Volume 20, Issue 3 , Pages 157-158, May 2009
A Red-Letter Day in the Colorado State Legislature
Article Outline
The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye: The more light you pour onto it, the more it will contract.
—Oliver Wendell Holmes
February 25, 2009, turned out to be an interesting day in the Colorado State Legislature. On that day the senate debated two bills of special interest to me as a citizen of Colorado and as a nurse concerned about health and human rights. The bills do not seem to be related on first view, but they are. One bill would require HIV testing for pregnant women (with an opportunity to opt out) and the other would extend health care benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian state employees. The readers of JANAC will see an immediate connection, but the connection that was drawn in Denver on that February day might surprise you—or it might not.
I will tell you what happened on that day, but first I need to give a disclaimer. I have lived in Colorado for a decade. It is a beautiful state. The scenery is gorgeous, the weather is great, and each season brings a different kind of beauty. The people where I live are friendly and helpful. (They even stop to let you out of your driveway when the traffic is heavy!) We have one of the lowest rates of obesity in the country and are known for our desire to adopt dogs and cats. Culture abounds: We have an excellent array of museums, theaters, bookstores, universities, and places to eat. There are also outdoor activities and dedicated green areas. It is a good place to live.
That said, you can imagine my chagrin when I started getting messages from out-of-state colleagues in late February saying Colorado should be embarrassed about statements being made in the State Legislature. Now, you need to know that Colorado—except for the Boulder-Denver corridor—is pretty conservative. Colorado usually ends up voting with the red states, but not in 2008. I guess you could say we are now more purple than red or blue, and we are usually willing to respect individual differences.
So what happened? The first bit of information I accessed on the Internet was about the HIV testing bill. From my admittedly biased stance, this is a no-brainer (Bradley-Springer, 2009). I honestly can't see any reason not to offer HIV tests to pregnant women. But the following is what I read:
Republican state Sen. Dave Schultheis said he planned to vote against a bill to require HIV tests for pregnant women because the disease “stems from sexual promiscuity” and he didn't think the Legislature should “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior.” (Luning, 2009b)
When pressed about his statement, Schultheis supported his stance, “claiming that infected babies would cause families to ‘see the negative consequences of that promiscuity’” (Norris, 2009). Not believing that this could happen in my adopted state, I searched further and found transcripts of the statements and even an audio clip of Schultheis's statements on the floor of the senate. He really did say those things.
As I was reeling from that discovery, I got an e-mail with yet more information about the Colorado senate. This time it pertained to the bill on providing benefits to partners of homosexuals. I am willing to admit that although this is also a no-brainer for me, there are a lot of people who feel they cannot cut slack for homosexuality and who are willing to state their opinions. So the stance of Senator Scott Renfroe was not as surprising as that of Schultheis, his colleague, but it was equally alarming. Oh, and by the way, Renfroe included an opinion on women in general in his statement to the senate.
After first establishing that God created Eve to be Adam's “helper,” Renfroe explained why he opposed extending health care benefits to gay and lesbian partners of state employees…. “Homosexuality is seen as a violation of this natural, created order and it is an offense to God, the Creator, who created men and women, male and female, for procreation.” [He went on to say,] “It would be “an abomination according to Scripture” for the Legislature to take “sins and (make) them to be legally OK.” (Luning, 2009a)
I listened to the audio clip, which felt more like a sermon than a political statement, replete with biblical quotations and fundamentalist interpretations of those quotes and tried (honest, I really tried) to remember that this man had a right to his opinion and that I didn't have to agree with him. I tried, but I wasn't successful, and I decided I could live with that failure.
Unfortunately, homosexuality has not attained the culturally accepted status of race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion about which, although it is true that people are hated based on those attributes, it is not OK to make bigoted statements in public. Can you imagine the outrage that would have arisen if Renfroe had spoken out to deny benefits to the spouses of the Black citizens of Colorado? And why not? He could have used scripture to identify Black Coloradans as descendents of the tribe of Ham, who, according to some biblical interpretations, should be shunned.
What can I say? On one day in the Colorado State Senate I heard the truth. And the truth is that discrimination continues and has its public voice.
According to some, women and their children should be punished. But in my mind, promiscuity is not the issue. Pregnancies occur within married and committed relationships as well as in less structured sexual encounters. And women are not in control of the sexual history of their male partners. Offering universal testing to pregnant women is a public health, disease-prevention measure.
According to some, being in a committed relationship is not enough; you have to be in a heterosexual committed relationship. But in my mind, it is a human right to enjoy benefits equal to those of your neighbors, especially when it comes to protecting your family and the people you love.
I have no solution, no wise concluding statement, and certainly no unrealistic conception that my editorial can change minds. This just happens to be my forum for reflecting on what happens in my world, so here it is. In my world, discrimination continues to support HIV, and epidemics will endure until we figure out a better way to do things.
References
- . Nothing to lose: A harm reduction approach to routine HIV testing [Editorial]. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care. 2009;20:87–88
- Luning, E. (2009a, February 25). Gay rights group slams Renfroe for comparing homosexuality to murder. The Colorado Independent. Retrieved March 5, 2009, from http://coloradoindependent.com/22541/gay-rights-group-slams-renfroe-for-comparing-homosexuality-to-murder.
- Luning, E. (2009b, February 25). Schultheis: HIV testing for pregnant moms rewards sexual promiscuity. The Colorado Independent. Retrieved March 5, 2009, from http://coloradoindependent.com/22701/schultheis-hiv-testing-for-pregnant-moms-rewards-sexual-promiscuity.
- Norris, W. (2009, February 25). State senator: HIV babies are punishment for promiscuous moms. The Colorado Independent. Retrieved March 5, 2009, from http://coloradoindependent.com/22746/state-senator-hiv-babies-are-punishment-for-promiscous-moms.
PII: S1055-3290(09)00038-7
doi:10.1016/j.jana.2009.03.002
© 2009 Association of Nurses in AIDS Care. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Volume 20, Issue 3 , Pages 157-158, May 2009
