“It Gets Better” was the message syndicated columnist Dan Savage broadcast on YouTube in September 2010. Meant primarily to soothe the wounds of vulnerable lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth, it is no less a powerful message for Charlotte.
LGBT Charlotteans should feel encouraged and empowered. So many of us are working hard to make life better here each day we interact with our colleagues at work, our peers at school and our neighbors at home. The historic norm for the Queen City, however, has not been so bright. Many of our elected officials and other civic leaders — some past, some present — have long created and maintained a local political culture that, more often than not, has made conscious decisions to emphatically exclude or ignore LGBT people.
Mecklenburg County’s Angels in America arts-funding controversy of the mid-’90s still haunts us today — occasional write-ups about that sad part of our civic history still make it into national newspapers and magazines. Luckily, with the exception of Republican County Commissioner Bill James, LGBT Charlotteans today rarely bear the brunt of locally elected officials’ fear-mongering bigotry and prejudice. On the whole, Mecklenburg County has made substantial progress, passing employment protections inclusive of “sexual orientation” and approving domestic partner benefits.
Such progress has stalled on the City Council. While most LGBT people here live, work and learn in relative comfort and social acceptance, they must do so knowing that their City Council has never approved any measure to recognize their legal or civic equality. In the two decades since Council first heard and then soundly defeated an LGBT-inclusive proposal, more than a dozen municipalities across the state have taken public stands against discrimination and passed employment protections based on sexual orientation. Some municipalities have also included protections for transgender people.
Such measures are hardly controversial; small towns like Boone, tucked away in the northwestern reaches of the state’s Appalachians, have already passed LGBT-inclusive ordinances. So, too, have the cities with which Charlotte competed for the honor of hosting the 2012 Democratic National Convention.
Fortunately, our future isn’t as bleak as our past. Charlotte has come a long way since the days of former Mayor Pat McCrory’s cold-shouldered stance against the LGBT community. Mayor Anthony Foxx was the first mayor in our history to sit down with LGBT citizens in a public town hall. Other council members and civic leaders have also begun to listen and lead with their hearts. Only a few short years ago, it would have been unimaginable to see our mayor and council members engaging in public conversation with the LGBT community. Yet, here we stand, with leadership that values our contributions and who aren’t afraid to be seen at our LGBT Community Center or annual Pride Charlotte Festival.
Despite the overwhelming amount of progress, there remains much yet to be done. Small, relatively uncontroversial changes to city policies and ordinances should be discussed further by our Council. Our city’s employees deserve to know that their persons and work will be judged by their character and its quality, not simply by who they are. Domestic-partner benefits are important, too. Healthy homes and families will only strengthen our city.
Real social, cultural and political change is possible here, but only if those we have chosen to represent us are willing to take on the kind of visionary leadership that is necessary to uphold the cherished values and ideals essential to the very fabric of our republic. Charlotteans want our leaders to lead and use the means at their disposal — their public votes and voices — to move this city into the progressive New South it seeks for itself.
Our city has a lot to show the world when the Democratic National Convention comes a’knocking in September. I hope our leaders choose to show what is best about the city by sending a strong, public message of inclusion, equality and acceptance of their LGBT constituents.
Charlotte’s people are ready for change. Are our leaders? I hope so, because together, we can take a stand for the liberty and justice to which we each grew up pledging our hearts, minds and souls.
Matt Comer, a progressive and LGBT activist, is a former editor of QNotes, Charlotte’s LGBT community newspaper. You can follow his writings and work at mattcomer.net.
This article appears in Feb 14-20, 2012.
Matt, the root problem is the one that Amendment One is (incorrectly) prefaced on. We have a word ‘marriage’ that carries two different meanings when used in a religious context versus a legal one. I can see that, as well as you, but unfortunately a majority of the people in NC and the Nation for that matter are unable to distinguish between those two contexts. What we have is a religiously charged word that is already codified as law and if Amendment One is passed will be codified as supreme law of the State of NC. Think about that – we will have a religious ceremony institutionalized into and defined by our State constitution. See any 1st amendment or separation of church and state issues there? The word marriage is so pervasive throughout our legal system that it spills into everything from tax, contract, probate, health care and insurance laws. The only fix (short of people being willing to rationally consider the difference between the religious and legal aspects) is to strike the term altogether from law and replace it with something less spiritually charged – like domestic partnership, civil union, etc. So what we need is elected officials to start amending existing ordinances and laws to start using a more neutral term to refer to a consensual relationship between adults that conveys the rights and privileges connected with such a shared relationship rather than the term marriage. Religious institutions have clearly laid claim to that term and as such it no longer has a place in law.
Alex… You’re completely right regarding marriage and its status. Thanks for noting. But, this particular commentary is about this city council’s reticence to speak out publicly (with their votes) on *any* LGBT equality issue — we’re talking about relatively simple and uncontroversial matters like an iron-clad anti-discrimination *ordinance* that includes sexual orientation and gender-identity, as well as domestic partnership benefits and other matters. As I said in the commentary, we need this council to take a public stand, sending a strong public message that anti-LGBT discrimination is wrong and unacceptable and does not reflect the values of this city.
The reason I bring up amendment one in regards to your commentary is that I don’t believe you will get establishment politicians (republican or democrat) to take the stance you are looking for because of the underlying problem I asserted. Council members on the left and right both depend on support from faith-based organizations so they are not going to take a stance that will jeopardize their reelection. If you want them to take a strong civil liberty position on defending rights of same-sex couples you first have to give them an out so that they can do so without upsetting their voter base. Removing loaded terminology from the law is one way in which to give them the out so they can move policy forward in providing equal rights to everyone.
Alex, do you really believe that the bulk of religious institutions in Charlotte are that anti-gay? Further, do you believe that the city council is so beholden to anti-gay religious prejudice that they are deathly afraid of ruining political careers for standing up for simple measures on which a dozen other municipalities in this state have taken a stand? The local issues we’re dealing with — employment, domestic partnerships — are so uncontroversial that even cities like Columbia, S.C., and Charleston, S.C., have already surpassed us. If your argument is that anti-gay religious prejudice is keeping our city council from even taking a public stand on employment discrimination, then we have a much, much larger problem to address in this city.
My argument is that establishment politicians rely on support from faith-based organizations. Faith-based organizations and their supporters have pushed for marriage to be codified in its religious context into the state constitution. Therefore most establishment politicians will not take a stance (at local, state or federal levels) contrary to that position. You ask whether I think faith based organizations are anti-gay. I don’t know the answer – I do know however that Amendment One will go to the ballot and it presumes to define marriage on its religious definition rather than on any constitutional rights definition. Whether city employment policies are uncontroversial is up for argument but it is not the argument I am making. Any controversy surrounding domestic partnerships or lack thereof is closer to what I am arguing. Should it be uncontroversial? – Yes. Is it? – I can’t agree with your assertion that it is not. As a state SC does not recognize domestic partnerships, although the cities you mentioned might have passed some sort of policies recognizing those rights for city employees. If so, then great – that is exactly to my point. They used a non-loaded term to protect rights to a type of civil union. We need to provide local politicians means to openly and equally support both opposite-sex and same-sex unions and the way I think you get there is to remove spiritually charged terminology from law. If you changed every instance of ‘marriage’ to ‘domestic partnership’ in existing law and define domestic partnership as a union of any two consenting adults, then I don’t think you will find much controversy or unwillingness for city council members to get behind and support it.
Alex, I agree with you. But I think we’re talking about two issues that, while similar, are still very different. If politicians in Asheville, Bessemer City, Boone, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Durham, Greensboro, High Point, Raleigh, Winston-Salem and Durham, Guilford, Mecklenburg and Orange Counties can take a public stand on anti-discrimination ordinances or measures that protect LGBT people and/or domestic partnership benefits, then Charlotte’s elected leaders can do so as well. It isn’t that hard. These issues are decades old. #Simple. #Simple. #Simple. That the council refuses to take these matters up for a public vote can *only* be explained by *one* reason: They haven’t the conviction to do it. Whether that’s because it’s just not in them or because the LGBT community needs to speak up or organize more can be left to debate.