Shortly into this pandemic/lockdown/quarantine someone asked me what I missed. Did I miss going out or hanging out with friends? Did I miss going to the movies? Did I miss eating in restaurants?
Being as I did very little of that before the whatever-this-is set in, I can say yeah, I kinda miss those things. Except the movies. I think the last movies I paid to see in theaters were Harriet in 2019 and Aquaman in 2018. So, you get the picture, no pun intended. Well, maybe a little intended. I do miss having friends over to socialize, catch up and play games or just hanging out over coffee, but dining out, not so much. I’m not fond of crowds and noisy environments, therefore restaurants tend to push my buttons, a bit. As do movie theaters.
I think what I miss the most is believing in the good of others. Yet, being a gay man, I think I’d forgotten how people can disappoint you.
Many people accepted me as a gay man and as a friend/colleague, yet drew the line when the question came to same-sex marriage. That was still reserved for the heterosexuals. We were still beneath them, not equal.
In 2000, California voters had passed Proposition 22 which amended the Family Code to state “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This was a statute and eventually struck down as it was inconsistent with the state constitution. In 2008, California voters were asked to decide, for the second time, if same-sex couples should be granted the right to legally marry. For the second time, California voters said no. This time, Proposition 8 passed, now amending the state constitution with that same statement. Yet, on that same 2008 ballot, voters also decided that farm animals raised for food should not be confined in such a way that they could not fully extend their limbs, lie down, stand up or turn freely. In essence, California voters gave more rights to farm animals than to LGBT couples.
I also remember the HIV/AIDS pandemic of the late 80s. In the beginning of the pandemic, when very little of the disease was known except that it seemed to affect gay men mostly, people panicked because there was confusion over how it was spread. Whether we were ill or not, gay men were shunned even more than we were before. Within the gay male community itself, friends turned against friends when someone was suspected of having it. When it appeared initially to be affecting only gay men, very little action was taken to curb the disease. Politicians at all levels of government were reluctant to even discuss it, let alone work on any budget items to find funding for research or for assistance for those affected. After all, the right people were dying. One of my favorite sitcoms of the time, Designing Women, even titled an episode Killing All The Right People. The plot revolved around the women designing a funeral for a young man dying of AIDS. Another customer and long time friend of one of the women launches into a tirade about gay men deserving what they get, that gay men were responsible for bringing it to the rest of the people due to their lifestyle. The show’s firebrand character, Julia Sugarbaker, left nothing unsaid as she launched into her own counter tirade. Once we learned that it was transmitted by bodily fluids including blood, thereby potentially infecting anyone receiving a blood transfusion, i.e., heterosexuals, only then, were steps taken.
(For Julia’s tirade, see the link below.)
While I don’t see the shunning of gay men now, I do see some similarities in how this virus is being handled. In spite of the fact more politicians seem to recognize that something needs to be done, there is still no coordinated national effort and as a result, there is still no uniform message regarding safety measures. This is being left up to the individual states and then on a county-by-county basis. Yes, there is some rationale to treating the rural areas a bit differently than the urban/suburban areas. But, there also needs to be some uniformity. And this lack of clear information has lead to some of the confusion as how best to curtail the virus. Do masks help? Is closing businesses really necessary? Is the government doing enough or overreaching?
And here is where I see things falling apart.
People are more concerned with how the situation will affect them individually. I saw a sign on a shop, that no one in a mask would be served. A recently formed social group on MeetUp stated no one in a mask would be admitted to their events. Both the sign and the group’s post claimed it was their right to hug, to shake hands. To be “normal.”
It was even their right to not wear a mask.
They said no one will take those rights away from them.
Yet, I ask, is it not normal to care for others? To have respect for one’s neighbor? I’m guessing not.
And this is what I’m missing.
Respect for the rights of the rest of humanity.
I recall other situations where individual rights were “taken away” for the sake of safety.
The Great Seat Belt Fight
In the 1980s, then-Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole, championed mandatory seat belt laws. Her fight for these laws, which were based on traffic accident statistics, seemed to stir the similar divisions that we see today over masks; the government was infringing on personal liberties; conservatives refused to comply, while liberals felt the seat belt laws were necessary to save lives and wearing a seat belt was not taking away an important freedom, such as the right to bear arms. Then-Massachusetts State Senator Salvatore Albano even said those who opposed the laws wanted “the right to be splattered all over their windshields.”(1)
But, the plea for increased seat belt usage began even earlier. People were reluctant to wear them for a variety of reasons as seen in the PSA from the 1970s below.
Yet, now we think nothing of wearing it. It’s automatic. We get in a car, we buckle in. Some cars even do it for us.
The Motorcycle Headgear Wars
After four years of legislative bickering, in 1991, then-California Governor Pete Wilson, signed into law a bill requiring motorcycle, motor scooter and motorized bicycle riders to wear protective headgear. California law already required riders under the age of 15 1/2 years to wear helmets as well as all riders of any off-road vehicle.
The backlash prior to signing the law was similar to the sentiments of the Great Seat Belt fight. One man was quoted as saying, “Let the people make their own choices. What’s next? They gonna make me wear pink leather?”
Another was quoted as saying, “We already have a mother. We don’t need another one in the government!”(2)
Yet, both laws were signed with the seat belt laws being left to the states to pass and enforce.
As of this writing, in California the fine for riding without a helmet is $197 and for no seatbelt it is $162 for the first offense and $192 for each subsequent offense. It should also be noted that some states enforce the no-seat belt law as a primary enforcement, while others see it as secondary, meaning a driver can be cited for no seat belt, only if the driver was stopped for another infraction, whereas a primary enforcement means the driver can be stopped for no seat belt. In California, it’s a primary enforcement.
While comparing the arguments over the rights to wear or not wear seat belts and helmets versus the rights around wearing masks are greatly different-vehicular safety issues versus general public health, I find it interesting the clamor over the laws and rights for the former has largely dissipated. And maybe the reason is money, i.e., the fines. People have accepted the finality of the laws. And yes, the fights were years ago and we are in a new generation. But, still...
In both arguments, taxpayer funds were cited for the aftermath, whether for long-term health care of the accident victims, law enforcement investigation of the accidents or the clearing of the debris off the roadway. Could that be one reason to appeal to some? If you wear a mask, less taxpayer money will be spent on Medicare or Medi-Cal because others won’t be getting sick. Since viruses will affect more people over a longer term, ultimately more taxpayer money will be spent in their health care than the numbers of people affected by traffic accidents. Just a thought.
Maybe the government just needs to fine people for not wearing a mask or for congregating in large groups.
Some California cities and counties are doing just that. In Los Angeles, the mayor has decreed any house found to repeatedly host gatherings of 10 or more people who don’t live there will have their utilities turned off. (In reality, I’m not sure how enforceable this is. But, I like this approach.) In some places, first offenses for not wearing a mask range from a warning/citation/fine with fines ranging anywhere from $25 to $400, $100 being the most common. Subsequent fines range from $200-$2,000. The city of Los Angeles is not currently fining people for not wearing a mask.(3)
While I don’t like fining people, especially during these financially difficult times, the fines stemming from the helmet and seat belt laws seemed to work as more people have survived accidents and suffered less severe trauma. Plus, car designs have also improved safety measures. But, if that’s what is needed to help curtail this virus, maybe more governments need to implement something.
Yet, we could avoid all this rigmarole and sickening divisiveness, if we just practiced a bit of compassion for others.
And wore the damn mask.
