PRO: WHY ARE GAYS LEFT OUT?

Byline: Roger Velasquez

These are some concerns about our Santa Clarita hosting the Human Relations Forum Diversity 2001 Showcase on Jan. 24: The forum exists ``to encourage, assist, and empower the people of the Santa Clarita Valley to reduce racism and discrimination, and to promote the benefit of human differences in our community.''

However, the one gay and lesbian organization in our city, the Gay and Lesbian Association of Santa Clarita, was not asked to provide a presenter for the event.

Consider how odd this is when GLASC has a local membership of 355 people, has raised more than $8,000 for local charities, supports local businesses and restaurants, and has several members attending the forummeetings.

Additionally, I just corresponded with Councilman Cameron Smyth who told me, ``Contrary to what you may think, I view the issue of domestic-partner benefits only as one of policy.'' I find it disturbing that Smyth sees equal rights affecting gays' and lesbians' lives and thus gays and lesbians themselves as merely a policy position. This is Smyth's distancing mechanism to keep himself separate from the human side of this issue, since domestic-partner benefits affect peoples' lives and well-being.

This is an issue of basic equality, specifically equal benefits for equal work. I have learned that our city recently reviewed domestic-partnership benefits behind closed doors. I find additional fault with the entire council for that action. It is too bad the public, and more of the homosexuals who work for our city, did not dispute the subject at those budget meetings. But it is no wonder they did not. They most likely were not told of the meeting.

The city's actions betray an unspoken policy to discriminate against homosexuals. To elaborate, I remember Smyth taking questions from gays and lesbians and posing for newspaper photographs in the back yard of a gay forum member during Smyth's failed City Council campaign in 1998.

There, he said he ``very much opposed domestic-partnership benefits for couples whether or not they were homosexuals.'' But how does this tie into Cameron's recent statement that he feels the domestic-partners benefits legislation is discriminatory - when ``as a gay couple you would only have to be 18 to get benefits. As a heterosexual couple, you need to be over 60?''

Didn't Smyth say he voted against domestic-partner benefits because they discriminate against heterosexual people less than 60 years old? His two statements conflict with each other and don't add up. He is obviously deceiving someone and conveniently forgetting that while heterosexuals have the option to get married to receive benefits before age 60, homosexuals do not. And there may be those not 'out' to their families, friends and community, let alone to their co-workers. What makes the City Council think those city officials and workers would be willing to stand up in front of a televised City Council meeting against their bosses, only to have domestic-partner benefits denied anyway?

It doesn't make sense. The council also wants to avoid the truism that you are known by the company you keep. As syndicated columnist Molly Ivins says of politicians, they ``gotta dance with them that brung 'em.'' In other words, they have to appeal to those interests that helped them rise to power.

Now Smyth will be attending the Diversity Showcase representing Santa Clarita. This is outrageous. Because the showcase and our city's domestic-partnership benefit stance are at odds with one another and with other cities and agencies that already provide benefits, I ask why Santa Clarita is hosting the forum's Diversity 2001 Showcase.