Barney Frank
September 29th, 2007 by Bill ColleyBarney Frank is gay. Just in case you didn’t know, Frank, a Congressional Representative from Massachusetts is openly gay. If I hadn’t already known this a caller to my talk program made me aware of it. Frank is also the sponsor of a House bill which would grant special civil rights protections for gay Americans. This I bring up as I mentioned it during the course of my radio talk program.Â
Â
It was mentioned with no malice or judgment about any proposed changes to law. The host of the program wanted to know his listeners thoughts about the issue.Â
Â
Making it clear for those of you unfamiliar with me I’m a conservative and a Roman Catholic. My church officially sees homosexuality as a disorder. As a Catholic I follow my church’s teachings. If I ever disagree then it’s time to shop for a new church with no fear of reprisals, which is a great thing about living in the United States, we’ve religious freedom.
Â
While my church calls homosexuality a disorder it also extends a very Christian view of forgiveness. I believe it was Andrew, remember I’m a Catholic so this can be a bit vague, who spoke about rebuking our fellow Christians when they stumble and when fellow Christians stumble we pray for them. We aren’t supposed to stone those stumbling and we aren’t supposed to burn them (despite some historical precedence) and we aren’t supposed to put them behind barbed wire. Â
Â
Sometimes there are even folks who don’t want us praying for their souls. Understood but we still pray. We pray for those addicted to substances, for those facing great challenges and for those not perfect. We pray, as you can see, for everybody. Christians are compelled to pray for every soul.Â
Â
Which brings me back to Barney Frank? I can’t begin to understand the choices he makes in his personal life and I don’t believe that we need extra-judicial rights for our fellow Americans. The Constitution offers the same protections to us all. This is why I oppose Barney Frank’s legislation and not because of the choices Barney Frank makes in his personal life. Taking such proposals to extremes we’ll have special laws for short citizens, plump citizens and left-handed citizens.Â
Â
“Barney Frank is gay!†the caller reminded me. Yes Frank is gay. Would the caller feel better about the law if the sponsor had been someone like the former conservative member of Congress, Steve Largent? Do you get my drift?
Â
The other day I mentioned a comment made by CBS’ Andy Rooney. I prefaced it by saying some may not like him but a comment Rooney made about the news media was a correct one. Rooney, responding to charges much of the news reported is bad news, replied that a man walking down the street and not getting hit in the head by a falling piano isn’t making any news. This tale was prefaced because I once offered the Rooney story on a radio program and a caller immediately joined me and angrily shouted, “Andy Rooney is a liberalâ€. O.K., Andy Rooney is a confessed liberal. And how does this change the definition of what makes news?Â
Â
Frankly, and that isn’t slang or an endorsement for Barney Frank’s lifestyle, how can we begin an intelligent conversation about the Representative’s civil rights proposal if we just shout the man is gay?Â
Â
Does it bother you to the point that you want these people locked in encampments? Or stoned to death? Are you campaigning for the Presidency of Iran? This is America and what two consenting adults are doing behind closed doors and if hurting no one else then it isn’t your business. You don’t have to look at it. You don’t have to condone it and you’ve enough to be concerned about in saving your own soul. The courts also aren’t concerned with saving any souls and, for now, still leave the chore to churches.Â
Â
The flip side of the argument is Representative Frank’s legislation would disturb the constitutional equation by making impoliteness to his own kind a crime. Government isn’t God, and it isn’t a nanny and it shouldn’t be a scold.Â
September 29th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
C’mon…this is somewhat more than just “impoliteness to his own kind”. You stated the Constitution offers the same protections to us all…this Bill is for, primarily, fairness in the workplace. If the Constitution did provide the fairness you imply why did we need Federal laws prohibiting discrimination towards race, gender and religion? What’s the difference? I know…to many being gay is a “disorder”, a choice. However, those “many” who subscribe to those beliefs aren’t gay so what makes them think they are right and those who DO live it are wrong or misguided?
You were right…and fair…to suggest that what anyone…gay or straight…does in the privacy of their home is their business and shouldn’t be anyone else’s. Thank you for that. And I do agree with you regarding Govt. should not be a scold and isn’t God…but when they have preserved the right to work despite race, religion and gender, what’s the problem with this Bill’s possible passage? I can actually see one that I sure wouldn’t like…quotas. I can remember when many places…even the military…had their “token black” or “token female”. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be a “token gay” and I certainly would hate to work for anyone who had a really serious problem with how I lived my life and with whom. But at the same time why should anyone who is qualified, conscientious, hard worker and has no other reason to be fired or not hired other than those two reasons be automatically disqualified? Frankly, this State already has a hiring and firing problem in that anyone can be fired at the will of the employer with absolutely no reason given.
Could what you are asking be that as long as we keep our lives and loves behind our own closed doors, mouths shut, then we don’t have a problem in the workplace? Like the military’s
“don’t ask, don’t tell”? How does that work? You have been here about a month. We know you have a daughter, we know you are single (be it a widower, divorce) because you have spoken openly to the listening public. But you would want us to lie, feign deafness or ignorance if, while in the workplace, colleagues discussed dates, anniversaries, vacations ad infinitum in the lunch room or on breaks? A partner is sick, dies…an employee can’t get time off…HONESTLY…to tend him or her. In almost all workplaces HR or the personnel dept. requires one to provide name, address, phone of next of kin…some contracts require one to provide the information of status…married, single, widowed or divorced. We should lie there, also? And if we don’t…out the door?
No, we are not all provided protection under the Constitution…but it’s time we were.
September 30th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Nancy, if the Constitution were followed then none of these laws would be needed. It’s a document blind to race, gender, faith and gender preference. I’m guessing that if an employer did fire a gay worker for only being gay then the worker would, after a civil case, own the employer’s business and home.
September 30th, 2007 at 9:33 am
True, Bill…the Constitution, as it was written and intended to be, has been nothing more than a piece of Americana for too long. Unfortunately, I don’t see us going back to a time of it’s original form.
September 30th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Sure gays should be able to live a lifestyle without prejudice or hate but that’s not a reality. There’s always going to be hate or prejudice no matter your race, sexual orientation, beliefs, or even how you dress or look. I’m not a big fan of special rights or civil right protection bills just because they aren’t fair for the whole public in general. For example, lets talk race, in NYC last year they had their test for Firemen and Policemen. They changed the test for the first time that year and geared it easier for minorities to pass. Now what good is the civil rights bill if it’s not fair for everyone. You are giving a minority based on race the upper hand. That is not fair to someone who may be more qualified for the job. I thought race was taken out of the picture? To me race should not matter, the test should be a fair test not based on race or giving out bonus points to a certain race. The job should be given to the man who deserves it, who put in the time and effort to get that it. Now those test are in court with a lawsuit against NYC. Race, sexual orientation, and belief should not have an effect on anything and thats the way the bill should be written. Throw all that special treatment stuff right out of the door. Until then there will always be prejudice people and hate. Therefore, this bill is stupid and another waste of time. Give me a bill that bars any business, tenant, etc. from discriminating against anyone and also states that no unfair advantages given to any one in specific and you have a winner. It should be whoever deserves that house, job, etc more no matter your race, sexual orientation, or beliefs, and there should be proof of that from the tenant, employer, etc.