© (Rich Pedroncelli/Associated Press) Senate President Tony Atkins (D-San Diego) has introduced legislation that would lift California’s travel ban on states with anti-LGBTQ laws. ((Rico Pedrocelli/Associated Press))
In the year In 2016, amid outrage over anti-LGBTQ laws in North Carolina, Tennessee and elsewhere, the California legislature banned taxpayer-funded travel to states that discriminate based on gender identity or sexual orientation.
Democrats were more than happy. Stick with the bad guys! Send a message that California doesn’t work with fans! Refuse intolerance!
But the travel ban didn’t really work. He has done little to achieve that goal, suggesting that his goal is to lobby other states to protect and expand LGBQ rights. But in recent years, the number of boycott states has grown to 23, starting with Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee.
Now, seven years after the ban went into effect, there has been a movement to lift the ban. And a lot of time has passed.
In most cases, the arguments in favor of annulment are logical and practical arguments that justify the decision to annul.
Prohibitions did not change the attitudes of the people in the restricted regions and their laws.
And there are many loopholes. Travel to restricted states is permitted if the travel is deemed “essential.” Even if they don’t, legislators can go to these states if they are paid by campaign funds instead of state taxes. Athletes from California public universities are permitted to travel if supported by corporate sponsors or private sponsors. Meanwhile, the travel ban prohibits legitimate academic research and travel to UC and California academic and student conferences.
While all of the repeal arguments are valid, they miss what I see as the biggest problem with the ban: dropping nearly half of the states in the union would further divide us as a country. This increases political polarization and creates barriers to communicating with the people we need to persuade.
Senate President Tony Atkins (D-San Diego) introduced the repeal bill last month and led the fight to get it passed.
Although he originally voted for the ban in 2016, Atkins believes that now is the time to “establish” because, in his words, “discrimination does not work.” He hopes to scrap the boycott and replace it with a red-state California ad campaign to promote LGBTQ acceptance and end discrimination. His bill will have its first committee meeting on Monday.
Atkins grew up lesbian in the South, so she has her own perspective.
“I know from personal experience growing up in a more conservative agricultural community that the way to change people’s minds is through influence, direct communication and opening hearts and minds,” Atkins said.
Atkins’ comments are at the center of an ongoing debate among moderate Democrats, liberals and progressives. Should we face our political opponents and try to convince them, or should we give up and dismiss them as gullible and unreasonable? Which is better, to work with people we disagree with in a democratic system, or to accept that there is an irreconcilable gap between us and join the struggle?
Like Atkins, I’m in the realm of consensus (though sometimes my credibility is tested). No matter how divided we are in the United States, no matter how repulsive the anti-gay and anti-transgender laws are, state-by-state boycotts rather than opening avenues of dialogue do us no good. How to make an American democracy.
I called Atkins last week because he thinks California needs to adjust its policy.
“I think ordinary people are tired of polarization.” “We focus on what we believe in and if you don’t agree with me, I’m not going to mess with you. It’s dividing us and it’s really bad.”
As a lawmaker who must work with others to pass legislation, Atkins said she believes in civility and diplomacy, even with those whose positions conflict.
I know many progressives who believe that we have passed the point of cooperation, that talking to Republicans is foolish, and that arguing with conservatives, evangelicals, or bigots will get you nowhere.
But since I don’t know what the alternative is, I’m holding on to the idea of compromise.
Also, relationships can change and change. Sometimes it happens slowly, but it can happen. Gay rights are a prime example of this.
In the year In 2004, 60% to 31% of Americans opposed same-sex marriage, according to the Pew Research Center. In the year In 2019, 15 years later, these numbers have changed, with 61% in favor of same-sex marriage and 31% against it. Republican support for same-sex marriage rose from 19 percent to 44 percent.
I’m not saying 44% Republican support is a big deal. Marriage equality should be considered a basic human right, but even half of Republicans support it.
But 44% is much higher than 19%.
And I think if there is a relationship, this number will increase. Gay rights activists change their attitudes when they meet, work with, talk to, or learn that their family and loved ones are gay.
It’s not about travel bans, trade wars or the wrath of California Democrats.
@nick_goldberg
This story originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
