Wednesday, July 02, 2008

• Homosexuality; The Big Gay Post.

  This is the rough draft of an essay I am writing concerning homosexuals and their right to marriage. I appriciate all comments and recommendations, thanks.

  Should Homosexuals be Granted the Right to Marriage?

   

  On July 2^nd 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law by President Lyndon Baines Johnson. The act banned unequal application of voter registration requirements and outlawed discrimination in public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce (exempt were private clubs). It also encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U. S. Attorney General to file suits to force desegregation. The act authorized but did not require withdrawal of federal funds from programs which practiced discrimination. Importantly the act outlawed discrimination in employment in any business exceeding twenty five people, and created an Equal Employment Opportunities Commission to review complaints. (1)

   

              This legislation is one of the most important ever passed, it was a landmark in the nations history, offering civil liberties to those who had been fighting for years. Today, the act’s contents are widely believed to be fair, while in its time it was a controversial piece of legislature.  Since its passing, the bill has acted as a blueprint for other acts which deal with civil rights, and it surly will continue to act as a blueprint for future civil rights acts.

   

  On July 2, 1964, President Johnson spoke the following words before signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act;

  “We believe that all men are created equal -- yet many are denied equal treatment. We believe that all men have certain inalienable rights. We believe that all men are entitled to the blessings of liberty -- yet millions are being deprived of those blessings, not because of their own failures, but because of the color of their skins.

   

  The reasons are deeply embedded in history and tradition and the nature of man. We can understand without rancor or hatred how all this happens. But it cannot continue. Our Constitution, the foundation of our Republic, forbids it. The principles of our freedom forbid it. Morality forbids it. And the law I sign tonight forbids it....” (1)

  In effect, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only gave to African Americans their civil liberties, but began a societal change. Once the government took a specific stance on the treatment of African Americans, societal views began to change. Today, the equal treatment of those of other races in second nature to the majority of the population, it is no longer controversial. Legal change can start a social revolution, a change in laws can become a change in public opinion.

   

  It is in this spirit, the spirit of equality, freedom, and justice that I argue that we must apply equality regardless of race, gender, spirituality, or sexuality. It was not long ago that the equality and rights of African Americans were being questioned the way that the equality and rights of homosexuals, bisexuals and transgendered peoples are being questioned today. I argue that equality is not only fair and just, but long overdue for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered peoples. The point is that the struggle of these groups versus the struggle of African Americans to gain rights is not dissimilar. True, homosexuals were never, ever prosecuted in the same terrible and torturous ways, but the struggle for basic freedoms has its similarities. LGBT peoples face similar persecution, violence and intolerance, their struggle is indeed real and is indeed serious.

   

   One problem is that so many people get caught on the wording of laws, the phrases of our government officials. We seem to be under the perception that bills and act, once passed, are unchangeable; we adopt the value of our laws and no longer question their fairness. We get so tangled up in semantics that we lose the real picture. Conflicts in the wordings of laws have spanned generations and will continue to disrupt the political and societal systems. "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife", while from the Defense of Marriage Act,  statements like these are outdated and unskillfully worded. The Defense of Marriage Act continues to say "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship". (4) Indeed, it is true that DOMA prohibits homosexual unions; but just because it is law does not make it right.

  Why should people whose sexual preference is not that of heterosexuality be denied the basic liberties of marriage? Just as acts which allowed the segregation and demoralization of African Americans were wrong, the statements of DOMA are wrong. Just as President Johnson said, “We believe that all men are created equal -- yet many are denied equal treatment. We believe that all men have certain inalienable rights. We believe that all men are entitled to the blessings of liberty -- yet millions are being deprived of those blessings, not because of their own failures…” How can we deny homosexuals their rights for reasons aside from their own failures? The wording of DOMA takes away homosexual rights. The wording of DOMA must be revoked, the way that we revoked laws of segregation. We cannot allow our laws to create injustice.

   

  In the famous case, Brown v. Board of Education the Supreme Court deemed there to be no legal support for maintaining "separate but equal" educational facilities. (1) They said; “We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” In the case of homosexuality, many believe the best option to be to grant homosexual partners ‘civil unions’, granting them similar rights to marriage, but still separate from marriage. In this case, is separate but equal, equal? How can we say that separate educational facilities are wrong, but separate civil liberties are just? The Supreme Court has already ruled that in one field “… the doctrine of separate but equal has no place…”, how can the Supreme Court deny equality in another field then?

   

   The most common reason that I hear for people being against homosexuals, is of course, religion. On the topic of homosexuality and religion, we are not a theocracy, we are not a 'Christian nation'; we are a free nation, one built on the values of freedom and equality, which we fight for every day. Religion does not dictate our rules- moral rightness and equality do. We cannot dictate legality based on ancient religious texts, legality must be determined independent of religion. As a nation, we are not all united in religion, we are united in freedom. One cannot argue that because any or all religions are intolerant of homosexuality that we must follow those creeds legally. The legality and morality of homosexual unions cannot be based on religion if we cannot agree on one religion. We are not forced to pledge our allegiance to any one God, so how can we be dictated by edicts of religion?

   

  Other than religion, many people don't like homosexuals, mostly because they don't understand them, or because of the age old stigmas put on homosexual relationships. The ideas that such relationships are "perverse" and "wrong", can be traced back to routes in Middle age Europe, where giving into any "sins of the flesh" was wrong, especially such taboo acts as homosexuality. However, homosexuality has not always been held as ‘perverse’ like the Church would have us believe, in fact for the Romans, homosexuality was another part of sexuality.

  “The Romans did not consider homosexual or heterosexual identities as exclusive from one another.  While bisexuality was common, strict homosexuality was all but unknown. Unlike the modern view, social class mattered a great deal in the acceptability of homosexual relations.  The upper classes were much more likely to indulge in homosexual acts...” (2)

  Another common misconception in the view of homosexuality is that it is immoral simply because only humans practice it. Joan Roughgarden a professor of biology at Stanford University and author of Evolutions Rainbow feels that “sexual selection can't explain the homosexuality that's been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species.” (3) If other species practice homosexuality, how can we deny that it is natural? Along the same lines, many argue that because homosexual relationships cannot result in procreation that they are therefore immoral. The problem with this argument is that many heterosexual couples are infertile for reasons beyond their control. Should these people too be stripped of their rights because of some biological flaw? Also, many heterosexuals engage in sexual activities while on birth control. Are their actions immoral because the sexual behavior does not lead to procreation?

   

  For how much longer can we let hate corrode our objectivity? For how much longer can we deny peoples their liberties? For how much longer can we allow ourselves to ignore the cries for justice? President Johnson proclaimed “We believe that all men are created equal…” so for how much longer can we deny equality? The truth is that the injustice, the hate, and the inequality must be put to an end, or as President Johnson said, “…it cannot continue. Our Constitution, the foundation of our Republic, forbids it. The principles of our freedom forbid it. Morality forbids it.”

   

   

  Bibliography

   

  1.)    http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm

  2.)    http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage

  3.)    http://oregonstate.edu/~blakena/cs195/final/Other/Writing/RomanHomosexuality.html

  4.)    http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php

   

  

  Above artwork is property of its owner. http://letsmakewaves.deviantart.com/art/Def-of-Marriage-77804524

  • 9:52 PM
  • 71 views
  • 12 eprops
  • 14 comments