Funny, Gays ARE covered by “marital status” and “hazing” laws.

Gay people don’t need to be specifically mentioned in “Civil Rights Acts” for we are already there – even if rather obliquely, and perhaps not as people think. Though, I got to laugh at the lack on ingenuity on legislators’ parts in many areas for not specifically excluding us. And I got to fret that any gay lawyers or civil rights groups don’t see these provisions for us, one through which a Mack truck might be driven. Here, let’s take a look at creative lawyering:

There’s the link, here’s the report:

“House Bill No. 5039 would prohibit state agencies and units of local government – such as cities, townships, counties, school districts, and public and community colleges – from adopting any ordinance or policy that includes, as a protected class, any classification not included in the state’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. All classifications already listed in current ordinances or policies would be voided.

Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act of 1976 prohibits discrimination based on “religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status.” It does not protect people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.”

Well, well, time to get creative, eh? OK, “familial status” – um, we’re being discriminated against because of our “familial status” – that is, we’re gay families, and we don’t have kids, nor a wife if we’re men, or a husband if women. Ergo, our familial status is amply protected – unless specifically excluded no? I mean, we make up a sort of familial status that is different, not much different than say two heteros shacking up together, right? Or one living as a spinster? Or how about a single mother? Wouldn’t we be alike to her, in that we’re single people, perhaps even single parents – for if one of the gay men adopt a child, or have one from some previous hetero relationship, well, than, I would say that we are well covered right there under that provision.

I don’t think we would have to mention the gay thing at all – merely: “I was fired for being a single dad.” “I was denied housing for being a single dad.” Yes, that’s it, we’re right there in the thick of this.

Let’s look at “Marital Status.” Well, I dare say, Michigan has decreed that gay people can only be “single” or “never married” or “not married” or even “state unrecognized marriage” – for if we get a clergyman to say we’re married – or even our own families, for that matter – than that is our “marital status,” indeed. Everyone has a “marital status,” how could one not have one?

And I dare say this statute protects against discrimination based on one’s marital status – which for us is “single” or “never married.” It can’t be legal to discriminate against a single straight guy, can it? And so why a single gay guy? Ergo, we don’t even have to mention being gay – we were merely denied credit, housing, government services, etc, etc, under this already existing statute. “Your honor, my client was clearly discriminated against on his marital status of ‘single.’ ” What more needs to be said? Hoist ’em by their petards, baby. Let them specifically exclude gay folks from the use of this law.

Let Michigan’s and every other state legislature say “No self-avowed gay person can use this law for any reason.” Though that would well be a good death knell of the Boehner claim that we have all the power we need to not be recognized as a “special class” as we’re singled out as a “special class” indeed. Oh no, I don’t need to be included in a law anew – I already am, of old – as a single, never married man I am amply covered by the “marital status” provision. Let them get more specific, and let us broaden this law. Anyone got a Mack Truck?

Weirdly, because we don’t really want to be treated differently, so much as equally, we don’t need any “special” mention within such a law – and we can avail ourselves of its very provisions as they currently stand.

Say a company fires someone for being “gay.” The comment is documented somehow and it can be shown to a court “Look, see, evidence, fired for being “gay” – but wait, this means – fired for being single, never married.” And leave it at that; let the judge think a bit. Let the company or agency try to argue that “Single, never married” is not marital status. Let the judge argue in his opinion that “single” and “never married” and “marital status” simply don’t apply to gay folks whatsoever. My, my, wouldn’t that be a doozy of an opinion to sink one’s teeth into.

Indeed, bring in the fact that Michigan specifically says “no such thing as gay marriage” – ergo, all gay men are by law “single, never married” – that’s our “martial status” – given to us by the state. And so, this law already covers us in that our marriages such as we proclaim don’t exist, we are ergo “single” and that’s our marital status – it has even been declared for us by the state itself.

And I’d include that we were fired for our “religion” or “Lack there of” or “can’t have a religion according to some” – go for the gusto.

While we’re at it – bring up “Mental status” and “Reproductive status” under the Federal Education law, Section 504. (Coincidentally, the area code for very gay New Orleans, but I digress, and like weird points like that.) We’re said to be “sick” “unfortunately can’t reproduce” – well, then, we’re already covered by the law. Just make mention of all the various provisions which cover us – why, gay folks got more of these provisions on our side than anyone else. Want to argue it’s a “choice”? Sure, go ahead – we got then, “creed” to cover us, or “religion” – our religion says Gay IS Good – ergo, the law protects us for our religion, for our creed. Yep, we’re covered.

Same thing with bullying. I don’t need to friggin’ new bullying law. We got ourselves some hazing laws. Here, let us look at Louisiana – my state:

“1801. Hazing prohibited; penalties

Hazing in any form, or the use of any method of initiation into fraternal organizations in any educational institution supported wholly or in part by public funds, which is likely to cause bodily danger or physical punishment to any student or other person attending any such institution is prohibited.

Whoever violates the provisions of this Section shall be fined not less than ten dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not less than ten days nor more than thirty days, or both, and in addition, shall be expelled from the educational institution and not permitted to return during the current session or term in which the violation occurs.”

Strikes me that school itself is a “fraternal organization” – oh yes, we’re all brothers and sisters in this great society, no? And are we not “initiated” into adulthood, into society, into our national fabric by the fraternal organization which school is. Schools are not fraternities? I beg to differ. Why, there are school colors, school songs, school mottoes and pledges and flags and sports teams and clubs – why, the schools are one big fraternity – so what if there are some smaller sub fraternities. There’s no doubt that at LSU, or all the high schools in my city, that there are Deltas and Gammas and Rhos galore, but when it comes time for the Tigers, well, then, they’re all together for the cause. The Gammas would surely not root for the Razorbacks should they come to town, all because the Deltas were all for the Tigers, right?

Strikes me that cliques and factions within schools are without doubt “fraternities” and “organizations” and indeed, even the Christian Bible Reading clubs are “fraternal organizations.”

Ergo, gay kids are covered by the hazing laws. 44 states have hazing laws – – We don’t need a “bullying” law – we already got one. We got “hazing.” Stop hazing gay kids. And we should take the schools and the kids and the kid’s parents to the courts for hazing gay kids – so that they might conform to the dictates of the “fraternal organization” they seek to be a member of. The right of initiation being a pummeling for being gay, right? Ergo, we’re already covered.

Time to get creative with these people who wish to play blame games with our lives. They think they are excluding us – I dare say they are not! But rather – they have included us to a great degree, however unwittingly, and however much it may pain them to admit – and however much we have not recognized the reality of our inclusion in these laws. But me, ah, I’m a “radical” and a “Militant” as is oft said, by people who don’t even know me even, for there’s no such thing, apparently, as a “decent” and a “rational” gay person in their fetid minds. The words “radical” and “militant” are always attached to “homosexual” without a doubt.

Well, me, I’m a law abiding liberty loving creative person – so I say “marital status” specifically Includes gay folks – for we are forced by law to be defined as “single, never married.” And the Hazing laws specifically include gay people for unless you say “No gay kids in schools.” Meanwhile, we are thick in the “fraternal organization” known as the schoolhouse. And that should be our take legally – not begging these creeps to include us by word – but showing them that they already did include us, and thank you very much, we shall now use these laws to our advantage.



  1. The legistlation has such a huge effect on how gays and lesbians feel growing up. Grr about the boyscouts anti-gay policies.

  2. I’m extremely inspired together with your writing abilities as smartly as with the structure in your weblog. Is that this a paid subject or did you modify it yourself? Either way keep up the excellent high quality writing, it is rare to peer a great blog like this one nowadays..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: