In his May 22 Op-Ed piece, "On Homosexual Rights", Steven Lulich made some arguments that I intend to challenge. According to Mr. Lulich, homosexual rights are not in any special way endangered. He furthermore says that because there is no biological basis for homosexuality, there is no reason to protect homosexual rights.
First of all, Mr. Lulich, please, go ahead and call the parents of Matthew Sheppard and tell them that homosexual rights are in no special way endangered. Can you do that? Do you honestly believe that homosexuals are not being severely oppressed in this country? "Gay" and "fag" are used as derogatory terms by schoolchildren, in the workplace and on television. Can you honestly look a homosexual in the eye and say that homosexuals are not especially endangered? Would we allow our children to see a bad film and say, "That movie was Jewish!" or "That movie was Mexican!" or "That movie was Hindu!" So why is it accepted when the statement is "That movie was gay!" Can you tell me why the suicide rate of homosexual teens is far higher than the suicide rate of heterosexual teens? Gosh, Mr. Lulich, could it be because their rights are commonly trampled and ignored, causing them to feel alone? Ah, but I am getting ahead of myself by acknowledging their rights. Let's examine your claim that homosexual rights aren't protected based on biology.
Since when do rights stem from biological purposes? You talk about "kind reproducing kind, monkeys reproducing monkeys and humans reproducing humans," and from this you reach the ludicrous conclusion that there are no homosexual rights because being homosexual is no more racial or ethnic then being a vegetarian or not. Your argument seems based on the myth that being homosexual is a choice or a curable disease -- something that is optional. I vehemently disagree with that point of view, but that debate is of no particular consequence in terms of rights.
Let's take a look at rights in terms of religion. In this country, people have the right to practice whatever religion they want. We consider this to be an important right; indeed, it is embodied in the First Amendment, not the fiftieth. Tell me, Mr. Lulich: how does religion follow your commonsense rules of kind reproducing kind? Religion is a choice; it is not a race or an ethnicity. Whatever they were brought up as, people can convert to or from Christianity, or Judaism or Islam. Indeed, there are many evangelists that try to gain converts. People can choose whatever religion they happen to find sustaining. To use your own language, "it [religion] is no more racial or ethnic than being a vegetarian or not."
So why do we protect religious freedoms? If we were to use your logic, we don't. Rights do not come from biology -- the Constitution, Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence can't be found in our genes. Many philosophers have spent their lives debating where rights come from. I believe the answer is simple: rights exist to fix wrongs. The rights embodied in the Constitution are there because of the tyranny of the British. The rights in the Magna Carta were there because of the abuses of the Crown. Homosexuals have rights, just like everybody else. They have the right to life. They have the right to be of any sexual orientation. Homosexual partners have the right to receive the same benefits as married heterosexual couples. They have the right to equal treatment. They have the right to walk down the streets holding hands without being attacked or threatened. Any claim to the contrary is absurd.
The fact of the matter is this. Homosexuals possess rights; saying otherwise is dangerous nonsense. Think of Nazi Germany. To use the eloquent words of German anti-Nazi activist Pastor Martin Niemller, "First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. They they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the homosexuals, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a homosexual. Then they came for the Jews, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. They they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak up."
And Mr. Lulich, rest assured that the Nazis would not have spared you. Dehumanize a group of people, and you have opened the door for attacks on everyone. The rights of homosexuals are endangered; saying otherwise is what Jeremy Bentham would call "nonsense on stilts." The Constitution protects the rights to autonomy, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and I firmly believe it protects freedom of sexual orientation. It is a pity that an unavoidable byproduct of the Constitution's protections is the protection of bigots.
