Homosexual rights advocacy
The gay rights movement seeks to elevate homosexuality to the same level of social and political respectability as heterosexual relationships. It denies or dismisses the Biblical prohibitions against homosexual acts. "Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof." [1]
It seeks to remove the stigma of sexual perversion from homosexuality by arguing that either,
- Homosexuality is an immutable trait, and discriminating against immutable traits is wrong (cf. race discrimination), or,
- Homosexuality, if not immutable, is highly correlated with personality, and discriminating against such deeply rooted notions of self is wrong, as well (cf. religious intolerance).
The movement does not seek to convince others that homosexuality is right: rather, it seeks to convince the public that it is not wrong enough to regulate, criminalize, or stigmatize.
Contents
Legal Success
Courts, including the Supreme Court, have accepted either one or both of these rationales. In Romer v. Evans, the Court found that discriminating against homosexuals could only be explained by a rational of animus laid bare, which was not enough even to allow state condemnation of homosexuality under the rational basis review test. Romer, then, protects the status of homosexuality from undue discrimination that occurs without a rational basis.[1]
Homosexual conduct was formerly illegal in many states.[2] In the last decade of the twentieth century, although these laws existed, they were rarely (if ever) enforced.[3] Without disclosing whether it saw homosexuality as a status protected from discrimination at as high of a level as gender and race, the Court struck down bans on homosexual conduct, framing it as an expansion of its privacy jurisprudence.[4]
The status of homosexuality before the law, then, is in some degree of flux. While bare discrimination against homosexual status is facially unconstitutional lacking a rational basis, and while preventing homosexual conduct is similarly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has held in these landmark cases that the state may discriminate against homosexuals to preserve an "institution that the law protects" - namely, marriage.[5] As such, the standard to be applied in deciding if discrimination against homosexuals is wrong is somewhere in between rational basis review and strict scrutiny review. Justice Antonin Scalia thinks that this uncertainty will surely be resolved in the favor of gay rights, and he warns that such a legal erosion will result in the downfall of the law's moral authority.[6]
Opposition to Gay Rights
Polls consistently reveal that a clear majority [7][8] of people agree homosexuality is immoral, sinful, distasteful, degrading, or less than ideal, and prefer that public policy does not encourage it. They also do not think that we should lose rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and traditional marriage in order to promote acceptance of homosexual behavior.[Citation Needed]
Conservatives criticize attempts by gay rights activists to prohibit any statements which are critical of homosexuality, such as the idea that it is "unnatural" or "sinful", using hate crimes statutes and anti-discrimination laws:
- The EU parliament called on Polish authorities to publicly condemn and take measures against declarations by officials "inciting discrimination and hatred based on sexual orientation." [2]
History
As Amazon.com said in a review of a book of Harry Hay's writings, he "is the acknowledged father…of the modern gay liberation movement." As a Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) organizer, he turned out "essays, position papers, critical studies, and manifestos concerning what it means to be gay in the world." [9]
The Human Rights Campaign referred to Hay as "founder and architect of the modern movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights" and "Harry was one of the first to realize that the dream of equality for our community could be attained through visibility and activism". [10] Hay not only promoted homosexual rights, he actively campaigned for the "rights" of pedophiles. The Boston Phoenix noted that nowhere was this more evident than in Hay's persistent support of the right of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, NAMBLA, to march in gay-pride parades. [11] NAMBLA maintains a website with a body of Hay's work and a tribute to Harry Hay on its homepage. The Human Rights Campaign and other gay rights organizations, while revering Hay for his contributions to gay rights, do not support NAMBLA or communism.
Tactics
- Kirk and Madsen predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among opponents, "if we can actually make them like us." [12]
References
- ↑ Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620
- ↑ See generally Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186
- ↑ Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the Opinion of the Court, found this in his historical analysis.
- ↑ Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558
- ↑ Lawrence v. Texas; Kennedy & O'Connor both reached this conclusion explicitly.
- ↑ Lawrence v. Texas, Scalia, J., dissenting.
- ↑ Obama Slow to Respond to Questions on HomosexualityWashington Post, March 18, 2007
- ↑ New poll shows Americans oppose gay civil unions 58%-37% Washington Post, August 18, 2003
- ↑ Accuracy in Media, Red Roots Of Gay Movement, Cliff Kincaid, September 10, 2003.
- ↑ Human Rights Campaign Mourns the Death of Gay Rights Pioneer Harry Hay, Press Release, Oct. 24, 2002.
- ↑ The Boston Phoenix, The real Harry Hay, Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002.
- ↑ http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html, arguing that Hollywood movies sometimes show homosexual men or boys taking a harmless "Cupid" role to help solidify a budding heterosexual relationship.
External Links
- A gay rights perspective, the Human Rights Campaign, www.hrc.org
- An anti-gay rights perspective, Accuracy in Media, Red Roots Of Gay Movement, Cliff Kincaid, September 10, 2003.
- How America Went Gay
