Louisiana intollerance may cost us money
Since we passed a gay marriage ban that does not recognize the legal relationship created by legal gay marriages in other states, the American Political Science Association is considering a ban on holding events in New Orleans and cancelling an already scheduled event here planned for 2012.
One of the arguments made is that if one of the associations gay members fell ill, his/her partner would be unable to make medical decisions for him/her because the law would not recognize the legal authority for him/her to do so. Others in the article disagree and believe they are taking the argument too far. However, if I was in a situation where I had doubts as to whether the law would allow my spouse to make medical decisions for me, would I really want to risk travelling to that state?
Mark Vail, an assistant professor at Tulane, called Pinello’s argument about health care “at best, overblown.” Vail said there is little risk of a circumstance arising that would jeopardize the members’ civil rights. He added that the law leading to the amendment did not originate in New Orleans and passed here by a small margin.
Notice the “little risk” and not “no risk”. And why does the fact that this bill only passed by a small margin make any difference? So what, we are supposed to be happy that just over half of the people who voted here support the law? People should be happy that New Orleans, while less intolerant than the rest of Louisiana, is still intolerant when it comes to civil rights for gay people? Mr. Vail’s argument is flawed and I am shocked that Tulane would have someone teaching political science who would make such a flawed political argument. That doesn’t say much for the department.
“We feel that the fears expressed by Mr. Pinello really, fundamentally misunderstand what New Orleans is about,” Vail said. “We think that its incredibly unfair to punish New Orleans.”
Mr. Pinello is not making a statement about what New Orleans is about. He is making a statement about the legal climate in Louisiana for homosexuals. Perhaps Mr. Vail should work on changing the law that is unfair to people who are GLBT instead of complaining that one convention is refusing to come here because a super-majority of the people who voted feel that gay people are second class citizens.
Mary Beth Romig, a spokeswoman for the New Orleans Metropolitan Convention and Visitors Bureau, said her organization has been in touch with the political science association to assure its members that New Orleans would be welcoming to gay members of the group.
I’m sure that New Orleans would welcome in any group that brings money in. This is not the concern here. Perhaps Mary Beth could get on the phone to the A.G. and determine whether the concerns raised are valid and if a partner in a homosexual relationship would be unable to give consent to a medical procedure for his/her partner based on current Louisiana law.
“I hear time and again that New Orleans is gay-friendly,” Pinello said. “I simply don’t understand what the basis of that is. To say that a street fair makes the city gay friendly is turning to the worst stereotypes of gays and lesbians. I think that’s offensive.”
I couldn’t agree more. If half the city voted against gay marriages, that doesn’t speak to highly of the city and its willingness to accept gay people as equal.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Tulane professors also noted that the vote was taken not long after Katrina, when hardly anyone was in the city.
Meanwhile, you’ve never heard of the New Orleans Human Rights Commission and the city’s anti-discrimination ordinances?
https://secure.cityofno.com/Portals/Portal58/portal.aspx
June 27th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Regardless of when the vote was taken, part of the reasoning was because of how our state treats homosexuals.
And the city ordinances can say all they want. They cannot trump state law.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:55 am
City ordinances can in some cases trump state law–not the gay marriage law, but other instances (housing and business discrimination, etc.) yes, it does. Or at least it provides a layer of protection where there wasn’t any. If you want to suggest or agree that New Orleans, rather than the state, is anti-gay, you have to deal with those ordinances. Otherwise, your argument is irrational.
Meanwhile, a correction: The gay marriage vote was taken two days after the landfall of Hurricane Ivan, which appeared headed for New Orleans until virtually the last minutes. Most residents had been evacuated over the weekend, only returned on the Monday before the vote or afterward. Due to the confusion, 90 of the 442 precincts in New Orleans failed to receive voting machines until mid-afternoon of the referendum voting day. It was a botched election in Orleans Parish. A delay in the election would not have altered the outcome statewide, but the Orleans Parish returns cannot be taken to say much of anything about what were then the feelings of New Orleans voters.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:03 am
The ACLU of Louisiana takes note of special protections for gays and lesbians under the New Orleans home rule charter.
http://www.laaclu.org/index.php?page=GLBT
A challenge to the domestic partnership registry was rejected by a New Orleans judge in January 2008. A little research goes a long way:
http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2008/01/new-orleans-cou.html
June 28th, 2008 at 9:36 am
What ordinances can trump state law (or better yet the state constitution)? I can see a city ordinance covering an issue that state law did not cover, but that would not be trumping state law.
My argument as a matter of law is based only on Louisiana law and not city ordinances. That much is plainly clear. And the lack of protection provided to gay people is codified into the state constitution. City ordinances cannot provide such protection in violation of the constitution of the state of Louisiana.
The only suggestion I made about New Orleans had nothing to do with city ordinances or city government. It had to do with how the electorate voted and those figures are clear, more than half the city voted to discriminate against gay people.
Your “correction” is not really a correction at all. It is an observation that the results may have differed. We can speculate all we want. However, at the end of the day New Orleans voters still voted to discriminate against gay people. Can you provide any evidence that if those people prevented from voting had been able to vote that those people would have voted differently than the rest of the parish? Can you provide evidence to show that enough people would have voted differently so that a majority of the parish would have then supported gay rights? Until you can do that, I stand by my argument that the majority of the voters in the city voted to discriminate against gay people.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Seems like the group changed its mind.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:21 am
In response to the comments that had to be moderated (I don’t know why, I guess I need to check a setting or two)…
The New Orleans Home Rule Charter can still not violate the Louisiana Constitution. While the judge did rule that affording health insurance to a wider variety of people than straight married couples and their families, that decision has nothing to do with the recognition of a married gay couple’s marriage when it comes to issues like making medical decisions for your spouse.
If a homosexual couple married in Massachusetts or California, and all they brought with them was the marriage license showing that marriage, the hospital (under the constitution of Louisiana) is forbidden from recognizing the union. One partner would legally be prohibited from making medical decisions for the other partner. The judges opinion on insurance benefits does not even come close to touching this issue.
Gay marriage is not legally recognized in Louisiana. A city commission cannot change that. In fact, the city charter states: “the City is permitted to pass any ordinance so long as it is not violative of the Louisiana Constitution”. A little research goes a long way…