South Texas College of Law Annotations (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 36, No. 2, Ed. 1, April/May, 2004 Page: 3 of 12
12 pages : page 13 x 8.5 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
April/Mav 2004
Extra
Page 3
EDITORIALS do not reflect the views of any one
member of ANNOTATIONS, but are selected by a
majority vote of the Editorial Board. EDITORIALS are
selected to encourage thought and provoke discussion
about important issues. Written responses to topics are
welcome. Generally, all letters are printed in their
entirety, however, authors will be contacted for publica-
tion editing. Questions and comments about ANNOTA-
TIONS' editorial policies should be directed to the
Editor-in-Chief.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Do You People Hear Youselves?
We came to STCL with
high hopes. We naively
thought that law school
would be an environment
where all would be truly
accepted. We're old
enough that we should
have known better. For the
last 2 years we've spent
most evenings sitting in
class learning about jus-
tice, equality, fairness, and
the importance of protect-
ing individual rights. Dur-
ing this time, we also came
to understand that law
school is simply a reflec-
tion of our society, and
years of discussion about
these ideals have done
little, if anything, to change
too many of us. That real-
ization has been a disap-
pointment, because we ex-
pected more from us.
Recently, our LR&W II
class was given a heads-
up by our professor re-
garding the subject of our
appellate brief assign-
ment. The case would in-
volve a gay client. The pro-
fessor indicated that any
student who had an issue
with representing a gay cli-
ent could e-mail him, and
he would ensure that stu-
dent was assigned to the
opposing side. I
(Shireman) didn't think any-
one would actually do so.
After all, one of the most
valuable experiences I've
had in law school is the op-
portunity to argue for posi-
tions directly opposite to
those I hold personally. I
was amazed when I heard
through the grapevine that
several of my classmates
had taken the professor's
offer. I was most as-
tounded by their choice to
do so because we didn't
even know the facts of the
case, only than it involved
a gay man.
We don't have any quarrel
with each individual's right
to hold an opinion, no mat-
ter how much we disagree.
And we can understand
how an attorney could find
that the particular facts
would preclude that
attorney's representation
of an individual, and have
no quarrel with that. Yet
we cannot understand,
and do quarrel with, indi-
viduals who are so preju-
diced that they would not
represent a person based
solely on one character-
istic of that person without
any knowledge of how that
characteristic manifested
itself in the facts of the
case. Is there any other
group that people would
feel comfortable taking
such an action? How
about Christians? Jews?
Muslims? African Ameri-
cans? Caucasians? Any
other ethnicity? Women?
Men? How about conser-
vatives? Liberals? Hetero-
sexuals? We can't think of
anyone who would openly
acknowledge having such
a bias against anyone in
those groups, or many
other groups. Yet so
many, including some of
our LR & W II classmates,
find it acceptable to have
this open bias against
gays and lesbians.
Discussions about current
events are commonplace
at school. Same-sex mar-
riage seems to be the
topic de jour. Although we
welcome the discus-
sions, I (Smith) wish more
would remember that
these are not simply intel-
lectual exercises to fill the
15 minutes between
classes or to hone our
advocacy skills. When
you discuss same-sex
marriage or other gay is-
sues, you are discussing
my life. My life is not sim-
ply subject matter to pass
the time. The issues are
not "what ifs"; they are my
reality. Every morning I
wake up in a society that
fears me, misunderstands
me and rejects me to
some degree. Every
morning I wake up without
rights and protections
many of you take for
granted.
When you take a stand that does
not fully support the advance-
ment of gay/lesbian equality, you
oppose me (Smith) to some de-
gree. When you question gay/
lesbian rights using arguments
involving analogies between
gays/lesbians and pedophiles,
prostitutes, or incest perpetra-
tors, you equate me to those re-
pulsive individuals. When you
ask me "why are we studying
Lawrence? What does this have
to do with any of us, really?", you
tell me that my rights are not
worth your time, that I am not
worth your time. When you say
you are against same-sex mar-
riage but find civil union accept-
able, you are telling me that you
do not think I deserve the same
rights you have, that I deserve
less. When you cannot advocate
for a gay client because you do
not approve of his "lifestyle" but
continue to chit chat with me be-
fore class as though we are
friends, your actions tell me that
despite the fact you know me
and like me, you do not regard
me as your equal and think I am
so clueless I do not realize this.
Same-sex marriage is about
more than my right to zip on
down to the courthouse and par-
ticipate in a state sanctioned
ceremony. Like other gay rights,
it is about my equality; it is about
society's acknowledgement, ac-
ceptance and protection of my
equality. As we all know, a civil
union does not confer the same
rights as marriage. Please do not
insult my intelligence by one,
telling me they are the same and
two, expecting me to settle for
less than what you have. I seek
the same rights and protections
you enjoy, no more, no less.
When you equate me with a pe-
dophile or other deviant, your
inability to make a reason based
argument against me having
equal rights suggests that you
have none to make and your
words ring of unfounded fear.
Next, Lawrence is important be-
cause every consenting adult
should have the right to enjoy an
intimate relationship with another
consenting adult regardless of
gender. While you may have ex-
ercised your right without fear of
prosecution or persecution prior
to Lawrence, many of us did not.
Furthermore, when you choose
not to defend a gay client be-
cause of his "lifestyle", you are
saying you will not defend me. I
am that gay client, and I will not
permit you to mentally disasso-
ciate me from my commu-
nity in order for you to find
me acceptable, even for
the few hours we spend
together every day. Finally,
I do not have a "lifestyle."
Yuppies have lifestyles. I
have a life. When you use
the word "lifestyle" in refer-
ence to my life, you dimin-
ish the significance of my
life. Oh, and by the way,
"homosexual" and "im-
moral" are not synonyms.
Exposure to education and
dialogue is supposed to
open the mind and develop
the ability to objectively
analyze the respective
strengths and weaknesses
of arguments for both
sides of an issue. We can't
believe how, after studying
Dred Scott, Plessy, Brown
v. Board of Education, and
Loving v. Virginia, so many
of our classmates cannot
see that the arguments
against gays and lesbians
mirror those made against
equality for African Ameri-
cans. We believe the indi-
viduals who argued against
racial equality in those
cases sincerely believed
in their position. Many of
them would probably have
refused to represent an Af-
rican American in any mat-
ter; indeed, one could
read the Dred Scott deci-
sion and decide that Afri-
can Americans couldn't be
represented, since they
could not be citizens and
had no standing to bring
any cause of action. His-
tory now rightly judges that
decision and Plessy as
abominations. We know
that in the future, the deci-
sions permitting discrimi-
nation against gays/lesbi-
ans as constitutional will be
viewed similarly.
The arguments against gay
rights are the same ones
used against the expan-
sion of rights of any
disempowered group.
They were made against
racial equality, against ra-
cial integration of the mili-
tary; against women in
combat roles in the mili-
tary; against inter-racial
marriage; against inter-ra-
cial adoption. In all these
situations, the specter of
the dissolution of American
society was raised as the
inevitable outcome.
Guess what - it hasn't
happened yet. And ac-
cepting individuals and
sanctioning their life
commitments regardless
of their sexual orientation
will not result in the de-
mise of our society or
the family. Quite the con-
trary, it will result in stron-
ger families, and will
make our nation infinitely
stronger.
For the past two years,
we have been frequently
assaulted by disparag-
ing remarks about gays/
lesbians. Until now, we
have swallowed those
comments with little re-
sponse because we
have no wish to offend
anyone, even though we
are often offended. I
(Shireman) have had and
continue to have many
wonderful and rewarding
relationships with gays/
lesbians. I have seen the
pain they experience
when they are confronted
with homophobia.
Enough is really enough.
And please stop saying
"Well, I have nothing
against gays and lesbi-
ans personally BUT...."
Pretty soon you'll be say-
ing that some of "your
best friends are gay."
Do you have any idea of
how lame that sounds?
And to those who said
they wouldn't be able to
represent a gay client,
shame on you!
For a different per-
spective, see page 5
for another submission
to the Editor.
By Carol Smith &
Les Shireman
Guest Writers
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Laird, Lori Magee. South Texas College of Law Annotations (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 36, No. 2, Ed. 1, April/May, 2004, newspaper, 2004; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth144562/m1/3/: accessed April 30, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting South Texas College of Law.