Editorial

Ready or not

Tumult on the leading edge of change

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled marriage wasn’t about man and woman, but about person and person, the justices hardly settled all the questions related to how government policy will reflect the evolution of societal mores regarding gay people.

Laws pressed by Democrats and Republicans alike over the decades have embraced public policy that did not have room for the relationships built by lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender. For most of American history, leaders of society and government have been content to base most institutional recognition on the concept of man joining woman in marriage, recognizing the demonstrable benefits of a traditional nuclear family. Gay Americans were kept on the fringe.

The times, they are a-changin’, as Bob Dylan says. The 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, however, was like the fall of the Berlin Wall of gay rights. Forty-plus years of activism had chipped away at that wall, but it was reinforced with strong, lasting attitudes that prove difficult to break through.

Then it came tumbling down.

Activists for gay rights devoted millions of dollars and years of effort to their own call on the U.S. Supreme Court to “tear down this wall.” As the justices closed out their 2014-15 term on June 26, they ruled same-sex marriage must exist in all 50 states for true equality — constitutional equality — to exist.

“Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations,” the ruling suggested.

Even as monumental as that ruling was, it hasn’t resolved every matter of public policy about gay marriage.

For example, a handful of county clerks across the country refused to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples even in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling. To do so, they said, would be a conflict with their personally held religious beliefs. Litigation now follows to determine whose rights are being infringed and how to reconcile differences.

Companies are re-examining internal policies to ensure longstanding denial of benefits to same-sex couples can be removed.

Here in Arkansas, the state is in litigation with same-sex couples because the Arkansas Department of Health will not allow nonbiological persons who are nonetheless filling the role of parent to be listed as a parent on a child’s birth certificate. The state argues it’s not discrimination to preserve birth certificates as indicative of a child’s biological parent. Marriage does not convey a constitutional right to a parental relationship, Arkansas’ attorney general argues.

There are many more battles to wage for those who want same-sex couples and others who are gay to enjoy the same rights as the men and women who have been marrying (and divorcing) for eons.

The Bentonville School Board has been caught up in the debate. Member Grant Lightle proposed changes to internal policies to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. As these sorts of proposals are prone to do, Lightle’s pushed the folks with opposing perspectives into their corners, heels dug in. Discussions have been intense.

But a decision has been on hold, until Monday night. That’s when the Bentonville School Board voted 4-2 against any modifications to school district policies.

Superintendent Michael Poore in May urged the board to delay action until the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. Then, last week, he opined the court ruling didn’t really change anything about the school district’s policies or a need for amending them. Just how otherwise monumental must Poore have expected the Supreme Court’s decision to be to believe it would have an impact. If a fundamental change in how marriage is handled in the country isn’t enough, what would have been?

Poore said the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission interprets sexual orientation as a form of sex discrimination, which is already a part of the Bentonville School District’s policies, Poore said.

“Appropriate protections are in place,” Poore now says.

Lightle’s proposal was never about whether protections existed. That’s beyond the point. It was about specifically highlighting particular classes of people in school board policy. It was about making an affirmative statement, a political stance. It was about creating the tempest, as anyone paying attention would expect to occur with such a proposal. That’s not to say his desire wasn’t heartfelt, but nothing has been revealed in Bentonville Public Schools that necessitated this debate right now.

The majority of the school board, however, said no to the changes Monday after four months of intense debate. And, boy, did Lightle’s plan deliver the contentious atmosphere? Judge for yourself.

“Let’s be clear,” said Andrea Lafferty, president of a national group called Traditional Values Coalition. “Anyone, whether it’s a local school official, board member or other who cites the EEOC guidelines is doing the bidding of the Obama administration.”

Egad!

Then there was the meeting that fell apart after a clash between board member Wendi Cheatham and board President Travis Riggs. Cheatham wanted a legal analysis of the Supreme Court decision delayed. Riggs accused her of holding board business “hostage.” Cheatham walked out of the meeting, rendering it pointless because not enough members were present to conduct business. Days later, Cheatham resigned her seat.

Another board member, Rebecca Powers, raised a ruckus by referring to a student as “an atheist” on social media. The student had taken part in a rally supporting Lightle’s proposed policy additions, which Powers opposed.

Lightle, in prosecutorial fashion, questioned each board member Monday night about whether each one thought it is acceptable for the district to discriminate based on sexual orientation. That’s the kind of scorched-earth approach many advocates for such changes sometimes take — no matter the details of the proposal, as long as the stated goal is to fight discrimination, all other objections must equate to a desire to discriminate.

Perhaps now the fireworks will die down and the school board can refocus its attention on education. That would be nice.

But it’s myopic — some might say blind — to believe school districts can simply ignore the advancement of gay rights. If you believe your child hasn’t been taught by someone who is gay, that gay people aren’t already part of the district, you’re living in a world with blinders on. Being a qualified teacher isn’t about being straight or gay.

Perhaps the district employs and manages people “irrespective of any class status or affiliation,” as Poore said, but the questions growing out of the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage will not go away. Faced with a world in which samesex marriage is a reality, school districts and other governmental entities won’t be able to ignore it for long.

WHAT’S THE POINT?

The Bentonville School Board debate over anti-discrimination language in district policy is just one example of an evident societal shift many are not ready for.

Upcoming Events