This is a question that has been getting asked a lot lately. I have had this particular side of the argument used many times by advocates of same sex marriage (even in the comment threads on this blog).
So to phrase the question properly: Are homosexuals an oppressed minority that should have the same civil rights extended to them regarding the homosexuality as other minorities?
Homosexuals are seeking not only to affect public policy, but also to determine the terms of the debate. The more the homosexual community is able to construe the issue of homosexuality and public policy along the lines of "civil rights," the more success it seems to have in achieving its agenda.
There are several things wrong with regarding homosexuality as a civil right. First, the law already protects the civil rights of citizens. Homosexuals now enjoy these civil rights as everyone else does. It is true that individual homosexuals have had certain rights deprived at times (just as anybody could), and it may be because of their homosexuality, but this is nothing that the law does not already address.
For example, it is already against the law to beat someone up. If a homosexual is beaten up by someone who hates homosexuals, the offending party is already culpable by law. To extend protection to a homosexual on the basis of his homosexuality is unnecessary and unfair.
One's behavior should not be the subject of civil rights laws. With the new onslaught of potential hate crimes legislation being proposed before Congress, we are potentially going to be saying that it is more brutal to beat up a 22 year old homosexual than a 92 year old lady. I say, both crimes are equally evil and wrong. But with the hate crimes legislation, it would add more weight for the one perpetrating a crime against a homosexual. That puts a class distinction on victims. That is wrong.
Homosexuality is not a benign factor like race. It is a behavior and a choice...no matter how hard those who are homosexuals stomp their feet and say it wasn't a choice. That's precisely what it is.
Also the criteria to judge whether or not a group is an oppressed minority do not apply to the homosexual community. Tony Marco, in his book Special Class Protection for Gays: A Question of Behavior and Consequences, notes the three criteria that the Supreme Court established in awarding special protected status:
1. There must be a history of discrimination evidenced by a lack of ability to obtain economic mean income, adequate education or cultural opportunity. This certainly does not apply to homosexuals. Homosexuals have an average annual income that is $20,000 more than the general population. More than three times as many homosexuals are college graduates than average Americans. Three times as many homosexuals as average Americans hold professional or managerial positions...some 65% of homosexuals are overseas travelers - four times the national average.
2. Protected classes should exhibit obvious immutable, or distinguishable characteristics like race, color, gender, that define them as a discrete group. It should be clear that this does not apply to the homosexual community.
3. Protected classes should clearly demonstrate political powerlessness. Again, it should be clear from the impact that the lobbying arm of the homosexual community is having across the nation currently. Our recent ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court makes this a mute point. The homosexual community is far from being politically powerless.
There is no one who can rightfully argue that homosexuals should be a protected class using the very criteria that our Supreme Court used. But I believe that it isn't merely acceptance and tolerance that is the true spirit of the homosexual agenda. I believe that they are fully intent on silencing anyone who would question their lifestyle. That, I think, is the end goal.
2 comments:
Might I sugest a book entitled Homosexuality and the politics of truth at http://www.amazon.com/Homosexuality-Politics-Truth-Jeffrey-Satinover/dp/080105625X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240417692&sr=1-1
And here's a quote from Roger Chambers from 1985
The Sissification of the Church. The universal trend is for Church to surrender to culture, and our culture is a sissified one. That's the word, not feminine. Modern so-called feminism is not feminine; it is little more than broken womanhood crying out for identity and significance. As a culture removes itself from God, its masculine virtue fades and a twisted femaleness takes over. That's why homosexuality is the end of the line in the mind of God. Good men become bad men, but when men stop being men and women stop being women, the creation image is destroyed and all is lost. Ours is a country that can barely, if at all, bring itself to execute its child murderers; it doesn't have the nerve to defend its legitimate international interests. It divinizes poverty and failure while it denigrates successful competence. It has no future but limp-wristed oblivion. The real world is not the place for sissified men, societies or churches.
I think there is a misunderstanding both on the part of Masterpastor and Tony Marco on the meaning of "protected class".
Under various statutes outlawing discrimination, a protected class does not refer to a group of people. The protected classes could be religion, race, national origin, gender, medical condition, gender identity, age, ancestry, marital status, or disability.
A protected class is a CLASSIFICATION. So if you have a policy or statute prohibiting discrimination based on religion, religion is the protected classification, not any PARTICULAR religion.
I understand Tony Marco wrote his piece as a college paper, but I've been unable to find the text of it online. I would like to see an actual reference he might provide which would tell us when the Supreme Court (is it the U.S. Supreme Court, or a state judiciary?) spelled out the three criteria he lists.
Under those criteria, for instance, discrimination based on religion would not be illegal.
I certainly can't fault anyone for being confused about the legal meaning of "protected class" in civil law. The word "class" makes it sound like a particular group of people, such as middle class, upper class, working class, etc, but it is different.
I've often heard that sexual orientation shouldn't be a protected class, because it is a choice. Well, so is religious affiliation.
There is something though that has always confused me about sexual orientation being a choice. I don't think it is a choice, but then I can't speak for everyone.
If sexual orientation is a choice, men, can you tell me at what point in your life you CHOSE to be heterosexual? For me, it was never a choice. I am heterosexual. I have never been attracted to men.
But I can't speak for everyone.
Post a Comment