[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 115 (Wednesday, September 8, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1808-E1809]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    ANTI-GAY BIGOTRY AGAINST ARIZONA STATE REPRESENTATIVE STEVE MAY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LANTOS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, September 8, 1999

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, at a time when the leaders of this country 
should rise up and speak out in favor of the family and commitment, it 
is a disgrace to our common sense that our nation and in particular our 
Department of Defense, continues to persecute gay Americans who espouse 
these values.
  Though millions of law-abiding, tax-paying gay Americans honor the 
tradition of family by honoring their unions to each other, they 
consistently see their efforts rewarded by a rhetoric that is seemingly 
aligned with their commitment to these values and yet is used as a tool 
to alienate them from this society and deny them their most basic 
rights.
  Recently, Arizona State Representative Steve May added a heroic voice 
to those calling for full civil rights for gay Americans by refusing to 
accept the bigotry and prejudice inherent in the movement to strip away 
domestic partner benefits for gay couples. During debate in the Arizona 
State House of Representatives on legislation barring Arizona counties 
from offering domestic partner benefits, Mr. May bravely spoke out 
against the legislation and told his fellow legislators that he was gay 
and that he would not tolerate discrimination against gay families.
  Representative May is a member of the Army Reserve and a former 
active duty soldier. After acknowledging in the debate that he loves 
and shares his life with another man, the Army has initiated an effort 
to remove him from the military.
  Mr. Speaker, what hypocrisy! At a time when our nation's military is 
being forced to lower its standards in order to maintain force levels, 
we are expelling from the military highly talented and experienced 
individuals who want to serve our nation.
  Mr. Speaker, the New York Times last Sunday (September 5, 1999) 
published an Editorial Observer column by Brent Staples which 
eloquently places the experience of Steve May in a suitable context and 
appropriately denounces the injustice of attacks on gay women and men 
in this country. I urge my colleagues to read this excellent piece and 
to join me in ending the injustice of protecting some families while 
harming others.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the column by Brent Staples commending Steve 
May and his stance on domestic partner benefits in The New York Times 
to be placed in the Record.

                [From the New York Times, Sept. 5, 1999]

               Why Same-Sex Marriage is the Crucial Issue

                           (By Brent Staples)

       The civil rights movement had made spectacular gains in the 
     courts--including Brown v. Board of Education--before Rosa 
     Parks galvanized public opinion in a way that lawsuits had 
     not. Ms. Parks became an emblematic figure when she was 
     arrested in Montgomery, Ala., for refusing to sit in the 
     ``colored only'' section of a bus. The sight of this 
     dignified woman being denied the simplest courtesy because 
     she was black crystallized the dehumanizing nature of 
     segregation and rallied people against it.
       Racism began to wane as white Americans were introduced to 
     members of the black minority whom they could identify as 
     ``just like us.'' A similar introduction is underway for gay 
     Americans, but the realization that they are ``just like us'' 
     has yet to sink in. When it finally does, the important 
     transitional figures will include State Representative Steve 
     May, a 27-year-old Republican from Arizona.
       Mr. May is a solid conservative who supports issues like 
     vouchers and charter schools. He was raised a Mormon and 
     recalls himself as the kid who ``had to go out and bring in 
     the wayward souls.'' He is also a former active-duty soldier 
     and an Army reservist, whose record shows that he could have 
     moved up swiftly and been given a command.
       But Mr. May is about to be hounded out of the Reserve for 
     publicly admitting he loves and shares his life with another 
     man. This acknowledgment came last winter during a heated 
     exchange in the Arizona Legislature over a bill that would 
     have barred counties from offering domestic-partner benefits, 
     stripping them from gay couples who currently enjoy them.
       Mr. May could have sat quietly, protecting his career. 
     Instead he exposed the provision as bigoted and told the 
     Arizona House: ``It is an attack on my family, an attack on 
     my freedom. . . . My gay tax dollars are the same as your 
     straight tax dollars. If you are not going to treat me 
     fairly, stop taking my tax dollars. . . . I'm not asking 
     for the right to marry, but I'd like to ask this 
     Legislature to leave my family alone.''
       When Rosa Parks declined to yield her seat on that bus, she 
     was telling Alabama that she was not just a colored person, 
     but a human being who deserved the respect and protection of 
     the law. Mr. May's words in the Arizona House were similarly 
     clarifying. Fearful of a backlash, gay politicians rarely 
     mention their mates in public--and shy away from speaking of 
     them in terms that might disturb even constituents who know 
     that they are gay. But by framing his argument in the context 
     of ``the family,'' Mr. may disarmed his bigoted colleagues 
     and took the debate on same-sex unions exactly where it 
     needed to go.
       When Mr. May's comments became public, the Army Reserve 
     began an investigation that legal experts say will certainly 
     end in discharge. Lieutenant May will then become a casualty 
     of ``don't ask, don't tell,'' which ended more than 1,100 
     military careers in 1998, on the grounds that homosexuals who 
     reveal the fact are no longer fit to serve.
       This is a staggering loss at a time when the armed services 
     are canvassing strip malls and lowering entrance requirements 
     to find personnel. By the time this policy is abandoned, 
     thousands of talented Americans

[[Page E1809]]

     will have been lost to a purge that will come to be 
     recognized as contrary to the public good and morally wrong.
       Republicans began the 1990's refusing campaign 
     contributions from gay organizations and demonizing 
     homosexuals for political gain. But in the race for 2000, the 
     most prominent candidates are accepting the money and say 
     that they would hire gay workers as long as they refrained 
     from pressing ``a gay agenda''--a code phrase for keeping 
     quiet about issues of same-sex intimacy, up to and including 
     marriage. The trouble with this approach is that legitimacy 
     for same-sex unions is the heart of the matter. By denying 
     that legitimacy, we declare gay love less valid than 
     heterosexual love and gay people less human. We cut them off 
     from the rituals of family and marriage that bind us together 
     as a culture.
       The legislator who wished to revoke benefits from same-sex 
     partners in Arizona viewed those partnerships as culturally 
     alien and morally illegitimate. The military establishment 
     may force Mr. May out of the service--despite an exemplary 
     record--because his family consists of two men who are 
     indistinguishable from their neighbors, except that they 
     sleep together.
       This persecution finds a parallel in statutes that made it 
     illegal for blacks and whites to get married up until 1967, 
     when the Supreme Court declared the laws unconstitutional. 
     The laws were based on the primitive belief that blacks and 
     whites were set apart on the tree of life by God Himself. 
     Interracial couples were initially seen as a threat to the 
     social order and to the institution of marriage. Over time, 
     the culture began to discard the filter of race, viewing the 
     couples as ``just like the rest of us.'' The same process 
     will probably work out for same-sex couples--but only after 
     an extended battle. When the matter is settled, historians 
     will look back at people like Steve May, who declined to go 
     quietly to the back of the American bus.

                          ____________________