EVERY TIME I hear that line about "no special rights for gays," I'd like to know just what special rights they are talking about. But let's let that pass for the moment.
On the other hand, let's not. Because defining our terms may enable us to find the creative solution that we need.
As anyone who has been gay for more than ten minutes is aware, the notion that gay people have, or want, special rights is ludicrous. Just a cursory glance at our legal system compels the conclusion that it is heterosexuals who have a whole plethora of special rights: the right to legal recognition for their relationships, the right to serve in the military without lying about who they are, the right to raise their own children without fear that somebody will take their children because of who they are, the right to not have employers and landlords poke around in their private business. Gay people have none of these rights in most places, and in many places still have the legal status of criminal.
In fact, the worst example of this inequality is in the area of relationships: when straight people marry, they automatically get a long list of rights that include the right to be consulted and informed about their partner's policies, the right to inherit if the partner should die without a will, the right to be considered a social unit, the right to death benefits and social security benefits, etc. Not only do gay people not get these things automatically as a matter of right, some of them are not available at all and others only by jumping through lots of legal hoops.
Thus, the idea that gay people somehow seek special rights is more than ludicrous: it is an utterly breathtaking example of hypocrisy.
There is a solution, and it has been staring me in the face for so long that I'm dumbstruck that I have missed it for so long. It will shut our opponents' mouths and remove their foundation from beneath them. It will be the end of probably three-quarters of their blather. And it may even work.
What we have done to this point is seek passage of laws adding sexual orientation to the list of categories protected by antidiscrimination laws. (Except for domestic partnership laws in some places, we haven't even started the task of equalizing governmental recognition of our relationships.) The problem with this approach is that middle America has always been suspicious that all of these civil rights laws are simply special rights for people who fit the categories on the list. And in fact, most people do support equality but when they see a list of groups protected from discrimination - by race, sex, or sexual orientation - it is easy for heterosexual white males, still the most powerful voting bloc, to view it as a quota system that gives special treatment to minorities.
In fact, I suspect that professional racists could probably argue with equal plausibility that laws which protect blacks from discrimination are "special rights" rather than equal rights.
The solution? Forget all about amending existing civil rights laws. Don't even bother with them; they are a waste of time. Instead, let us concentrate on passing a law that says the following: "Before the law, heterosexuals and homosexuals are equal. Neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals shall be entitled to special rights or treatment because of their sexual orientation. The law shall treat them both the same."
First, that would be the end of right-wing raving about special rights. How could any fundamentalist, who has insisted up until now that all he opposes are special rights, possibly oppose such a law without admitting to being a hypocrite!
Second, in one fell swoop we would have pure equality before the law. The state would have to recognize our relationships; it would have to stay out of our private affairs, and the law would probably cover employment and housing discrimination, although that would require some litigation. Thus we quickly and relatively painlessly obtain the entire "homosexual agenda" rather than doing it piecemeal.
Third, it would appeal to the masses of fair-minded people who really do not oppose equality; they have simply been sold a bill of goods that special rights is what we are after. For quite some time now the only way the right wing has been able to win popular elections against us is by claiming we are after special rights; most people don't have a problem with equal treatment.
We even have a ready-made campaign slogan: "No special rights for heterosexuals."
One of our major premises, after all, is that the law should not be treating anybody more favorably than anyone else. As a gay person, I don't seek special rights before the law; I would be perfectly happy with equality.
In fact, what the gay liberation movement seeks is not to be treated more favorably than straight people, but that straight people not be treated more favorably than us.
We do not seek to be considered superior to heterosexuals and lord it over them. Nor are we willing to have them be considered superior to us. What we seek -- and are increasingly unwilling to forgo -- is equal footing.
After all, I am more than willing to give up any bid for special rights if straight people will do the same.
One Comment for “No ‘Special Rights’ for Anybody”
posted by Norman A. Marous on
It is a fact that society and its laws discriminate in favor of heterosexuals! What I do not understand is why I hear nobody making what I believe is the most logical argument in support this discrimination, which has existed throughout recorded history, because it has a very logical basis. These laws perpetuate society and promote procreation. Please bear with me as I explain the logic.
I do not deny that it is possible for individuals of the same gender to love and be devoted to each other. However, it is not possible for two individuals of the same gender to engage in any physical/biological action that will result in the creation of another human being. I realize that it is also not possible for some people of opposite genders to procreate, but that is only because of physical/biological abnormalities or medical problems. Two persons of opposite genders, absent the aforementioned biological or medical problems, can through perfectly normal biological interaction procreate. There is no logical contrary counterpoint and that constitutes the difference.
It does not take a biologist to see that male and female bodies are specifically made to fit together and function in a manner that allows procreation. It is not possible for two bodies of the same gender to connect in any manner that will facilitate procreation and that is why society has always promoted and encouraged the establishment of permanent bonds between individuals of opposite gender. The permanent nature of said relationships is encouraged to facilitate the care, feeding and development of the resulting offspring. While individuals of the same gender may be able to give each other pleasurable physical feelings that is all that they can do, while natural procreation remains the exclusive prevue of males and females.
There are other reasons (moral and religious in nature) that many people support conventional marriage, but they are ancillary byproducts of the practical reasons outlined above. Virtually all evidence indicates that the most effective manner of caring for societies children is that they have both a male and a female parent who nurture them throughout their development. I understand that traditional marriage does not always work as intended, but there is no arrangement which has proven to be more effective in the preponderance of cases, for the development and maintenance of families.
Based on the above rationale, society continues to encourage traditional male to female marriage, via its laws and policies, and probably should continue to do so. If individuals of the same gender wish to establish permanent relationships because of their affection for each other, legitimate arguments can be made for allowing them to do so without interference, but traditional marriage and the laws that encourage it have a logical basis for preservation.
Joint property ownership rights, visitation and medical care decisions are logical examples of rights that can be extended to homosexual unions, without appreciable negative impact on the historical reasons for favorable treatment of traditional marriage. Preservation of the traditional definition of marriage and the laws that promote it, are in the legitimate interests of society and should therefore be retained. Homosexual unions are different from marriage and should be separately defined and provided for in the legal system.
P.S. I have never understood the perversion of the word ‘gay’, which historically meant happy, cheerful, exuberant, spirited, etc. The word homosexual is not negative, nor is the word heterosexual positive… they are simply the words for two different sexual orientations. By hijacking the word gay, homosexuals have forever deprived all others the ability to use the word ‘gay’ as originally intended, without being misunderstood. Indeed there are likely millions of people who not even aware of its original meaning.