THE LIE THAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS A CIVIL RIGHT
by Gary L. Morella

here is a lie being told that is so self-evident that there should be no requirement to expose same. However, in a world where wrong is right and vice-versa, moreover, where there is no concept of right and wrong, this lie is being propagated to such an extent that its frequency begins to give the aura of truth. Thus, it will be addressed. Simply put, "behavior is a civil right."

If this is the case, if we cannot discriminate against aberrant behavior, then our system of positive law collapses let alone any moral connotations. Implicit in the definition of behavior is the presumption that behavior can be categorized as good or bad, right or wrong. Without this gauge, anarchy exists with the freedom for the autonomous unencumbered self being the only concern. Nondiscrimination in this sense has no hope of leading to a "nurturing environment" as has been erroneously claimed by a member of the School Board in regard to "sexual orientation" which is another lie telescoped with the first.

Orientation implies a "lasting direction of thought, inclination, or interest." There are any number of references in the scientific literature which totally refute this definition in the context of a homosexual orientation. To say such a description is problematic is being kind given the wide disagreement in the literature with absolutely no definitive proof that anything resembling a "gay gene" exists.

Even if such a gene did exist, that would not change the fact that the behavior involved is still aberrant, against the natural law. There have been similar arguments put forth regarding alcoholism and even serial killing regarding so-called "gene" roots. Surely, no one would make the claim that those behaviors regardless of their cause are not objectionable.

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover In HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE POLITICS OF TRUTH reports that after purchasing the American Psychiatric Association membership, the National Gay Task Force (NGTF) sent out a fund-raising appeal to their membership. Activists then covertly lobbied the APA by sending out a letter to the entire thirty thousand membership calling for a change in homosexual classification without acknowledging the central role that the NGTF played in this effort which, per one signer's admission privately, would have been the "kiss of death." A majority of the APA members who responded voted to support the change in classification (by a vote of 6-4, hardly a ringing endorsement) of homosexuality as "not a psychiatric disorder." But in fact only one-third of the membership did respond. (Four years later the journal MEDICAL ASPECTS OF HUMAN SEXUALITY reported on a survey it conducted. The survey showed that 69 percent of psychiatrists disagreed with the vote and still considered homosexuality a disorder.) "The result was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times." [Bayer, HOMOSEXUALITY AND AMERICAN PSYCHIATRY: THE POLITICS OF DIAGNOSIS].

Two years later the American Psychological Association following the questionable lead of the APA voted to follow suit.

Twenty years later, militant homosexual activists were defeated in an attempt to make it a violation of professional conduct for a psychiatrist to help a homosexual patient become heterosexual EVEN AT THE PATIENT'S REQUEST. Had the change been approved, it would have opened the door to malpractice suits and ethics charges against psychiatrists who help homosexuals change - in accord with the patients own wishes, one of the association's own professional standards. The chairman of the APA Gay and Lesbian Task Force made it clear that the activists had in their sights not only psychiatrists who undertook reparative therapy, but eventually psychologists, social workers, and even pastoral counselors and ministers.

There is something very wrong with the attempt to force the acceptability of lifestyles upon a populace whose beliefs won't allow same. This is called coercion and begs the question, how can an "amoral" belief system (religion) be endorsed by the state to the exclusion of all others? This would seem to be a violation of the first amendment's establishment cause which is exactly what is happening at Penn State through the Vice Provost Office of Educational Equity's blatant promotion of the homosexual lifestyle.

The Church speaks strongly to this issue.

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

"Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."

Social scientists agree that if people hear a lie often enough, they will believe it is the truth. The lie in question is that Homosexuals do not enjoy rights like other citizens and therefore need minority status and special civil rights.

As Americans, homosexuals are entitled to equal rights, not special rights. Their behavior-based lifestyle does not qualify for privileged minority status under the U.S. law.

All individuals; good, bad, homosexual, or whatever, are protected under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. As a class, the courts have repeatedly denied homosexuals their claim to "insular and discreet" minority status, quotas and affirmative action. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a race. Homosexuality is defined by the act of sodomy (sex with members of the same sex). This behavior is not constitutionally protected. The U.S. Supreme Court in Bowers v.Hardwick rules that sodomy is not constitutionally protected behavior.

"Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument." - General Colin Powell

"To equate homosexuality with race is to give a death sentence to civil rights. No one is enslaving homosexuals ... or making them sit in the back of the bus. Injustice is being done to family values." - Alveda Celeste King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1997 was introduced on June 10th in the 105th Congress by Senator Jim Jeffords (R-VT). The purpose of ENDA is to include "sexual orientation" as a protected class under employment discrimination laws. But ENDA is really bad business. It grants homosexuals the benefits of minority class status -- based solely upon their behavior.

Historically, protected class status is determined by the courts and civil rights authorities by three standards. They are:

1. As an entire class, they exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics, such as race, color, gender, or national origin, that define them as a discrete group.

Essentially, homosexuals, bisexuals and lesbians, by their own admission, share only one attribute on which they base their claim to protected class status: They choose to perform sexual acts with members of the same gender. Behavior alone is not a compelling reason to reward protected, minority, or ethnic class status with all the attendant entitlements.

2. As an entire class, they have suffered a history of discrimination evidenced by lack of ability to obtain economic income, adequate education, or cultural opportunity.

Homosexuals are enormously advantaged relative to the general population. According to the Institute for International Research in New York City, a survey conducted by Simmons Market Research Bureau claims that homosexuals have an average household income of $63,100.00 versus a general population income of $36,500.00. By contrast, the average income of a disadvantaged African-American household is somewhere between $12 - 13,000.

In fact, homosexuals do far better financially than most Americans families. According to Overlooked Opinions, a homosexual polling firm, the annual income of homosexual households is 41 percent higher than the national average. In addition, nearly half of all gay households include someone holding a professional/managerial job. And Businessweek noted that homosexuals are five times more likely than the average American to earn $100,000 a year.

3. As an entire class, they clearly demonstrate political powerlessness.

During the 1996 elections, the Humans Rights Campaign Fund, a homosexual political advocacy group, raised more than $1.4 million. This put it in the top 1 percent of political action committees (PAC's) nationwide.

To further illustrate the point that homosexuals as a class are not politically powerless, Vice President Al Gore wrote in a letter to one of CWA's (Concerned Women for America) members:

"This Administration has taken more steps than any previous to bring the gay and lesbian communities to the table. We have more openly gay and lesbian individuals serving in appointed positions, and their impact -- through both their expertise and their efforts to advocate for the concerns of gay and lesbian Americans -- has been significant."

In November of 1997, President Clinton agreed to give the keynote speech at the Human Rights Campaign fundraising dinner. This was more than the rubber chicken fundraising circuit, however. He is the first president to address a homosexual advocacy group. Leaders of the homosexual movement say that by speaking at this dinner, President Clinton recognized the power of the homosexual vote and validated its civil rights issues -- one of which is the ENDA bill. President Clinton's remarks at the dinner included calling for a redefinition "of the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning" to include acceptance of gays and lesbians. With this kind of exposure, it is difficult to validate a claim of political powerlessness.

In other words, homosexuals are upwardly mobile, politically powerful citizens who have chosen to involve themselves in sexual behavior that is neither inborn nor unchangeable. Now, they are clamoring for protected class status -- special legal standing and advantages historically applied by governments in the United States to classes of people sharing distinct and immutable characteristics.

Homosexuals are not a model of a disadvantaged minority class. Disregarding the standard gay rights rhetoric, their movement is nothing more than a powerful special interest lobby intent on using their money and political influence to "piggyback" on legitimate gains of the truly disadvantaged. They can only gain these special rights and privileges at the expense of others.

Homosexual "rights" are not about equality under the law, which homosexuals already possess, but about special privileges and legitimation of their lifestyle. Clamoring for this protected status borders on the ridiculous when seen in the light of logic.

ENDA would be seen as an extension of the laws on civil rights; it would bring an extension of the federal power over hiring and firing in private firms; and it would bring into play the same apparatus of legal remedies applied by the federal courts. And so, while the backers of the bill insisted that there would be no quotas for the hiring of homosexuals, Orrin Hatch pointed out that the courts would apply the same remedies they applied in cases of racial discrimination. If a company is found at fault in its pattern of hiring, it will be compelled then by a court to show its good faith by setting out a plan to hire more members of the victimized class. In this case, it would mean the explicit hiring of gays and lesbians by order of the court. As Hatch observed, the claim that this bill would not produce a system of favoritism in hiring for homosexuals would be as empty as the avowals made by Hubert Humphrey that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could never produce a system of hiring on the basis of race.

Homosexuals who decline to listen to the good advice of those who genuinely care about them ultimately pay the consequences for this "choice". However, when they enter the public square and attempt to get the blessing of society for this "choice" they must recognize that they will be opposed in an uncompromising fashion by those who see a lie for what it is.

A civilized society, while not downgrading individual people, must "discriminate" in favor of health over disease, right over wrong, moral over immoral, discriminate use of sexuality over indiscriminate sexual expression. The death and dying statistics speak to the consequences of nondiscrimination in this context.

Traditional minority status has always been reserved for skin color and ethnicity which CAN'T be changed as opposed to behavior which CAN. Civil rights laws arose from the disadvantaged status of the former group in regard to the ignorance of their inalienable rights defined under the founding documents of this country. Given the inordinate influence of the latter group relative to their size in relation to the total population, i.e., their considerably higher than norm average salaries, influence at all levels of government and in the media, one would be hard pressed to equate them with disenfranchised minorities of color and ethnicity in a historical context.

No one is infringing upon the basic civil rights of heterosexuals with homosexual tendencies. But this group expects everything to be on their terms. No one is denying their presence in society. What is being denied is the propagandizing of their lifestyle as normal. If it was the norm, the human race would have died out long before sexual orientation would have been confused with civil rights. Nations would have been unable to reproduce themselves.