Richmond Times-Dispatch : 2020-06-25

OPINIONS : 17 : A17

OPINIONS

A17 • • • RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2020 OPINIONS jschapiro@TimesDispa­tch.com T he Congressio­nal Record notes that laughter rippled through the U.S. House chamber when in 1964 a wily, 80-year-old Virginia congressma­n proposed adding one word — sex — to landmark civil rights legislatio­n for which he and his fellow Southerner­s had no use. “What harm will this do to the condition of the bill?” asked the congressma­n, Howard W. Smith, then chairman of the influentia­l House Rules Committee — a post through which he could control the ebb and flow of legislatio­n, killing any measure to which he was hostile. And the pipe-puffing Smith would do so with nary a word, sometimes by retreating to his farm in Fauquier County when he was supposed to be in Washington reviewing bills with his committee. “Some of the bills would fall out of his pocket when he was bending over to milk the cows,” said Tony Troy, a lawyer-lobbyist who learned of Smith’s procedural prowess in the mid-1960s as a just-out-of-law-school hire in a Virginia attorney general’s office run by remnants of the segregatio­nist Democratic machine of which Smith was a pillar. Smith’s amendment survived, ensuring the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would prohibit discrimina­tion on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin — and sex. Some viewed Smith’s proposal as an attempt to sabotage the bill, burdening it with specious legalese. Others said it was a prescient step toward women’s equality. Still others contended Smith had a narrow purpose: to protect white women, an important source of cheap labor in Southern textile factories, with an impediment that might have managers thinking twice about hiring African Americans. On June 15, nearly six decades after the act became law, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that one word — sex — applied not just to gender but to gay, lesbian and transgende­r Americans, guaranteei­ng they, too, are protected against discrimina­tion in the workplace. Decried by the right, welcomed by the left, the ruling is a reminder of a constant in the law: that words have power and such power can be diminished or — in this instance — increased by events unforeseen when those words were melded into law. “The law hasn’t changed, but our understand­ing of how the law is applied has changed because we are living a more informed life,” said Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, a former chief deputy attorney general — the first woman to hold the position —who has lobbied for the American Civil Liberties Union and Equality Virginia, a gay-rights organizati­on. Virginia’s journey on gay and transgende­r rights has, over the past 20 years, been one of resistance, punctuated by progress, followed by accelerati­ng advances fueled by the state’s increasing diversity and the growing influence of younger voters. Two Democratic governors, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, signed executive orders shielding gay and transgende­r state employees from bias on the job. A Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, refused to extend the order, saying it had no basis in law. His

© PressReader. All rights reserved.