To the Editor:
Steven Lulich's May 22 response ("On Homosexual Rights") to Chris Curran's May 20 column "The Right Thing for the Right Wing" is an exercise in misguided rhetoric. Even if Mr. Lulich's points regarding homosexuality were correct, his argument lacks fundamental credibility. Mr. Curran's column argued the responsibility of/benefits to the Republican Party regarding the rights and protection of homosexuals -- an argument that Mr. Lulich does not even address. Whether or not there is a biological root to homosexuality should not dictate the policies of political parties toward U.S. citizens, as the U.S. government does not base its protection of individuals solely on aspects of their "genetic identity." Mr. Curran cites categories such as Vietnam-era veteran, disability, religion and national origin, demonstrating that governmental protection extends beyond categories of race and ethnicity.
Mr. Lulich's argument misses the point, and is critically flawed. He argues that "it does not make sense even to think about 'protecting' homosexual rights, which are in the first place in no special way endangered." But homosexuals do not have the same basic civil rights as heterosexuals in areas such as employment discrimination, partnership, adoption, military service and immigration. There are few areas of individual rights in this country where homosexuals are protected on an equal basis with heterosexuals. While cases like Baker vs. State in Vermont recognize the need for gay rights, their outcomes still define homosexuals as second-class citizens through "separate but equal" categories like civil unions. Homosexual rights are most certainly endangered.
Lulich tells us that "kind reproduces kind" and correctly points out that "humans reproduce humans." What he misses is that blonds can produce redheads, brown-eyed parents can produce blue-eyed children, and tone-deaf adults can produce offspring with the musical ability of a Mozart. What Lulich defines as a "common-sense rule" is oversimplified -- in asserting that "being a homosexual is no more racial or ethnic than being a vegetarian or not," Lulich falls victim to his own argument. He notes that "simply because an idea is new and current doesn't mean that it is accurate," but he fails to see that simply because an idea has been around for generations does not mean that it is accurate either. Science still cannot definitively solve the nature versus nurture debate, but we believe that it is more pragmatic to develop ways to ensure the protection of all people rather than to understand precisely how they came to be.
Regarding Christianity, Mr. Lulich states that "the picture is clear" in the Bible and that "it does not take a rocket scientist to see this clearly." As students who have studied this topic extensively, we take issue here. It is not "fancy footwork" to recognize that "homosexuality" in the Bible is anything but clear -- but that is a different topic for a different forum. Regardless of specific interpretations of the Bible, perceived religious morality should not dictate governmental protections of U.S. citizens. There is a supposed separation of church and state in this country and, as Mr. Curran points out, aside from religious intolerance, there is no "secular rationale for omitting homosexuals" from the basic rights and privileges afforded to all U.S. citizens. As for President Bush, we aren't deluded enough to be holding our breath either. But we appreciate the depth and breadth of Mr. Curran's political views that integrate Republican values with essential issues of social justice.
