discriminatory practice' is any direct or indirect act or practice of exclusion, distinction, restriction, segregation, limitation, refusal, denial, or any other act or practice of differentiation or preference in the treatment of a person because of race, creed, color, religion, sex, age or national origin."

Translation: You are permitted to cause all manner of "discomfort and unpleasantness" in another child (which surely would not be "determined objectively" to be "unreasonable fear") (HB1153) if it's based on your view that he is gay or because of any other perceived characteristic not protected as one of the very short list noted above.

HB1153 is correct in one aspect, the problem is exactly the "conduct" of the bully, not the "characteristics" of the victim. However, if this bill were truly intended to underscore that, would they really seek to exclude those victims not covered by their short list from protection (and legal recourse)? Do we get nothing from Supreme Court cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, and Lawrence v. Texas? Can we not evolve, already? [A side note, since I shouldn't have to point this out: there are a few other "characteristics" missing from the list, too - in other words, other targets being legislatively "activated." Food for thought?]

[Good discussion of the bill here.]

I obviously had a problem with this, and I did the civically engaged thing and contacted my state-level elected officials (all of them) with my concerns and plea that they not support this deeply discriminatory, very-special-interest-serving bill. My message to members of the Tennessee House is included below, followed by the first reply received, from Representative John Ragan of Tennessee House District 33.

I chose to represent myself as everything I am as a citizen of the state and as a human being ... except gay. I wanted an honest response, no cover, no apologies, no false fronts; and that is what I got. Representative Ragan is to be "commended" for his thoroughness, and for his ability to make a case that sounds frighteningly similar in its calculated logic to that made by Adolf Hitler against the Jewish people.

The disclaimers in the Ragan response are meaningless, evidenced simply by the effort to which he has gone. Heed, however, the awesome presumption, and particularly the coldness of the rationale, bent and twisted and applied to things not personally understood by him or his ilk in a way they are understood by me, by my Air-Force-brat wife, by all others like us - by all others not exactly like him. This man wrote paragraph after paragraph clearly telling me what, in his view and in the view of others like the sponsor of the bill, by virtue of my "practiced" honesty, openness, and spiritually-based acceptance of my "feelings," I am not: a "mentally healthy adult human being" in control of my destructive urges. Very, very simply, I beg to differ.

My email to Tennessee House members, including Representative John Ragan:

Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 10:44 PM
To: John Ragan
Subject: HB1153/SB0760

January 20, 2012

Dear Representative Ragan,

I am writing to vehemently request that you oppose HB1153, very accurately dubbed the “license to bully” bill. This bill is a travesty of any part of the Constitution, much less the First Amendment. From a purely legislative point of view, it’s foolish in its insistence that it defends the First Amendment “rights” of children in public schools, a state domain, one in which students have traditionally not been afforded the same rights as adults in the general population anyway.

From a cultural/moral point of view, it’s simply hateful, and I do not want our two middle-school children exposed to any more of this God-forsaken negativity. The threat to all children who are not lucky enough or quick enough to produce a defense that fits somewhere in the class of protections “respected” by this bill is not even thinly veiled. The threat to gay or lesbian children (yes, they do exist) or even to children rumored to be gay is quite overt. There is no mistaking that the purpose and language of this bill are to justify and defend anti-gay bullying, which has already caused too much pain and driven too many children to take their own lives. Let me clarify: bullying drove those children to suicide, not simply BEing gay. If you support this bill, you will cause pain, and you may very well cause the deaths of more children like Jacob Rogers. Period.

The hate has gone too far. It actually had already gone too far, but this bill, and the fact that it’s even considered rational by anyone in the General Assembly to entertain it, is evidence that there are too many here who have forgone any objective morality in favor of very narrow, phobic, hate-driven personal issues. It is well past time to turn it around. This is NOT what Jesus, or any other decent, intelligent human being, would do.

Sincerely,

Kristin M. Johnson
Student, Middle Tennessee State University
Political Science/Pre-Law

#### A Road
Fairview, TN 37062
Tel. (###) ###-####
email xxx@

Representative John Ragan's response:

From: John Ragan <rep.john.ragan@capitol.tn.gov>
Date: Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 9:55 AM
Subject: RE: HB1153/SB0760
To: "Kristin M. Johnson" [my email address is not public record]

Dear Ms. Johnson,

Thank you for input on HB 1153. You may read it at the following URL: http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB1153.

I request that you note that it is not my policy to commit to, either, support or oppose, a bill that I have not authored until it comes before me for my formal consideration and vote. A bill may be amended numerous times in committee and changed in such a fashion as to completely alter its character. All of this can occur before I, even, have the opportunity to formally “hear” it. Therefore, unless I am a sponsor or co-sponsor, it would be foolish for me to back or contest specific legislative wording in any bill in advance of a vote.

Nonetheless, I read these bills and research them as they progress through the legislative process. Consequently, from this research, I would call to your attention to the fact that the bill about which you wrote me simply codifies the various court decisions that have been rendered concerning this topic. It does nothing more, nor less.

You should note that the referenced court decisions are binding regardless of any action by the General Assembly. Therefore, changing the Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA) section to increase its clarity and compliance with court decisions does not alter the impact of these decisions, nor could it.

According to my conversations with the bill’s sponsor, the definition of “bullying” contained in this bill is, in fact, the judicially specified definition. Additionally, the same source relayed that the requirement for any “bullying” policy to comply explicitly with Constitutional constraints is, also, a criteria imposed by judicial decision.

By consolidating the previously rendered judicial decision criteria into the appropriate TCA section, possible confusion among school officials across the state is greatly reduced. Consequently, the chances of a suit against an individual school district complying with the law are, likewise, greatly reduced. The less money spent on lawsuits, the more that is available for classroom requirements.

I trust the above portion of this response has sufficiently addressed any substantive issue you raised concerning HB 1153. If you will permit, in the remainder of my response, please, let me address areas you presented.

Given that you identified yourself as a college student in political science preparing for law school, I am sure your instructors have emphasized that logic, as a decision methodology, is a far superior all others. Therefore, let’s examine some issues you raised with logic. Additionally, please attempt not to “read anything into my remarks or questions” as being my positions or thoughts beyond that which I explicitly identify as such.

Logically, homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (The term sexual orientation is a description of feelings.) Feelings do not control the behavior of a mentally healthy adult human being.

By way of emphasis, let’s examine a few questions: If a person “feels” so angry with another that he or she “feels” like killing the object of their anger, is that person “controlled” by that “feeling?” Alternatively, can the possessor of that “feeling” choose not to act on it? If that person fails to act on that “feeling,” is he or she still referred to as a “murder?”

Can a person feel so much lust toward another that he “feels” like committing rape? If such is a possibility, is that person “controlled” by that “feeling” or can he choose not to engage in that action? If that person fails to act on that “feeling,” is he still referred to as a “rapist?”

Can a slender person “feel” like overeating, but choose not to do so? Is that person still called “fatty?” Can someone “feel” like not going to work, but get up and go anyway? Is that person still called “lazy?” Can a nun “feel” like engaging in sexual relations, but choose to remain celibate? Is she called a “whore?” Can someone “feel” like committing adultery, but choose not to do so? Is that person still called an “adulterer?”

Can a parent feel so upset with the misbehavior of a child, that he or she “feels” like “beating” that child? Alternately, can a distraught parent choose to merely “discipline” a child with a lecture, a “time-out” or a “grounding” (dependent upon age) to reinforce a prohibition against poor, or dangerous, behavior.

The list of questions about “feelings” that do not control people could go on and on. However, the point is sufficiently made. Mentally healthy adult human beings are not “controlled” by their “feelings.”

Please note that I did not contend that people do not take “feelings” into account when deciding on how to behave. Rather, it is my position that mentally healthy adult human beings use many criteria in addition to “feelings,” and, in numerous cases, consciously over-ride “feelings” when determining how they will behave.

Examining statistics and asking questions can be an excellent exercise in critical thing skills. Therefore, let us use some statistics to analogously examine your contention: “bullying drove those children to suicide, not simply BEing [sic] gay. If you support this bill, you will cause pain, and you may very well cause the deaths of more children like Jacob Rogers.”

U.S. health regulations currently prohibit men who have sex with men (homosexual practitioners – aka "gays") from donating blood. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration studies categorically confirm that if homosexual practitioners were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.

According to the FDA: "[homosexual practitioner or 'gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

The FDA further warns: "[homosexual practitioner or 'gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in "homosexual practitioners than in the general population."

A 2007 CDC study found that, although "gay" men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

All of these statistics are facts. A resulting critical thought question might be: do homosexual practitioners disproportionately contract AIDS, hepatitis, or syphilis through their own proclivities and behavior or in “reaction” to opinions of that behavior by others or someone supporting a bill?

Examining another statistic, it has been well known for a decade that suicide is attempted much more frequently in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual community (Mathy, Cochran, Olsen, & Mays, 2009). This same source pointed out that, on average, suicide is approximately three times more likely among homosexuals than heterosexuals.

As a fitting critical thought question, it could be asked if other identifiable groups that engage in behavior of which “others may disapprove” commit suicide at similar rates? In other words, do prostitutes, pedophiles, polygamists, murders, etc., commit suicide at the same, or similar, rates to homosexual behavior practitioners? If similar rates were hypothetically so (not proven to be the case), do these behavior practitioners commit suicide at a higher rate because someone may have disapproved of their behavior or for other reasons? Should society avoid disapproving of pedophilia, prostitution, murder, etc., because practitioners of those behaviors may commit suicide at higher rates?

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ---John Adams

Regards,

John D. Ragan
State Representative

"Facts and evidence" indeed. Perhaps, Representative Ragan, you'd like to join me and my family for dinner sometime.

UPDATE on Tennessee Senate Bill 760 and the need for action.

UPDATE on Tennessee's social "race to the bottom."