Time for Equal Rights in Pennsylvania

By Matthew Major for the Public Opinion editorial board, Chambersburg, PA:


It's long been considered a fundamental American value not to discriminate against racial, ethnic and religious minorities, so much so that states across the nation enshrined that enlightened principle into law.

After all, America is a place where everyone has the right to be judged according to their merit and character, and not by the color of their skin, the size of their wallet, or their means of worship.

Unless, of course, you happen to be gay. If you're gay, you can be denied housing, work and access to public accommodations, unlike the folks who cite their protected religious beliefs to justify denial of similar protections to others.

Those are the people griping the most about legislative action Wednesday in the Pennsylvania House of Representations, where a committee narrowly passed a bill to extend the same anti-discrimination protections to gay men and women that have long been the law for racial, ethnic and religious minorities.

Pennsylvania law provides basic legal protections against discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, age, national origin and disability. According to the bill's supporters, 20 states have already extended similar protections to gays and lesbians, as have 13 cities and towns covering about one-fifth of Pennsylvania's population.

The anti-discrimination bill passed the State Government Committee in the Pennsylvania House on a 12-11, party-line vote, with Democrats in support and Republicans opposed.

It now goes for consideration by the full House but remains a long shot, especially the Republican-controlled Senate.

The important thing to remember about anti-discrimination measures is they are primarily meant to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority, and they make no distinctions as to circumstances that create those minority groups.

Do gay people choose to be gay? We doubt it, but no one has proven the point either way.


Even if they do, arguing on moral grounds that one choice (religious preference) should be protected while another (sexual orientation) should not amounts to gross hypocrisy.

And if they don't, then this anti-discrimination bill represents a chance to do right by a segment of American minority that has been denied one of the bedrock benefits to American citizenship for far too long.