Gotcha games

The legislature is now more than halfway through its general session, and while that body still has the bulk of its most important decisions to make regarding governance of this state for the next two years, this week’s news coverage is primarily focused on a bill that has already died and would have only impacted a small percentage of Wyoming residents if it would have been passed.
House Bill 230 was the annual attempt to add sexual orientation and gender identification to the list of classes currently protected from harassment in the workplace in Wyoming, and Senator Lynn Hutchings is under fire for comments she made about the bill when a group representing the Gay-Straight Alliance at a Cheyenne high school spoke to her at the capitol about the bill. Hutchings has been an outspoken opponent of such measures throughout her legislative career, and she offended the students by making references to pedophilia and beastiality when stating why she doesn’t support statutory protection for “sexual orientation.”
While Hutchings’ comments were far from intelligent or thoughtful, they come as no surprise. Her position on this issue is abundantly clear, and she consistently offends those who advocate for legal protections based on sexual orientation. She was not going to change her mind about this bill and everybody knows it, which means the request by the students to speak to her about the legislation was an exercise in futility at best or, at worst, an attempt to bait the outspoken legislator into a foolish comment to a group of high school students.
Regardless of what motivated the exhange, it has predictably been reported in detail and used to perpetuate a stereotype of Wyoming people that has existed since Matthew Sheppard, a gay student at the Universirty of Wyoming, was killed in Laramie 20 years ago. That should offend all of us.
There are a number of moderates who oppose including sexual orientation to a list of classes protected under the law, and there are plenty of legislators who articulate their opposition to the bill differently than Hutchings. The wall-to-wall coverage of her comments, however, ensures that future debates on the subject will focus on her position, which can most accurately be described as “extreme” opposition.
Of course, if action is not taken against Hutchings for her comments the media portrayal of Wyoming residents will continue to suggest that the majority of us share Hutchings’ views because we share her position on this type of legislation .
But Hutchings had every right to express her opinion on this or any other issue. As a legislator, we should actually insist that she speak honestly and openly about her positions, and punishing her for doing so is an affront to freedom of speech and a threat to the kind of open public discourse that is necessary in a self-governed society.
The fact that she expressed her opinion to a group of high school students has been used to suggest that her comments were somehow even more inappropriate, but that is offensive as well. The students specifically approached her in the legislature and asked to speak about a bill she opposed, and she explained that opposition to them. She didn’t swear, she didn’t yell, she didn’t call anybody names — but she said things the students didn’t want to hear. Unfortunately, legislators say things we don’t want to hear all the time (you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs) and those who want to engage in the free exchange of ideas that takes place at the legislature have to accept that they won’t always like what opponents have to say about their views. That shouldn’t change when students participate in the legislature.