Â
Rep. Harold Mitchell
Principled stands are commonplace in the South Carolina politics. There’s never been a shortage of local and state leaders willing to martyr themselves in the name of some cause in order to score a few brownie points with this group or that. Every good politician knows that at certain times, it’s more politically beneficial to be on the losing side of an issue—provided you lose loudly enough—than it is to be on the winning side.Â
When a position is unpopular though, principal is more often than not quickly shown the door so that it may be replaced by its evil twin, quiet capitulation. Real leadership requires courage and sometimes, a bold and unpopular stand is the only difference between being a true statesman and just another politician.Â
It’s with that in mind that I’d like to present my capitulator of the week, Spartanburg’s own Rep. Harold Mitchell.
Rep. Mitchell’s latest failure in leadership came last week in an amendment to a house bill that he co-sponsored, H. 3543. The bill is a measure aimed at helping prevent dating violence between teenaged couples, which is certainly an admirable goal, and the bill in its original language was a much-needed directive to school districts to educate their students about the realities of dating violence. Last Thursday though, the legislature decided that one group doesn’t need to be educated about or protected from dating violence. That group is homosexuals.
The amendment, proposed by Rep. Greg Delleney (R-Chester), changed the language of the bill so that the phrase “dating partner†could only mean “a person involved in a heterosexual dating relationship with anotherâ€. In other words, if you’re a gay teenager in South Carolina, there’s no such thing as dating violence for you. Explaining the amendment Rep. Delleney said, “I do not want the Department of Education or school districts teaching our children in grades six through 12 about same-sex relationships.â€Â Apparently, Rep. Delleney would rather we not acknowledge that teenaged gay couples exist. It’s the legislative equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “blah, blah, blah†every time someone utters the word “homosexual.â€
That reactionaries like Rep. Delleney would propose excluding homosexual relationships from any sort of protection or recognition is not surprising. It’s also not surprising that the amendment passed in our conservative legislature overwhelmingly 87 to 13. It may not even be surprising that Rep. Mitchell didn’t see fit to stand up to the homophobes in the state House of Representatives, but while it may not be surprising, it is disappointing.
Compromise is invariably an important part of the legislative process and had he wanted to, Rep. Mitchell could have even opposed the amendment while still supporting the overall bill. The argument could’ve been made that the bill was still worthwhile even after the discriminatory language was inserted. It might not smack as such a betrayal of the Spartanburg GLBT community if some attempt to stand up against the homophobes had been made. It’s not as though this was a zero-sum game. There was room for nuance and middle ground could have been found had Rep Mitchell been seeking it.
On the other hand, had Mitchell been willing to show the courage of a true leader, he could have asked that his name be removed from the list of sponsors of the bill in solidarity with those being removed for the bill’s language. He could have stood up to speak against the amendment when it was presented for debate, pointed out that same-sex couples have statistically similar rates of abuse as straight couples. He could have told the legislature that an amendment that does nothing except specifically remove one group of citizens from being mentioned dehumanizes their concerns. He could have said that to ignore the rights of some is to endanger the rights of all.
He could have said a lot of things, but instead he sat on his hands when the issue was put up for debate, and when the time came for a vote on the amendment Rep. Mitchell cast his lot with the reactionaries and voted in favor of the amendment.
Perhaps such things are to be expected. Speaking out on behalf of homosexual teenagers isn’t likely to win you any political clout here in South Carolina. In fact, if your interest is your own political career, speaking for those taboo relationships is probably politically damaging, especially if you have designs on a higher office than the one you currently hold. Still, there were 13 representatives who voted against the amendment. Those 13 were apparently not intimidated by the bigots in the chamber. Those 13 decided to stand for what was right. Rep. Mitchell though, couldn’t be bothered to stand with them.
Christopher George is a local blogger, you can read more of his stuff at Flying Oskar.
Christopher George
Domestic violence is a horrible thing and it crosses just about every cultural boundary. Why there was language omitting one aspect of our culture from this bill is ridiculous. No woman, man, girl or boy should ever have to be subjected to violence, whether verbal, or physical by someone they care for, whether it be a relative or someone romantically linked to them. No one should ever be made to feel afraid because of threats, coercion or outright beating from someone who says the words “I love you”.
Love is supposed to be a word that represents, patience, kindness, gentleness, self control,seeks to do no harm,embodies self sacrifice, generosity, forgiveness…etc. How hard is that to teach simple guidelines to ensure healthy relationships to our teenagers? What should it matter whether it is a traditional or non-traditional relationship? If love is real, those basic aspects need to be in place.
I swear politics can just make me shake my head and wonder. (kicks soapbox back under her couch)
Perhaps Mitchell did not capitulate as you say. It is possible and probable that he did not agree with adding homosexual relationships to the mix.
And as a politician he may have noticed that the black community is strongly opposed to homosexual behavior.
What made you think he “capitulated” anyway? Can you remember him talking about gay rights at the barber shop? Making speeches about being inclusive at the church on sunday?
Failure to live up to a liberal, black, democrat stereotype does not constitute flip flopping.
“Perhaps Mitchell did not capitulate as you say. It is possible and probable that he did not agree with adding homosexual relationships to the mix.”
The original bill made no mention of sexuality one way or another, so no one attempted to add homosexuals. The bill was already written in a manner that included them. Rep. Delleney’s amendment effectively excluded homosexual relationships from the bill. Rep. Mitchell sponsored the bill in it’s original form, but did nothing to stop those reactionaries from passing their homophobic amendment.
Most likely, he did this because he wanted his name on a piece of legislation that shows he cares about stopping dating violence, but in the process he allowed the hate-mongers in the state house to alter the bill, excluding homosexuals. If he’d been as anti-gay as you imply, why did he sponsor the bill in its original inclusive form?
“And as a politician he may have noticed that the black community is strongly opposed to homosexual behavior.”
Why does it matter if he or they are opposed to homosexual behavior or not? This bill wasn’t about homosexuality. It was about dating violence. Even people who don’t agree with homosexual behavior (whatever that means) should support protecting teenagers from dating violence regardless of their sexuality. That’s just basic human decency.
“Failure to live up to a liberal, black, democrat stereotype does not constitute flip flopping.”
I’m not sure there’s a such thing as a “liberal, black, democrat” stereotype to live up to, but for what it’s worth, I never said he flip-flopped. I said he capitulated to the bigots in this state who want to pretend that homosexual teenagers either don’t exist, or don’t care about whether they’re subject to dating violence or not. To me, the clause in this bill excluding homosexual relationships is a prime example of needless bigotry, and Rep. Mitchell not standing up to this bigotry is extremely disappointing to me.
I have to agree with Camelmike on this one. Is it possible for someone to not be a homophobic bigot and also not want same-sex relationships being taught in middle and high school sex-ed classes? I think the answer is yes. It could be that Rep. Mitchell does not have a problem with the bill with or without the amendment. The amendment itself does not alter the major thrust of the bill. It could also be that Rep. Mitchell thought Rep. Delleney brought up a good point about wanting to make sure this bill did not lead to public schools teaching about same-sex relationships. As Camelmike mentioned, many African-Americans, which might include a lot of the people that Rep. Mitchell represents as well as possibly Rep. Mitchell himself, believe that homosexuality is immoral, and at the very least they don’t want the public school teaching kids about this lifestyle. Does this make them bigots? I don’t think so.
Bigotry goes two ways. When someone calls people bigots or homophobes because they find the gay lifestyle immoral, or because they don’t want it taught to their kids in the public schools, or because they think marriage should only be between a man and a woman, then maybe the real bigotry is coming from that someone who is name-calling and attacking those that believe in traditional values.
William: I’ll write it again. This bill is not about homosexuality. The bill is about dating violence. What harm is there in acknowledging that dating abuse occurs in all types of relationships? Why would anyone want to exclude homosexual teens from receiving the same protections from violence as straight teens How is it teaching homosexuality to teach that violence is wrong?
And as far as name-calling, the people who actively seek to exclude the GLBT community from so-called mainstream society are–without exception–bigots. Using your personal ideas about morality to justify that bigotry doesn’t change what it is.
ok here is something to chew on. Which is more immoral? Acts of violence enacted on someone they are in a relationship with or two people in a romantic relationship who happen to be of the same gender?
And before we go yet again picking on our gay community, us heteros need to be taking a much harder look at our own relationships with those we choose to partner with. Statistics are showing that we don’t do so good at commitment, at nurturing and growing a family, at keeping our tempers with each other, at sticking with someone for the long haul.
We should be more concerned with teaching and demonstrating to our children what a healthy romantic relationship is instead of nit-picking over who we should teach about avoiding domestic violence.