The topic of gay rights deals with the passing of laws which allow homosexuals to carry on a lifestyle which they choose with respect to others. This topic is quite broad, in that it can contain many issues involving gay rights such as: state sanctioned homosexual marriage, employee benefits, and the punishment of crimes or discrimination against a person because of sexual preference.
The topic of gay rights was first brought into legal perspective in 1864 when Karl Ulrichs presented a letter to the Congress of German Jurists which asked for the omission of homosexual love from criminal law. K.M. Kertbeny joined this new legal front by presenting a similar letter to the Prussian minister of justice (Adams 14). These men's attempt at justice for homosexuals was not without cause. As early as the 1600's police and local authorities raided numerous gay meeting places arresting many of the local merchants (Adams 7).
Throughout the years there have been no major outrages of political significance. There is proof of existence of notorious gay meeting places since the 1800's and there were a few attempts towards social acceptance in the 1920's and 50's, but until the late 1960's there have been no notable attempts at a large movement towards equality for homosexuals (Dunbar 31).
On June 28, 1969 New York police raided the Stonewall Inn, a bar frequented by homosexuals. This was not an uncommon occurrence, but the fact that the patrons rioted rather than passively accepted this raid is what earned that particular date a spot in history. This act of rebellion sparked a sexual revolution amongst college aged students and started down the road toward acceptance.
The first steps taken by a state to legally allow homosexuality were, surprisingly so, taken by Illinois. In 1961 they instituted a new penal code allowing homosexual acts to take place within the homes. This step paved the way for many other states to get rid of such laws, but not every state. By 1994 twenty-one states still had anti-sodomy laws on the books (Dunbar 76).
One major event in recent history involving gay rights surfaced when Bill Clinton became president. In his campaign he promised to fight for the civil rights of homosexuals, and he followed through on this by addressing the issue of gays in the military. It was from this controversy that today's policy of "don't ask, don't tell, don't seek and don't flaunt" is in effect. This states that one can't be asked if they are gay and investigations can't be held to prove homosexuality, but if they flaunt or voluntarily admit to be so they can still be penalized.
The arguments which gays or supporters of the homosexual movement use are quite simple. They want to be treated equally by the law despite their homosexuality. They believe that their safety is at big enough a risk that laws would be necessary to protect their constitutional right to do as they please in the privacy of their home as long as it doesn't effect the life of others. They want to be able to marry and gain the same benefits from marriage as heterosexuals would, be it either from marriage or from domestic partnership ( McNaught 55)..
The anti-gay side of the argument is a little more complex. A lot of the anti-gay movement consists of religious activists. The most popular argument given for anti-gay is that any homosexual relations, be it male or female, are absolutely forbidden by The Bible. As opposition to gay marriages, anti-gay's propose that American family values, or whatever is left of them, will be deleted from existence. Another argument used to battle the social acceptance of rights for gays, is that by granting them rights, we give them preferential treatment above the rest of society. The topic of gay rights is a tough topic…to most of society. It should be a simple open shut case. By using any amount of logic and reason one can find that the topic of gay rights shouldn't be an issue in today's society. The issue of the safety of homosexuals is present, and in order for a homosexual to achieve life and liberty laws are needed. Every United States citizen is guaranteed the rights to life and liberty no matter what sexual orientation. The constitution doesn't limit this to only heterosexuals, or only Christians; everyone has these rights. The issue of homosexual marriage is right now one of the popular issues in the gay rights movement. Those who oppose same-sex marriages are mainly religious and social conservatives who believe that by allowing legal marriages to gays, they, "further trivialize the institution of marriage", and that they, "… find homosexual behavior immoral and don't want anything related to homosexuality to be accepted or endorsed in the U.S (McNaught 44)." By saying this, these guardians of America's morality are suggesting that romantic love can only exist between a man and a woman. This is preposterous! The reason they oppose these acts is because they are told to do so by their God, and sodomy is against Christianity. Fine, but everybody is not a Christian. Another right guaranteed citizens by the constitution is freedom of religion. By forcing these laws and morals upon the rest of society, these Christian conservatives are only moving closer and closer to a religious monopoly. "Denying marriage to homosexuals is the most affront possible to their public equality (McNaught 54)." Numerous anti-same-sex marriage arguments are based on the need to increase family life. They don't believe that homosexual parents can provide a safe moral home for children. They also can't accept marriages between homosexuals, because they can not procreate. Apparently the only reason for marriage is procreation and since gays can't procreate with each other they shouldn't be allowed to marry (Leo 19). Then along the same lines, infertility should prevent marriage, and when people grow old or choose to take away their ability to procreate then they should have to divorce and no longer be given the economic benefits of marriage. Apparently "…the people who are threatened with the abridgement of their liberties or rights are the people who hold to the traditional Jewish and Christian teachings (McNaught 70)." How, because they are forced to adapt a little to accept someone as a human being? This is stupid! If one applies any logic and rational thought to the situation, the common Christian virtue of hypocrisy is apparent in this situation. In the years of 1986 and 1987 there was a 42 percent increase in the amount of violence towards gays, from verbal to homicide (Dunbar 82). Now, if a lot of the opponents to homosexuality are opposed for religious reasons, and religious activists are seen displaying signs such as "Aids cures fags", "God hates fags", and "Thank God for Aids"(Clinton First…. n.pag.), then one could deduce that there are some religious activists who are doing some of this violence. This would completely crush their argument about homosexuality being forbidden by the Bible. The Bible also forbids violence, so why is it ok to endorse violence, but not homosexuality when they are biblically forbidden. Now the final argument which is used to defend the position held by those against gay-rights is, that by creating rights specifically for gays we are granting them special privileges over the rest of society. In response to this one author states, "The gay community is demanding equal rights, not more or different rights than other Americans (McNaught 147)." Along this same lines of reasoning used by anti-gays there should be no anti-discrimination laws against race or religion either. Laws like these would give a black person or a Buddhist more rights than every one else. It's obvious that this argument is just plain stupid and barely admissible as a competent thought. In short, by passing laws which forbid discrimination against homosexuals, government would only be protecting the rights which are already granted to them as human beings. Isn't a homosexual's right to life and liberty infringed upon when he/she isn't allowed a job because they are known to be gay? Yes! Isn't it taking away from their right to life when laws forbid sodomy and same-sex marriage? Another resounding Yes! How in the world would any heterosexual be placed lower on the legal ladder by a homosexual gaining support for the rights everyone is born with? The answer is, they wouldn't.
Works Cited Adam, Barry D. The Rise of a Gay and Lesbian Movement. Boston, MA: Twayne Publishers, 1987. Dunbar, Robert E. Homosexuality. Springfield, NJ: Enslow Publishers, Inc., 1995. Leo, John. "Gay Rights, Gay Marriages." U.S. News & World Report.24 May 1993: 19. McNaught, Brian, et al. Gay Rights.San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press Inc., 1997. Anon. "Clinton First President to Attend Homosexual Rights Meeting." n.d.: n. pag. On- line. Internet. 28 Sep 1999. Available WWW: http://www.erlc.com/Homosexuality/homosexuality.htm
Matt Smith
10/15/99
E-mail Danman at danman@inw.net