BY William Haycook
Being 71, I have lived through pretty much all phases of the battle to achieve equal protection for members of our community.
From living in the closet with the door firmly shut (knowing that even a rumor could result in my being fired from my job without any legal recourse) to the present when recent court decisions offer us cause for optimism, my 71 years cover a lot of ground.
I have witnessed and/or participated in many of the efforts that have gradually moved us toward full rights as American citizens including the recent and extraordinary Supreme Court decision guaranteeing equal marriage rights as required by the Constitution.
The seemingly endless efforts over expanding the Elliott-Larsen Civil Right Act to include sexual orientation and sexual identity – including protections for our trans members – have been very frustrating, but I agree that any changes in the law that exclude protection for our trans members is unacceptable.
It is understandable that we are all frustrated with the failure of our elected representatives to tackle this issue. It is equally understandable that some of us want to bypass this impasse and go directly to the voters with a proposal to change the law or even change the constitution. After all, the referendum is a perfectly legitimate legal tool that has been used successfully in a wide variety of circumstances for about a hundred years.
Our recent successes give us some degree of confidence that a referendum to firmly establish legal rights for all member of our LGBTQA community will also be successful.
However, Dana Nessel's attitude as expressed in a recent BTL article – ("We are full steam ahead. I won't talk to anybody about stopping") – strikes me as being dangerously hard-headed. What she seems determined to do regardless of the consequences will impact each and every member of our community.
Nessel's claim that "…polling indicates the bathroom ballot argument does not significantly move voters in Michigan" scares the hell out of me. Polls are notoriously inaccurate when the questions focus on hot-button issues like religion, race or sex. When asked about such issues, some people seem to offer opinions more in keeping with what they think reasonable people are supposed to believe when, in fact, their personal opinions are very much the opposite. In addition, recent polls after the Supreme Court's marriage ruling suggest that some people feel things are moving too fast and are, at the very least, increasingly wary at this time of further efforts on behalf of the LGBTQA community. While I think such opinions are wrong, they reflect the potentially poisonous environment in which a referendum campaign would have to be waged.
All things considered, a reasonable level of caution seems to be in order. Perhaps Ms. Nessel should agree to discuss this important matter with a broad spectrum of spokespersons before "moving full steam ahead." Like everyone, I want all members of our community to enjoy full and equal protection under the law. If Ms. Nessel barrels ahead and we lose – a very distinct possibility – we will spend years making up for the backlash. A vicious and hateful opposition campaign – virtually guaranteed regardless of what we would want – will create an even more poisoned environment that will taint future efforts for equal protection. Should we proceed with a referendum? I honestly don't know. My mind says we should fight for the equal protection the Constitution guarantees for all. My heart – make that my gut – says proceed with caution.
I would feel a lot better if a decision to proceed with a referendum was made after a thorough vetting by a broad spectrum of community representatives and not by one person who vows not to talk to anyone who opposes her approach.
