In October 2014, during the run-up to Ballot Measure 2, Paul Jenkins wrote a well-reasoned op-ed titled, "Legislature should weigh pot laws, not voters." In his article, Jenkins wrote that "outside bamboozlers and monied special interests" had influenced voters into supporting Ballot Measure 2, which he argued would only benefit "Dope Inc.," not the average Alaskan. Jenkins went on to argue that the Alaska government should reject this measure, despite the obvious popular support of its constituents, because only the state Legislature, not the people, could "weigh other states' experiences, assess the facts, and craft a reasonable law."
Now that an LGBT ordinance has passed the docket, Jenkins is singing a different tune.
"The Anchorage Assembly," Jenkins wrote in his most recent op-ed, "screwed up by ignoring the will of 57 percent of the voters who three years ago soundly rejected adding the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community to an already lengthy list of those protected from discrimination."
There is nothing wrong with arguing that those in government may be more suited to "weigh experiences" and "assess facts" than our pool of voters, and thus should rule against popular opinion when it is in societies' best interests to do so. Nor is there anything wrong with arguing that the voice of the people should be able to directly shape the legislative process. These two arguments, however, are so ideologically opposed that it's surprising they both came from the same person.
As if the these arguments weren't bipolar enough, Jenkins instantly goes from stating that "nobody is denying the LGBT community anything, including equal rights" to admitting that "there may be discrimination in this city against the LGBT community -- as there is against any number of others, including old, fat, white guys." He of course fails to mention that an old, fat, white guy could turn to our legal system in order to defend himself from being discriminated against because of his age, race, and gender (and possibly even his weight, if it was due to a medical condition), while a member of the LGBT community could not.
Even more egregious is his assertion that the discrimination present against the LGBT community is "not of the magnitude that faced blacks and other minorities" and thus undeserving of correction, as if any moral wrong present in our society short of racial genocide is not worth rectifying.
Jenkins goes on to state:
Members of the LGBT community -- surprise! -- already have the same rights as everybody else. They cannot be discriminated against because of "race, color, sex, religion, national origin, marital status, age, physical disability, and mental disability." It is included in the city code and there are all manner of protections in federal law and in the Constitution, which contains no "except for" language.
These protections are exclusive, not inclusive; there is no need for "except for" statements because traits not enumerated in Title 5 of city code are excluded from its protections. Of course individuals within the LGBT community have always possessed equal rights to those outside of it, and could not be discriminated against because of their race, color, sex, religion, etc. But they could be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, which was the entire point of AO 2015-96.
Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, blacks and whites had "equal rights" under Jenkins' definition; both could be discriminated against because of their race. But that in no way means that African-Americans were treated with anything even approaching equality.
Equality doesn't just mean that both parties have identical rights enumerated and protected in our legislation, but that they both have the opportunity to exist and participate in our society without fear of reprisal. This is not about creating new rights; that itself is an impossible task by definition. This is about ensuring that the rights of those inside of the LGBT community are protected by codifying them into our legal systems.
Jenkins asserts that the passage of AO 2015-96 will lead to us being forced to "accept, even embrace, (the LGBT) lifestyle." Yet Christians have long been protected under the legislative language that is now being extended to protect the LGBT community, and despite that, I was somehow never coerced to accept, embrace, or conform to the Christian "lifestyle." It simply meant that I could not use a public accommodation, service or office to ostracize Christians from society, which is exactly what these protections will do, no more and no less, for the LGBT community.
To suggest that AO 2015-96 will do anything for the LGBT community that has not already been done for women, African-Americans and other races or groups that faced discrimination, including Christians, the elderly and the disabled, is disingenuous at best.
William Culper is a Marine veteran who currently works in the defense contracting industry as an information assurance analyst. He lives in Anchorage.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.