The Dallas Principles

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

— Martin Luther King, Jr.

Twenty four people gathered last weekend at a hotel at the Dallas-Fort Worth airport. The topic was the “immediate need for full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender people in the United States.” The result was The Dallas Principles. From Pam’s House Blend:

This is about looking forward, being proactive and getting involved. I, along with my fellow authors of The Dallas Principles, believe the time for change now, as equality blossoms across this great nation.

Take a look at the bios of those involved. They include people from all walks of life and from all over the country, including Virginia’s own Lisa Turner.

My mother, bless her heart, taught me that nothing beats a try but a failure. It’s worth it to try to achieve equality for the GLBT community. Support The Dallas Principles.

UPDATE: Be sure to check out Mike Gruss’ column in The Virginian-Pilot today.

13 thoughts on “The Dallas Principles

  1. I understand that the North American Man-Boy Love Association and the Rene Guyon Society met just afterword to discuss the “immediate need for full equality for” their constituencies in the United States.

    How, pray tell, are they “not equal”? Because they don’t get to redefine language to fit their preferences? Or because society won’t recognize their relationships as something they’re not? Sorry, Viv, but not all relationships get societal recognition, or validation. You may recall a recent unpleasantness about that, in the days when people of your hue could be owned by people of mine. And we, as a nation, decided that those slave “relationships” were impermissible.

    1. What is your deal with this issue?

      And what is really your argument against equality for homosexuals? It can’t be that it then justifies making pedophelia permissable. I fail to see how that follows. We are talking about relationships between adults.

  2. Hardly and appropriate analogy, James, since the master-slave relationship was not one made by free choice.

    A better analogy might be the employer-employee relationship, in which an inexperienced worker is willing to take a job at a certain wage, and the employer is willing to pay him that wage, but the government says, “No, that wage is not high enough,” so the worker is without a job and the employer is without a worker.

  3. James you’re arguements are shocking.
    Gay doesn’t equal pedophile.

    Boys are legally not competent adult parties. They don’t have the ability to legally consent to sexual relations with an adult. What will you argue next? If we accept homosexual relationships we must accept beastiality?

    The Dallas Principles as I understand it, involve consenting relationships between human ADULTS.

    I’m not sure yet if I agree with the “Principles” or not. I have found
    that Full Civil Rights is open to interpretation.

    Virginia made a grievous error in its stance on Civil Unions. Government doesn’t belong in marriage at all. Only in enforcing contracts. A civil union is a contract. Churches are in the marriage business. They can bless or not, whatever marriage they choose. Freedom. Keeping a gay life partner out of end of life decisions is deplorable. We all want our loved ones around when we are the most vulnerable.

    If the government counts race, I guess sexual orientation could serve some equally valid….. or not, purpose.

    Work place discrimination? Something open to interpretation again. Should a bank be forced to hire a teller (a public face)even if they are a tackily dressed obvious transexual? I would say, no. There might be an arguement for a transexual that was professionally dressed and did not prove to be a distraction. Private business has the right to insist on a professional. How that transexual looks or behaves on their non-working hours can be as chaotic and outwardly shocking as they like.

    Back in my youth, I was into Heavy Metal and had hair down to the middle of my back. I realized that was a choice and my appearance would deny me some forms of employment. Did I resent being followed as a potential shoplifter? Did I resent being mislabled a “Redneck” by people that had no idea what a “Redneck” is and were ignorant of the fact that I would find that label offensive? Sure, but I didn’t really resent not being able to get certain jobs since I wasn’t willing to abide by their standards of dress and professional appearance.

    Do I think a healthy heterosexual couple would be superior for raising an adopted child? Yes. Unless the child was old enough to self identify as also being gay. Does that mean that I think stable gay couples should be denied adoption opportunities? Absolutely not. I just recognize that both couples being equally stable, the straight couple offers fewer social hurdles. Gay does not equal bad.

    Unlike the “DP” creators, I think gays should not be thought less of if they CHOOSE to not be obviously “OUT”. They owe you NOTHING. The DP crowd argues for the right to live as they choose, yet they pressure fellow gays to act in a “Homosexually Correct” fashion. Its not your life to live. Let them be. Nobody needs the “Gay Taliban”.

    I believe that people may be born predisposed to being gay, straight, or even flexible to making a choice. Some I believe, have a choice. Others do not. Some marry the opposite sex, but are really gay. Some play at being gay, but are really straight. I’ve seen examples of all of this.

    The Libertarian philosphy I have mandates that I see the individual as their own sovereign. You have the right to your decisions. Decisions have consequences. Where government comes into the equation is in fullfilling its purpose. The function of government is to protect the individual from “force and fraud”. Gays being human, are endowed with human rights.

    You have the right to your opinion. You have the right to hate anybody for any reason. Everyone has the right to feel you are a backward beast for having short sighted opinions. What you don’t have the right to, is to infringe on the rights of others, commit acts of force or defraud.

    I don’t believe in “Hate Crimes”. I believe you violate someone’s rights, or you don’t. I see murdering someone for being gay, a different race, or a different gender as equal to murdering based on greed or being anti-social. Either you viloated somebody, or you did not. Either injured a human being or you did not. Yes, I do make exception based on sanity as the law does.

    My mother and grandparents were active in the civil rights era. “Why do you care? You’re white. Mind your own business”, is what they would hear. They lost friends over it, but continued on. They didn’t work to bring equality to blacks because these people were black. They did it, because these “Blacks” were human just like they were.

    The same principle applies to gays. That doesn’t mean I acknowledge any “Gay Rights”. It doesn’t mean I have to “like” anybody or admire the flamboyant displays of some gay subcultures. It doesn’t mean that gays(or straights) are to be allowed to have sex in public places. It does acknowledge that in private settings, sexual acts between CONSENTING ADULTS is legal. It merely acknowledges that gays are equally human.

    To be honest, I think some Gay organizations looking for justifiable change do a horrific job in marketing themselves to your average straight person. Straight people they’ll need help from in a struggle to secure what they deserve just for being alive and shouldn’t have to fight for in the first place.

    1. That “consenting adults” argument also leads into allowing polygamy. If all parties agree, why should the government interfere?

      The way it appears to me is that the pro-gay-marriage people want to force employers to give benefits to same-sex spouses, force companies to hire people they do not want to hire, and generally force everyone to accept their relationships as “normal” instead of the 3-sigma outliers they really are.

  4. Anonymous, I’m not sure where you draw those conclusions. Consenting adults having intercourse or other forms of sex have nothing to do with government recognizing polygamy or even a gay marriage.

    Consenting adults in groups sex are not engaged in rape. Nor should it be a crime. That said, it does not mean that the government must recognize that as a family or a marriage. Or even respectable. Or normal.

    Let me clue you in to what goes on already. Many corporations already pay benefits to gay couples. A major bank that went down and was bought by another bank even gave benefits to unmarried couples(gay or straight). That’s all voluntary and up to the company to compete for what they view as good employees that way, if they choose.

    I am against “gay marriage” but, strongly favor civil unions, basically contracts. Yes, to a degree it mimics marriage. You personally don’t have to consider equal to a heterosexual marriage. Married or not, they refer to themselves now as spouses, husbands, wives. What will change? The idea of preventing anyone from engaging in financial contracts is bewildering.

    You would prevent one gay from making immediate family decisions for a dying gay partner?

    Where do you get “Forcing” anyone to hire somebody from? There are already laws on the books. Nobody will be forced to hire an incompetent. Being flamboyant on the job can be viewed as both unprofessional and sexual harassment. Sure causes for dismissal.

    Certainly, as a Libertarian, I DON’T believe in thought police. Nobody should be “forced” to “Accept” anyone’s relationship at all, let alone as normal. I don’t believe in political correctness. That is thought control and manipulation for political purpose. In the workplace we have a mission. That mission is to get the job done. That involves doing so as a profesional and according to company standards.

    Look, I don’t approve or accept a lot of people doing MANY things. That’s personal preferences on my part. That doesn’t mean I have a right to infringe on how they run their lives so long as they don’t violate the rights of others.

  5. That voluntary part is the key. If the owners of a company do not want to give benefits to homosexual partners or even hire homosexuals in the first place, then that should be their right. It is their company, and if someone objects, then the objectors are free to form a competing company that hires homosexuals and provides them with whatever benefits they so desire.

    I have no problem with “civil unions” so long as they affect only those in those unions, and do not require anything of anyone else. Requiring Catholic Charities to place children with homosexuals is wrong. Requiring companies to provide benefits to same-sex partners is also wrong.

    “You would prevent one gay from making immediate family decisions for a dying gay partner?”

    Over whose objections? Lacking a living will or power of attorney, then those decisions default to the family.

    1. *“You would prevent one gay from making immediate family decisions for a dying gay partner?”

      Over whose objections? Lacking a living will or power of attorney, then those decisions default to the family.*

      There have been instances of this happening since the life partner was not legally married nor a blood relative. It has happend. Its been in the news before.

      Sometimes circumstances are unexpected. In some cases a lack of planning is at fault. Straight couples are allowed to not plan well and still have things done. Gays are not. A civil union would change that.

      An arguement could be made that a heterosexual couple would be superior to a gay couple in adopting a child(assuming both are equally stable). I would hate to shut down a good charity like that for political correctness’s sake. I could go alng with that. I know almost nothing about the adoption process, but requiring prospective gay adopters to go through somebody else would be ok with me.

      Most commpanies today could care less about sexual orientation. They care more about professionalism and competence. A company not willing to hire gays would face more expensive labor and public backlash except for maybe cases where religious organizations are involved. I’m tempted to agree with you based on that, but I don’t think we’ve come far enough. Can you say companies shouldn’t be forced to hire women or different races?

      I can’t see a just reason to not hire a gay if they are the best competent applicant and fit specified professional standards. The fact that they are less likely to have children makes them cheap hires. Fewer sick days etc. etc.

      Benefits is just a form of pay. I’m not sure why there’s an emotional attachment to that subject. Some jobs have higher pay and poor benefits, some have below average pay and exceptional benefits. I believe there are even companies that have higher pay but only offer benefits to the employee and not their dependents regardless of orientation. I’ve been told that is the case with one particular company I have heard of here locally, but I could be wrong. If so, that would be the easy out for the company that wasn’t gay friendly. The family would have to buy their benefits outside of work. The result would be the same, either you pay the employees enough to cover insurance or you don’t.

      I’m not sure I won’t modify my thoughts on this topic later. This is really the first time I tried to tackle this subject. I’m also not an expert on laws regarding benefits nor hiring practices.

      1. I have no problem with civil unions that merely codify a contract between individual. When that contract affects third parties, I have a problem.

        “Most companies today could care less about sexual orientation.”

        Most is not all. If the owners of a company do not want to provide benefits to same-sex partners, or even to hire homosexuals, they should not be forced to do so by the government.

        “A company not willing to hire gays would face more expensive labor….”

        By excluding less than 3% of the talent pool? Hardly significant. Furthermore, since homosexuals have higher health care costs, the reduced cost to the company will probably more than compensate for the slightly increased labor costs.

        “Can you say companies shouldn’t be forced to hire women or different races?”

        Yes. It is the owners’ company. It is not the government’s company, and it is not your company.

        “I can’t see a just reason to not hire a gay….”

        That does not matter one whit. If the owners have a reason for it, or even if they don’t, it is not your business, but theirs.

        “The fact that they are less likely to have children makes them cheap hires. Fewer sick days etc. etc.”

        Sick days are generally not for the employees’ children anyway. Employees must take vacation leave to look after sick relatives. (Anyway, most companies are moving away from separate sick leave and vacation, and merging them into “personal” days.)

        Basically, I am in support of the owners’ rights to run their businesses as they see fit. Some of their decisions may offend some people. If so, form a competing company.

  6. Well, I believe your ideas conflict with the current anti-discrimination laws. Perhaps you are speaking of your ideal. I’m fairly sure that if you don’t hire the most qualified applicant because their gender or race don’t suit your preference, that you face potential legal problems.

    The law aside, you also face other repercussions. If you fail to hire the best people due to your personal preference, you are cheating your
    company of talent, which your competiton will gladly take up. Not only do you face potential companies competing for your market share, but your discrimination might be held against you by your customers. Your abilty to gain contracts with the government will be about zero. Even without government intervention you increasingly stand to be damaged and your company to go the way of the dinosaur.

    In principle, I agree that you have the right to be stupid. You have the right to drive your company into the ground. I’m not sure we’re there yet, we may be, but at some point, enough people will be open minded enough and smart enough not to damage their businesses that it won’t make much difference if we allow a few small minded entrepreneurs to pass over the best and the brightest.

    Until then, I guess we’ll have those laws to protect groups from being discriminated against on a wholesale basis. As it should be. That discrimination prevents them from competing in and contributing to the marketplace. It in effect denies them property rights in that their abilty to use their property for further gain is stunted or blocked. It also cheats the rest of us from benefitting from their products and services.

    Wholesale discrimination cages those groups of people to a lesser status of citizen. It should be self-evident that reducing a group of people to being unequal would be unconstitutional and in my opinion morally evil.

    One day we will be able to safely allow people to discriminate. Only because nearly no person would want to.

  7. “I’m fairly sure that if you don’t hire the most qualified applicant because their gender or race don’t suit your preference, that you face potential legal problems.”

    Theoretically, but it is very hard to prove. First, you have to find out who the company hired, then get that person’s resume. The company can also claim that the lesser qualified person was adequately qualified, and they thought the more qualified person would want a higher salary or would leave sooner if they took the salary offered to the less qualified person.

    Yes, I am speaking of my ideals. Don’t we all start with our ideals, and work to change the world according to those ideals?

    “In principle, I agree that you have the right to be stupid.”

    Then we agree on principle.

    As for your paragraph detailing the supposed consequences to those discriminated against, I recall that Black-owned businesses thrived during segregation.

    “It should be self-evident that reducing a group of people to being unequal would be unconstitutional…”

    Actually, quite the opposite. It is self-evident that the Constitution restricts the federal and state governments, not individuals.

    “… and in my opinion morally evil.”

    That is another matter entirely. It is exactly the question of morality that is the heart of the issue. The real difference between the homosexuals and Blacks (or women) is that homosexuals are generally defined by what they do, not what they are. Should an employer not be allowed to discriminate against those who engage in what he considers immoral behaviour?

  8. I do agree that it is difficult to prove
    discrimination cases unless its overt.

    “Should an employer not be allowed to discriminate against those who engage in what he considers immoral behaviour?”

    How many immoralities are we talking about? Drinking? Abortion? Adultery? Gambling? Masturbation? Wearing lipstick? A woman wearing pants? I wouldn’t judge law necessarily by what I personally consider immoral beyond the law. “Immoral” can be rather subjective. I only added “morally evil” as a personal observation. It also implies doing an evil unto another person. Being gay does not harm other people. (Before you bring it up, not all gay people have dangerous sexual practices likely to spread HIV.)Morality as you state, is another matter.

    There’s also that thing about loving the sinner not the sin, forgiveness, and letting God do the judging. Something for that employer to at least consider.

    “As for your paragraph detailing the supposed consequences to those discriminated against, I recall that Black-owned businesses thrived during segregation. ” -Anon E Mouse

    Please! I’m a little shocked you would put that up. Are you suggesting those that made a decent living couldn’t have done better or many that didn’t wouldn’t be better off with equal access?

    “Actually, quite the opposite. It is self-evident that the Constitution restricts the federal and state governments, not individuals.”-AEMouse

    I understand what you are saying here. However, a conspiracy to on a wholesale basis, prevent commerce by minorities(especial interstate commerce)would call upon the government to intercede. Further if we have constituional rights to property, speech, to bear arms, etc. and one group conspires to take those rights from another right, I believe the constitution calls on the government to intercede against that crime. Otherwise why have rights at all?

    Perhaps you would win an arguement maintaining that it is criminal rather than unconstitutional. Unless of course we are talking about federal or state hiring practices which, I don’t think you’d disagree with me that it would be unconstitutional.

Comments are closed.