Speaking Their Language. The Orange County
Register ran
this editorial making a libertarian argument for why the
Supreme Court should hold sodomy laws unconstitutional. The
editorial reads in part:
So sodomy laws are objectionable in a free society. But are they forbidden by the U.S. Constitution? Roger Pilon, director of constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, thinks so.
The first clause he cites is the 9th Amendment, which says in its entirety: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That was included in the Bill of Rights to remind us that just because the framers hadn't mentioned an individual right didn't mean people didn't have it. In that reminder can be found a right to privacy, to sexual freedom, or the more general right of a free citizen to be left alone by government if he or she is not harming another person.
Mr. Pilon also believes the 14th Amendment, which states in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," forbids laws that intrude into private bedrooms. "That clause was meant to be the principal font of rights against the states, to protect the freedom and personal integrity of the individual," he told us. Justice Clarence Thomas has been especially interested in the "privileges or immunities" clause as a guarantee of individual liberty, and he could use it in this case to good effect.
Too often gay activists, who"ve come of age in the cocoon of liberal-left culture, don't understand that conservatives and libertarians not only don't view the world through the same lens as liberals do, but neither speak nor respond to the same rhetorical language as liberals. That may be one reason why when a sodomy-law case last came before the Supreme Court, 16 years ago, gay advocates failed to convince a conservative-leaning court that repeal wouldn't be just one more example of liberal judicial activism beyond the intent of the Constitution. Let's hope this go-round the pro-repeal lawyers will be able to argue the case in a way that can sway conservatives. It can be done, and Cato's Roger Pilon is perhaps showing the way.
A British Example. The British newspaper
The
Guardian reports that Tony Blair's Labour government will
propose recognizing same-sex "civil partnerships" and granting
these the same rights given to married couples (though civil
partnerships would remain a separate category from "marriage").
Significantly, a leading Conservative Party figure says
Conservatives will support the plan:
The shadow home secretary, Oliver Letwin, indicated that the Conservatives would support the measure when legislation was introduced. "Whilst we attach a huge importance to the institution of marriage we do recognise that gay couples suffer from some serious particular grievances," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "If what the government is coming forward with is indeed a set of practical steps to address a set of practical problems that affect people, then we will welcome them."
And in America we"re still debating whether homosexuality should remain a criminal act!
But What About the Transgendered? I do have one
pet peeve about the reporting of the above story by The Guardian.
It begins:
Gay men, lesbians and bisexual people are to be offered the same rights as married couples, a government minister indicated today".
But really, isn't including "bisexuals" a bit of a stretch? If they"re in an opposite-sex relationships, they already have the right to marry. If they"re in a committed same-sex partnership, then it's a gay relationship. Referencing bisexuals in this regard seems like politically correct sophistry.
The Race Card. IGF contributor Rick Rosendall
authored
a brave column (it ran in Boston's Bay Windows and elsewhere)
on racial guilt-mongering in the corridors of the gay left. Writes
Rick of a recent National Gay & Lesbian Task Force conclave,
which included sessions for people of color only:
The preferred mode of communication at Creating Change resembles not conversation but emotional hostage taking. It is for the designated victims to harangue, and for the rest to pander. Each year the ritual starts all over again, as if for the first time.
NGLTF's Sue Hyde responded with
a letter arguing that:
There are LGBT people of every color, ethnicity, class, age, race, condition of birth and gender who are joining together to make a stronger, more powerful and more fully representative movement for social justice, equality and freedom. Some of the work to build this movement will be accomplished when the voices of women, young people, people of color, old people, transgender people and intersex people can be heard more clearly, which logically requires that they be given the space, the time and respect to hear themselves first.
Listen, I don't doubt that the diversity-first crowd is sincere
in its ideological beliefs and actually thinks all of this is
somehow "progressive." But the ceaseless laundry-listing of
victimized subsets leads not to a unity of the many (which requires
a focus on commonality despite differences), but to seemingly
endless balkanization and a competition to see who can exhibit the
greatest wounds. This has never been healthy.
--Stephen H. Miller