Written by Greta Hyland
This past week I attended my first city council meeting in St. George. There were moments of light-hearted humor, heart-felt warmth, and tear jerking sadness. As I sat in that room and listened to the comments by local citizens, I felt proud to be a part of this community – that is, until Patricia Kent gave her comments. She was the proverbial splash of cold water in the face and the worst kind of person to get “the last word” in a public forum.
If you were not in attendance, what you missed was Mrs. Kent’s argument that it is discriminatory to require the majority not to discriminate. She cited her vast 60 odd years on earth and her constitutional prowess as reasons why the city should not pass an anti-discrimination ordinance to protect the LGBT community from discrimination. Clearly age and self-study are no guarantee of wisdom, grace, or humility. Mrs. Kent’s abrasive screed was tantamount to decrying the majority’s right to trample the rights of the minority in the name of some strange version of property rights. And while I find her interpretation of the constitution to be idiotic and absurd, there were some in the audience who agreed with her and cheered. Mrs. Kent is entitled to her opinion but her comments should not go unanswered because I am certain that her views represent those of many in this community.
Mrs. Kent stated that we do not need ordinances to protect the minority because the constitution already guarantees those rights and because people have legal recourse when unconstitutional actions have been perpetrated against them. I wonder if Susan B. Anthony or Martin Luther King Jr. would agree. While what Mrs. Kent says is true on the surface, it is an over-simplified version of constitutional guarantees, rights, and how society ensures them in the face of what will always be present in human nature: racism, discrimination, bigotry, bias, and hate. We are all guaranteed equal protection under the law – in theory – but in practice, however, it doesn’t always pan out that way. A quick look at history reveals that the constitution has not always been enough to ensure the rights of the minority. One only need look to black Americans, native Americans, women, or the LGBT community to see that, and to also see that often, only when the majority or those in power are required to do so, do they abide the principles found therein. So clearly, that historical document is only as strong the people who respect it, use it, and abide by it.
That being said, what our constitution does not guarantee is the right of the majority to trample on the rights of the individual or the minority. When the majority does that, it is called tyranny. That is why we have checks and balances. Perhaps as a student of the constitution, Mrs. Kent should consider reading the 13th and 14th amendments, as they came as a result of the actions perpetrated by those advocating exactly what Mrs. Kent shared last night. None of us needs to be a constitutional scholar to know that despite constitutional guarantees, peoples’ rights have been and still are trampled, and that often it is the actions of citizens and policy makers on the local level that remedy it.
Ironically, one of those groups who were denied equal rights and who fought for them were women, a group to which Mrs. Kent belongs, and thanks to them, now enjoys the fruits of their labor. Without the Constitutional rights afforded to women, brought about through the blood, bruises, and tears of women who came before us and who fought for similar rights local citizen Matthew Jacobson did last night, Mrs. Kent would not have even been allowed in city hall last night, let alone had the privilege to speak.
The “idea” of rights came in response to an abuse of power in ancient Rome. To compensate for the loss of identity with the community, people (the minority) looked to legal guarantees against the community (the majority). Shame on you Mrs. Kent, you’re rights end where someone else’s begin. No, you do not have the right to fire someone for being LGBT, or to deny them residence because they are LGBT just because you own the business or the property. That is called discrimination, and if you are a student of the constitution, you should know that. Susan B. Anthony said, “It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union…. Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.” She could just as easily have said, “The majority their rights and nothing more; the minority their rights and nothing less.”
While I understand that there is often backlash in response to being legally required to treat people equally and fairly, it wouldn’t be necessary if people naturally did. Unfortunately they don’t. Because of that, it is much better to err on the side of Constitutional guarantees than on wishful thinking about human nature. There is no right to an annoyance free life in this country, no matter how badly it irks you. Equality is a value that the majority of this country believes in, even if the majority of St. George does not. It is not discriminatory to require people not to discriminate; it is called the law – Constitutional law to be exact.
Luckily for the rest of us who do not believe we should lie down in the face of tyranny or discrimination and accept it, there were many in our past who felt the same way who not only paved the way for us, but taught us that a piece of paper is only as good as the people behind it who are willing to fight for the values and ideals enshrined it, and enforce it. If the City of St. George decides to pass an anti-discrimination ordinance, it will serve as an enforceable extension of the Constitution, which would only be a bad thing for someone who wants the freedom to discriminate.
Signup for our weekly email on the right —>
