Reader's View: Creating human rights laws for all proclivities is not the answer

November 27, 2013 

“Add the words”: A short, concise and catchy phrase. “Human rights”: makes us feel so included because we are all so “human.” But in spite of the good intentions of LGBT special-rights supporter Anne Wilde, we must not create new, extraordinary laws that subjugate one “class” to another “class.”

Sexual orientation/gender identity is a category of “self-identification” that is un-identifiable by a fellow human ... unless one human chooses to identify their preference about their most intimate sexual activities. How am I to know? Can I be held accountable as an employer or fellow employee for an orientation that I can’t identify?

As I walk the streets among strangers, can you suggest to me how I am to identify them as transgender, gay or lesbian? Will they voluntarily choose to create a publicly visible identifying mark so I will have the advantage of knowing whom I may not offend? It is none of my concern unless that individual chooses to make it my business.

How many times do we hear the mantra “keep the government out of my bedroom?” But this current mantra, “add the words,” creates a huge, inconsistent twist in logic which would result in others being held in contempt of law if they don’t ferret out everyone’s sexual orientation? I do not want to make their sexual proclivities my business and I again inquire — are they willing to create some kind of self-identifying, public label so I do not find myself at a disadvantage?

Should we create an “add the words” campaign for mothers of multiple children so they, also, can’t be discriminated against? Allow them extra time from work for family business? Isn’t that a “human right” to care for one’s children? The “human rights” advocates (believing the village raises the child) should be pleased to know my campaign would support their philosophy; others in my “work-village” would have the privilege of being responsible for my lifestyle choices and my absenteeism. Shouldn’t my particulate flavor of “human rights” get legal protection so I wouldn’t have to worry about being fired? Sound logical? Think it will make your village of co-workers happy to work in such an arrangement?

No amount of “human rights” activism will ever solve the problem of “human nature.” If you choose first and foremost to identify your life by your sexual-orientation/identity, then you are free to do so. Whether you be gay, lesbian, heterosexual, married or single, young or old, smart or not so smart ... you experience one set of problems or a different set of problems. Trying to create human rights — under penalty of law — for all of our human proclivities is a Pandora’s box.

Please “add my words”: Practice the Golden Rule, be honest, work and play to the best of your ability, and remember that your rights end where my nose begins.

Ronalee Linsenmann, of Nampa, is a lifelong volunteer: 4-H, Girl Scouts, mother-helper at school, church and civic organizations. She volunteered in the Republican Party and Republican Women for 20 years.

Idaho Statesman is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service