“No promo homo” states are those that prohibit educators from discussing homosexuality in a positive way or, in some cases, at all. States that prohibit enumeration are those that don’t allow local school districts from enacting policies aimed specifically at preventing bullying over sexual orientation or gender identity. (Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network)
Eight states limit speech about homosexuality in ways similar to, though not as far-reaching as, the Russian ban that has received international criticism ahead of the Winter Olympics in Sochi.
The states have so-called ”no homo promo” bans—prohibitions on classroom instruction that promotes homosexuality. In a Washington Post opinion piece last week, a pair of Yale University law professors reviewed some of those laws:
It is Utah that prohibits “the advocacy of homosexuality.” Arizona prohibits portrayals of homosexuality as a “positive alternative life-style” and has legislatively determined that it is inappropriate to even suggest to children that there are “safe methods of homosexual sex.” Alabama and Texas mandate that sex-education classes emphasize that homosexuality is “not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public.” Moreover, the Alabama and Texas statutes mandate that children be taught that “homosexual conduct is a criminal offense” even though criminalizing private, consensual homosexual conduct has been unconstitutional since 2003.
The professors, Ian Ayres and William Eskridge, point out that in 2002 the United States hosted the Winter Olympics in Utah, one of the eight states, and argue that those criticizing Russia should also focus on changing the similar domestic laws.
When 10 states out of 50 allow discrimination of a segment of our U.S. population, there is something wrong. 20% of our states is a rather substantial chunk.
What ever happened to first amendment rights? I think I would have to refuse to teach that “homosexual conduct is a criminal offense.” How can teachers be required to teach lies? When are some of these educators and their professional associations going to get the nads to challenge some of these things?
The refusal to keep gays and lesbians (perceived or real) from bullying is very disturbing. It sounds like legalized ‘smear the queer’ to me.
I love Arizona and Utah. However, I would have to think twice before I planned to vacation there. I simply don’t believe in legalized discrimination.
Before anyone in this country criticizes Russia, perhaps we need to look at our own backyards. Shame on the states that insist on being this openly hostile to what amounts to between 5% and 10% of the population.
I think that when you use the work “hate” in the subject title that it’s not particularly descriptive, and does a disservice.
I as against homophobia as anyone, and these laws are incredibly stupid. Still, it’s a shortcut to call it “hate”.
Also, the laws on the books are frequently more archaic than the enforced law or the will of the commonfolk. It’s easy to write a horror story based on “laws on the books” that may be – and in this case, presumably are, contradicted by other laws.
Point taken, Rick. It made for a great title though.
I know all sorts of people who hate gays. These laws aren’t legislated out of love. Gays, like other minorities, make great scapegoats. As long as there are no laws on the books protecting them there is little difference in them and any other subset of society that has been demonized.
Now, speaking of homophobia, here is an interesting story. This guy might end up being the first openly gay player in the NFL. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/sports/michael-sam-college-football-star-says-he-is-gay-ahead-of-nfl-draft.html?_r=0
The open homophobia in the NFL is staggering. There’s at least one guy who was a solid all-star player, still has good years left in him, and no team signed him this year because it’s understood that he is gay and wants to come out publicly (Kerry Rhodes). Hardly anyone even talks about it.
You can be gay and serve in the military – and many do. But playing NFL football? Touchy situation, apparently.
Foxhole /locker room, whatever….
I will repeat my criticism regarding specific legislation/policies to protect certain groups. There is no need for specific policies to discourage bullying over sexual orientation or gender identity, as long as the existing policy prohibits bullying. Bullying is bullying; and it should be stopped whether the target is gay or straight.
The same goes with “hate” crimes. I have never understood why assault or murder over sexual orientation is any worse than assault or murder for another reason. The victim suffers regardless of the specific reason for the crime.
How do you feel about legislation that forbids groups (teachers) from saying anything positive about gays?
If I beat the crap out of you because you pissed me off or stole my significant other, that’s a lot different than singling you out for being black,gay, Jewish, Hispanic or any sort of other someone wants to attack.
On Civil Rights laws in general, the danger is that some localities are not trusted to respect the rights of their citizens. I.e. some redneck sherriff somewhere who doesn’t like minorities or gays (or maybe women). Hence civil rights laws; hence hate crime laws. In theory, they allow the Federal Government to “catch” miscarriages of justice, and process them, when State government fails.
Unfortunately, the laws are and have been applied in an “activist” fashion that many people don’t agree with.
On balance I think that Civil Rights laws are needed. I tend to agree that hate crime laws are not needed, and counterproductive. In practice, though, all they are is one more weapon for police and prosecutors to use as leverage when dealing with bad people. So I don’t lose any sleep over their existence.
“If I beat the crap out of you because you pissed me off or stole my significant other, that’s a lot different than singling you out for being black,gay, Jewish, Hispanic or any sort of other someone wants to attack.”
I don’t agree. The law should be concerned with the nature of the crime, not the motive.
Hate crimes can also be against property,
Motive is important. Why else would we differentiate between murder types or manslaughter?
I see a huge difference in accidentally running over someone and causing their death and going on a Charlie Manson killing spree.
Intentions do count.
I don’t think that we should differentiate.
Five of the eight are in the heart of the Bible belt–what else would you expect them to do? And Utah–the heart of Mormonism. Would you expect them to be any different? This is not to say their position is right but your bucking up against their religious beliefs.
Moon asks: “How do you feel about legislation that forbids groups (teachers) from saying anything positive about gays?” Well it just may be that the teachers themselves don’t like homosexuals so they don’t feel any conflict.
@Rick Bentley
Has probably truncated his football career. As the NYT article pointe out, Jason Collins of the NBA came out and now as a free agent has not been drafted. Is is because he is too old or because he is an open homosexual? I’ll give you two guesses.
Too broad-brush, George. What about freedom of speech? What about the teachers who don’t dislike homosexuals?
Collins was at the end of his career; his contract was up and he knew there was a good chance he was at the end of the road. His announcement may or may not have affected anyone picking him up this year.
I follow the NBA. I don’t think it’s as homophobic as the NFL. I’m pretty sure we’ll have the gay players in it come out in coming years. Russell Westbrook has been all but outed. Tim Duncan’s wife has claimed the he’s bisexual and cheated on her with a man. These things are known, and are not big stories.
The NFL is more homophobic. For whatever reason.
The NFL is very homophobic. Maybe because of the ‘he-man’ image it projects?
I suppose then the teachers will have to sue the state for violating their First Amendment rights or they can simply speak out. Ether way I suspect they will be looking for new employment. If they sue and win, then perhaps the law will be changed and they will be reinstated. Maybe. But first they have to win. I guess it just depends on how fervent they feel about the whole thing.
P.S. Homophobia is probably more prevalent than you would like to believe. Not everyone is “enlightened”.
George, homophobia is lessening, at a fairly rapid rate. Particularly among young people. The internet and the information age do things like that, they make irrational points of view harder to sustain.
As to the NFL … they do have a very militaristic mindset, beyond macho and into body sacrifice. The military itself has come a long way on this issue, from everything I’ve been told and can see from a distance, but not the NFL. The commissioner needs to grow some cajones on this issue. You’ve got a player (Klewe) saying a coach harassed him and took a dislike to him over the issue, and you’ve got a owner (Lurie) who got a TV show taken off of ESPN because of a storyline about a gay NFL player (admittedly that was quite a while back).
And meanwhile the whole Jonathan Martin fiasco in the background, the idea of examining NFL workplace practices – the Martin story is bunk, the kid freaked out first and rationalized later – but look at bad image the league is projecting in terms of how these guys act. Incognito and Martin’s texts to each other are amazing – rape threats back and forth, and their lives seem to be one big crawl of boozing and looking for “p***y”.
A player shouldn’t have to invent an imaginary girlfriend (with or without cancer) to be able to have an NFL career! (Manti Te’o reference).
http://youtu.be/egSGsRbVNuE
I thought the NFL covered all this “manly” stuff years ago……
Yes Rick, I suppose it is lessening but it is far from not being an issue. The military may have “embraced” homosexuality but I would suggest that it ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings. There won’t be any going back but let’s wait and see when we have the first openly homosexual chief of one of the services or at least a flag or general officer. I believe we probably have had some women who got fairly far up the chain but they were not open about their sexual lives. I’ve worked with some and had some work for me “back in the day”. I had at least one homosexual male officer who was a flamer and eventually died of AIDS but he was extremely promiscuous and paid dearly for it. Cost the military a lot caring for him as he was dying from something that might have been preventable.
Does anyone know how much the military spent on treated STD’s in the promiscuous heterosexual members?
It’s an issue but a lot less of one than 10 or 20 years ago.
The dam broke quickly on the issue.
@BSinVA
Here are a couple of numbers concerning the cost to treat AIDS patients in the U.S. Numbers provided by the AIDS Foundation of Chicago:
Estimated lifetime cost of treatment for one person with HIV is $379,668 (in 2010 dollars)
Estimated average annual cost for HIV treatment is $23,000 (in 2010 dollars)
In 2000, DOD noted there were about 15.3 million new STD cases in the U.S. each year. Since the military makes up about 1% of the population, it might be presumed that 1.53 million cases were military. In that same year, the Guttmacher Institute estimated that it cost the U.S., $6.5 billion to treat 8 different STDs including HIV in a population consisting of 15-24 years old. Treating just HIV alone consumed $3.0 billion of this. Using the same 1%, then it could be estimated that DOD spent some $3.5 million treating STDs in military personnel. Just treating the old fashion “Clap”, gonorrhea, costs about $53 for men and $266 for women. Hopefully that is a one time cost so a “lifetime” cost might not be possible to predict. However in the case of AIDS, Guttmacher has estimated the lifetime cost for treating an AIDS patient to be between $176,500 and $223,300 depending on when treatment starts. This is about as good as I can come up with without spending a lot more time, which is just not what I want to be doing at this point in my life.
Note: People with AIDS are living longer, as much as 45 years for a 20 year old, so it should be expected these costs will continue to go up.
@ Rick: If over 15 million new STD cases a year is not an issue, I don’t know what is.
Is it an “issue” in the sense that there’s any real disagreement on the way forward?
Teach sex education to gays and straights alike, work for cheaper prices on treatment drugs, and prosecute people who knowingly transmit the disease.
Makes perfect sense to me. I especially like prosecuting those who knowingly transmit disease.