Well, the legal question presumably has some correct answer (assuming it isn’t in supreme court limbo or something right now). As for the questions of propriety, and of what SHOULD be legal, imho, well, this is actually a really tough gray area for me.
On the one hand, I’m strongly in favor of the government not intruding into groups of people doing victimless things. If JimBobWhiteSupremacist and his 4 buddies want to get together in his garage and play poker once a week and sure as hell ain’t going to invite any blacks or Jews or gays, well, that’s certainly their right. On the other hand, a situation in which a restaurant can put up a sign saying “no darkies” and have that be legal is certainly something I’m not comfortable with. But things like choirs and sports leagues (and for that matter, boy scouts) fall somewhere in between. And I’m certainly vastly more comfortable with a gay-only choir than a straight-only choir. And I can explain why, but not necessarily in a way that I would feel comfortable trying to enshrine in law…
I am, in fact, a member of a gay chorus, and these questions occasionally come up.
First of all, there’s no way of proving, even with intimate screening, who is gay and who isn’t. There’s nothing preventing a straight guy from “passing” as gay. And even if someone is totally out, you still can’t prove that he’s not an impostor. The only person you can be sure of is yourself, and even then, some people have doubts.
But the fact is, we do occasionally have a straight member, and it’s never been a problem. There was once a guy who had relocated here from another country, and he asked his coworkers if there were a men’s chorus here, since he had sung in one previously. As a prank, they sent him to us (the word “gay” does not occur in our name). Of course it didn’t take long for our orientation to be obvious, but he stayed in the chorus, and even participated in several of the dance numbers.
As a separate issue, the question of allowing female members had once become a very contentious issue. We are a “gay men’s chorus,” but does that give us the right to discriminate against a female applicant, assuming that she could sing in an appropriate vocal range. We argued this issue for several weeks, and there were excellent points made on both sides. We finally took a vote, and decided not to admit women. But the vote was close.
But addressing another part of the OP: From what I’ve heard, if a generic men’s chorus were to exclude gays, the chorus would become something like a duet or trio.
Our local gay men’s chorus states on their website that you can be of any sexual orientation, but you must be male to perform (women are allowed to be members, but their participation is limited to behind-the-scenes stuff).
I don’t get it. In order to ascend to a leadership position, doesn’t someone have to be elected or something? If that person can gain the support of the membership sufficiently to be elected, then why is this a problem?
That would be silly, as it’s a private institution making their own rules about discrimination, not a government or society at large. Only if we argued that private organizations didn’t have the right to discriminate could we argue that the school’s policy is wrong.
I’m also wary of trusting a jury to determine the actual gayness or straightness of a plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit.
“The jury has ruled for the Defendant Chorus because the Plaintiff failed to produce enough evidence establishing his gayness. Without proof of gayness, he cannot sustain a charge of anti-gay discrimination.”
Or, imagine what an actual ruling of gayness or non-gayness would mean.
Mr. Jones: <submits marriage license application with Miss Smith>
Registrar: "I’m sorry, in 2005, in the case Jones v. Gay Men’s Chorus, you were legally adjudicated gay. I cannot approve a marriage license for you with a woman without a Certificate of Straightness from the Department of Heath.
I’m pretty sure that’s not what happens. No one has to prove actual “gayness”, just tgat the discrimination was based on the belief of “gayness”. It’s kinda like not having to prove your “whiteness” or “blackness” for protection against race discrimination or prove your true “Christian-ness” or “Jewishness” in religiousness discrimination. In most every case it is the discriminator’s belief that matters.
It permits people to send a battalion of people to join clubs they find objectionable, for the sole purpose of taking it over, electing new officers, changing the charter and policies–i.e., destroying the essence of the club that they find unworthy of their high standards. That’s the theory, anyway. I’ve read a few articles on this general topic, and I seem to recall that there were incidents such as this, but I don’t have a cite.
That’s similar if it’s true. But I think the concern is generally not for instances where people took over a group and refined it, amplifying certain aspects of it and using it as a vehicle for their beliefs. That’s what happens with clubs. It’s more about completely squashing unpopular thought and speech, and the net result in these instances is the club ends up dissolved or a travesty, which is the objective. A subtle distinction perhaps.
Whether or not it has happened often, I think it’s a legitimate criticism of the “take all comers” policy–it certainly permits an unfettered ability to squash any unpopular club-sponsored speech or expression. The only thing you need to accomplish this goal is more guys than the number in the club and voilà!, “The Society for Christian Values in Mortal Fear of Gayness” is rendered without a club. Not in any meaningful sense, anyway.
That’s the way it is with us. We’ve even had women on our Board of Directors, no problem. And there’s one member who I suspect might be a F-M transsexual. Again, no problem.
Thing is, I don’t see how being allowed to discriminate on sexual orientation changes that. The people just come in, pretend to be straight, and then take over anyways.
Having a limited number of new members, always less than the the current membership, would be a better strategy.
I guess anything’s possible. ISTM clubs have been pretty good at weeding out the “undesirables,” whatever that means to them, for a long, long time. And there’s no need for subterfuge at all with a “take all comers” policy.