(Westport, CT: Praeger Press,
2002) PREFACE
What happened to
the "debate" in "the gay rights debate"?
Moral
condemnations and demonizing stereotypes do not advance useful
dialog. The disputants have become perfect enemies, divided
on every issue with such intensity that consensus--or even
detente--seems impossible. The issue of sexual orientation is so
interwoven with American notions of self, society, and God that
many people can imagine no other resolution than unconditional
surrender by one side or the other. The debate is important because
it intersects with such a large field of related issues: the
tensions between religious dogma and secular pluralism, the rival
authorities of science and religion, the rights of minorities and
majorities, and the diverse meanings and practices of sexual
relationships. But it also risks becoming a futile spectacle that
hardens opposition further because of fundamental conflicts in how
the disputants think about spirituality, human behavior, and
freedom.
For many Americans, listening to the debate is "like being deluged
with competing theories of advanced physics without first having
mastered basic math" (Gallagher and Bull 3). This textbook does not
pursue a narrow or partisan thesis but is intended to
give students--both straight and gay--an introductory view of
the basic math of pro-gay and anti-gay rights perspectives. It does
not pander to the "already converted" or demonize any group.
Nor is it reductionistic. No single profile for homosexuals exists
that can encompass the diverse individuals who comprise the
lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered / transsexual (LGBT)
population, just as there is no monolithic model for heterosexuals
who oppose legal protections for GLBTs. The gay rights debate is
stalemated because each side oversimplifies and pathologizes the
other's perspective. Assuming that both pro-gay and anti-gay positions bring
something valuable to the debate, this textbook shows
how these ideologically opposed groups marshal evidence to muster
public support but without addressing the conceptual changes needed
to conduct a more profitable dialog. I am careful to
separate fact from myth, summarizing a broad range of religious,
sociological, psychological, and historical materials to give an
accurate picture of sexual diversity, but I also draw attention to
those areas where science or scholarship cannot supply a definitive
answer--questions about meaning and value, some of which inform the
assumptions of the very science being used. I invite
students to participate in the exploration of meaning. My aim
is not closure but continued thinking.
The textbook is organized around three fields of study--religion,
science, and politics. Chapter 1, "The New
Cold War," introduces sexual diversity as a major
ideological battleground in American politics, dividing people into
adamantly opposed groups that cast orthodox believers as homophobic
fascists and LGBTs as sinners corrupting America’s moral
fiber. Both sides are pathologized by their views, for
sex has become a metonym for mind in this debate: pro-gay
advocates assume that liberated sex fascilitates a liberated
mind; anti-gay rights groups reverse the polarity, arguing
that depraved sex produces a depraved mind. Can a consensus be forged when each side discounts the
other side's ability to think? The tenuous political
position each side occupies has been exacerbated by conflicting
sodomy laws from state to state, reinforced by the Supreme Court in
Bowers v. Hardwick and only recently overturned by
Lawrence v. Texas. School curriculum and library holdings
are largely censored to avoid references either to sexual
orientation or Christianity as if both were dangerous even to
think about.
Chapter 2, "Group Affiliations and
Post-Consensus Politics," shows how oversimplifying each
side's agenda and membership in the culture wars obscures important
ideological distinctions within the "gay community" and the
"Christian Right." Conflicts among the orthodox, mainline, and
progressive Christians roughly follow liberal, moderate, and
conservative categories, but within each branch numerous factions
have emerged that are politically and socially diverse; some
evangelical individuals disagree with some fundamentalist or
Theocratic policies of the Christian Coalition; some liberals rebel
against political correctness. It is also impossible to
typify LGBTs, for they range from liberal Democrats to conservative
Republicans and can be found in virtually every religious sect.
This is more than a simple political conflict between monolithic
camps oversimplified as "conservative" and "liberal" or "gay" and
"straight"; it cuts across social, cultural, sexual, and religious
lines in ways that are surprising. How it is being discussed
reveals how democracy works in a multicultural, post-consensus
age.
Both pro- and anti-gay groups make appeals to the past to justify
their positions, but, as Chapter 3,
"Religious Views: Past and Present," shows, heated debates
about sexual diversity existed in the ancient world, focusing on
the same unresolved issues: whether it was natural or unnatural,
biologically ordained or a moral failing, fated or a matter of
choice. A number of ancient religions found social and spiritual
value in sexual diversity, where orthodox Christianity found only
degradation and sin, perhaps because the Judeo-Christian God was
considered a singular perfection while many non-Christian religions
saw good and evil as conjoined aspects. Christianity has in the past adjusted its teachings in
response to changes in scientific knowledge and cultural values
(e.g., the Catholic Church's revision of the menstruation taboo),
but the issue of whether dogma should evolve over time is
controversial. The Vatican's Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and
the Rev. Mel White both believe that revelation is the cornerstone
of both Judaism and Christianity, but it is a matter of intense
debate between them (and between the nearly 300 Christian
sects in America) about how God intrudes upon history and what
constitutes obedience. Is revelation complete, or are more
prophets to come? Is compromise even possible if the question of
how to view LGBTs becomes a litmus test for religious commitment?
Just as in Christ's day, deciding who is the pharisee and who is
the heretic depends on deciding who speaks for God.
Chapter 4, "Biblical Scholarship: Texts,
Errors, Methods," discusses the
historical and linguistic problems Bible scholars face when
translating ancient Hebrew and Greek into modern English.
Interpretive approaches are split along ideological lines since
editors work according to guiding principles that reflect their
theologies. The history and the form of biblical texts made errors
during copying inevitable, and the pedigree of the King James
Version (KJV), its editors, and their justification for rewording
passages as an inspired interpretation further complicate how
modern readers interpret the Bible for themselves.
[Thus, Episcopalians in the Diocese of New Hampshire recently
elected as their leader, the Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson, the first
openly gay bishop in the worldwide Anglican communion as befits
their reading of Scriptures, while more conservative Anglican
churches in Africa, Asia and Latin America reject homosexuality as
a sin as conforms to their reading of
Scriptures.] Chapter 5, "Textual Ambiguities and the
Scriptures," discusses the recent work of revisionist
theologians and historians who argue that mistranslations, produced
either by error, accident, ignorance, or a translator's cultural
biases, are responsible for Christianity's condemnation of sexual
diversity. John Boswell, Daniel Helminiak, and Paul Halsall studied
Corinthians, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, Genesis, Leviticus, Mark,
Matthew, Romans, Samuel, Timothy; using new translations, they
recast Levitican Purity Laws, the meaning of the story of Sodom,
and St. Paul’s view of the “unnatural” as culturally unique to the
ancients, not universal moral laws. But while it is true that
various Levitican taboos are no longer followed, there is no
universally accepted policy on when to revise the Bible. Revision is acceptable when the evidence for it is
"compelling," but what "compelling" means varies according to one's
theology. When does selective literalism become prejudice?
Whose self-validating interpretive strategy will be used? If
different theologies shape the way different Christians read the
Bible and non-biblical supporting evidence, then radically
different interpretations are not only possible; they all find some
validation. Christianity's position on homosexuality may not be
reduced simply to a prejudice that can be legislated away. It is a
complex amalgam of scholarship, philosophy, mystery, and human
experience, and it will take much more research and discussion to
make any progress.
Chapter 6, “The Theological Meaning of
Sex,” moves from Aquinas' view of "natural law" and Philo's
concept of "one flesh" to John Finnis' recent model of a spiritual
transaction shaped by anatomical structure: the joining of
opposites, the experience of the human "other" (in marital, vaginal
intercourse only) in order to invite the divine "Other." This view
assumes that metaphorical analogies between body parts and
mentality are stable and universally applicable. Finnis’ critics
argue that the spiritual correctness of heterosexual intercourse
cannot be refuted or verified through reason or evidence, and that
when heterosexual theologians conceive of the metaphorical meaning
of “homosexual sex," they see it only in gendered, heterosexual
terms. This suggests three presently unanswerable questions: are
heterosexuals prevented from knowing what homosexuals know of the
spirituality of their desire? What is the
purpose of a lesbian or gay life when it is the excess that gender
metaphors cannot account for? Can we conceive of gendered
persons without reducing them to simplistic binaries based strictly
on anatomical difference?
Chapter 7, “The Etiology of Homosexuality:
Biology and/or Culture?”, considers the controversial
findings of genetic, brain, and neuroendocrine research into the
origins of sexual orientation. Methodological problems, objections
to applying scientific knowledge to issues of value and meaning,
and the question of how much science has been ideologically
contaminated have diminished hopes that a “gay gene” will be found.
Moreover, gay rights advocates are divided about the implications
of biological evidence for their cause. Do genes limit freedom
(determinism), reinforcing old stereotypes about LGBTs as
inherently defective? Are Christians using dogma to define
contradicting scientific evidence as false? Are LGBTs embracing
science to reduce sexuality to mere biology? Cultural
anthropologists and sociologists argue that sexuality may be as much a product of history, culture,
and ideology as it is of nature. Is it even possible to
decide which aspects of sexuality are innate and which are learned
when biological systems are so responsive to environmental
conditions and when the hypotheses that hard science tests contain
concepts that are themselves socially constructed? If sexuality is
a cultural product, its expression may be part of a larger system
of meaning that science cannot reduce to a manageable focus. And if
the modern LGBT is a product of the times, on what basis can sexual
minorities lobby for protected status? Neither biological
essentialism nor social constructionism is necessarily
gay-affirmative since anti-gay rights groups freely use both to
justify discrimination.
Many pro-gay activists claim that 10% of the public is homosexual,
while anti-gay groups insist on 1-2%; each side uses figures to
calculate how much political influence LGBTs should enjoy. In Chapter 8, “Diversity within Diversity: Postmodern
Sexual Identities,” I show how methodological and
theoretical issues affect the results of sex surveys (Kinsey ete
al.)and the meaning of these results. Deciding who is "really" gay
or "really" lesbian or "really" bisexual depends on how well human
beings fit into rigid categories, but for many people sexual
orientations seem fluid rather than stable. Should identity be determined by sexual behavior,
fantasy, desire, ideology, personal aims, or some
combination? Do different individuals stress each component
differently? At what percentile of same/opposite sex interactions
do we decide who is what orientation? How is bisexuality
misconceived in sex survey questions? Are FTM and MTF
transexualisms essential or constructed? Are butch or femme gender
displays integral to lesbian identity or performative (Judith
Butler)? Do sexual categories disserve LGBTs because defining who
is considered a "real" gay or lesbian marginalizes and polices
individuals who do not behave, feel, or identify the same way?
Chapter 9, “Define ‘Illness’: Rival Theories
of Pathology and the ‘Ex-gay’ Ministries,” shows how different schools of psychology conceive of
sexual pathology in different terms that cannot be adequately
correlated. “Anti-gay” therapists (Socarides, Rodgers,
Bergler, Bieber and others in Exodus) use Sigmund
Freud's psychoanalytic theory, which considers
orientation as a problem in gender identity, while “pro-gay” social
psychologists and psychiatrists (such as Evelyn Hooker, Kenneth
Lewes, D'Augelli and Hershberger, the American Psychological
Association and the American Psychiatric Association) rely on
behavioral studies, which focus on overt signs of pathology.
Reparative therapists argue that homosexuality is a pathological
lifestyle, a neurotic or addictive condition resulting from poor
parenting; mainstream psychologists argue that
homosexuals resemble heterosexuals in social functioning, emotional
well-being, and personality characteristics. Some psychoanalysts
claim that homosexuality can be cured but provide no consistent,
replicable documentation that it is a developmental disorder or
that patients have changed sexual orientation; behavioralists claim
that homosexuality is an immutable condition which cannot be
"cured" without harm to the individual's emotional makeup,
self-image, and identity structure. Two fundamentally different
approaches to understanding human behavior have created a long
paper trail of published articles and books that flatly contradict
each other. Sifting through these competing views requires not just
separating evidence from hypothesis but understanding the relative
merits of psychoanalytic and behavioral approaches to human
psychology.
Chapter 10, “Demonizing the Enemy,”
considers the contested connection between
inflammatory rhetoric and public fear. Are Jerry Falwell,
Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, Brian Clowes, Tim LaHaye, Paul Cameron,
R. S. Rushdoony, or Laura Schlessinger responsible for the
actions of their followers? Portraying LGBTs as "perverts" or
fundamentalists as "fascists" rallies the troops but spreads
propaganda that can be long-lived in spite of evidence against it
(e.g., the supposed connected between homosexuality and
pedophilia). Stereotypes feed homophobia and prejudice. But will a
kinder, gentler approach avoid demonizing stereotypes and advance
the debate? Does a middle ground even exist on which either side
can find an ideologically sound position? How does one even take
the first step: deciding if an opponent's beliefs are a satanic
conspiracy or bigotry, or if they are part of an exploration
of--and passionate disagreement about--the meaning and value of
life? The two sides can't even agree on whether inflammatory
rhetoric is hate speech or protected speech.
Chapter 11, “Gay Bashing and Social
Control,” considers the parallels between Nazi antisemitism,
racism, and anti-gay rhetoric, as well as Louis Farrakhan's racial
theory of homosexuality and the question of identity for African
American LGBTs. Most Christians who oppose
expanding gay rights also condemn violence, but does anti-gay
ideology incite hate crimes against gays? What distinguishes
a personal prejudice from misconceptions/prejudices that are
already integrated into a conceptual system that makes sense of the
way we experience and evaluate evidence? To complicate matters,
anti-gay groups are extremely diverse, and not everyone agrees on
what righteousness allows them to say or do about other people’s
“sins.”
As illustrated in Chapter 12, “Pluralism
versus Dogma: Public Spaces and Private Beliefs,” pluralism,
easy to understand in the abstract, can be difficult to define in
practice, for it is interpreted in two very different ways in the
gay rights debate. Liberals, libertarians, and Goldwater
conservatives tend to view it as a "live and let live" tolerance of
all beliefs as long as no one is harmed. Theocratic and cultural
conservatives tend to see pluralism as civil amorality, a violation
of God's laws that will destroy the moral fabric of society. Which governmental role would better serve a fairer
pluralism, an intrusive government that prohibits discrimination
through the force of law, or a neutral government that provides no
protected status for any group? Can church and state be
separated when some state laws derive their meaning from moral
theology? The issue of "special rights" versus "equal rights"
illustrates these conflicting views. Pro-gay groups argue that
anti-discrimination laws do not claim any particular right for
LGBTs that everyone else does not already enjoy; orthodox
Christians argue that civil pluralism is already invasive, a
transgression by the State upon practicing one's religious belief
in one's public life. The Constitution does give government the
right to limit social actions for the public good, but it is not
clear to what extent religious belief should determine what is
"good." A great deal of controversy surrounds even the definitions
used in the debate--what do the words “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual,”
“sexual orientation,” “sexual identity,” "queer," or
“transgenderism” mean when theology, science, and politics are
constantly redrawing the center and the boundaries of these
terms? Laws must have reasons behind them,
must be able to pass a "rationality review," but the parameters of
the LGBT question are continuously evolving and
expanding. This is a textbook
that should be read by both students on both sides of the political
spectrum, especially since the U.S. Supreme Court has just reversed
Bowers v. Hardwick in this year's landmark case,
Lawrence v. Texas and the Massachusetts Supreme Court may
have established legal grounds for gay marriage. For
those students who feel lost somewhere in between the armed
camps of Left and Right, step outside the
party lines of Ted Kennedy and Rick Santorum. Learn
the groundwork now. Chapter 1 - The New Cold
War Recent events, like the easy passage of the
anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, the narrow defeat (50 to 49) of
the pro-gay Employment NonDiscrimination Act, the recent Supreme
Court ruling against sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas, and a
barrage of accusations and counteraccusations following Senator
Rick Santorum's recent remark-- "If the Supreme Court says that you have the
right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the
right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right
to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to
anything." --illustrate how fundamentally divided Americans
are over the issue of what freedoms and what limits can be justly
applied to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered/transsexual
people [LGBT]. After thirty years of political activism and legal
challenges, neither side has been able to dominate the debate; only
22 states have enacted a hate crimes law that includes sexual
orientation, and only four extend protection to transgendered or
transsexual persons. Various polls have shown that gay men and
lesbians are still the least-liked groups in American society, that
70-75% of heterosexual Americans believe that homosexuality is
morally wrong (Schroedel 90), even though 60% support basic civil
rights and fairness in housing and employment (Lewis and Rogers
123), but neither side can even agree on what constitutes “basic”
rights and “fairness” in practice. Among the many competing voices and agendas on
either side, the general public hears everything from reasoned
discourse and informed research to warlike hyperbole and demonizing
stereotypes urging each side to see the other as an implacable
enemy. Many religious groups have investigated the issue of sexual
diversity, offering a principled condemnation or cautious approval
in scholarly journals or church documents; others denounce
homosexuality as a secular or demonic force that threatens
Christianity itself. On his "Old Time Gospel Hour" television show,
the Reverend Jerry Falwell described homosexuals as "brute beasts .
. . part of a vile and satanic system [that] will one day be
utterly annihilated (Robinson, “Homosexuality”). Randall Terry,
founder of Operation Rescue, has claimed that “if the militant
homosexuals succeed in their accursed agenda, God will curse and
judge our nation. . . . The goal of the homosexual movement is to
'mainstream' unspeakable acts of evil. . . . Their cries for
tolerance are really a demand for our surrender. They want us to
surrender our values, our love for God's law, our faith, our
families, the entire nation to their abhorrent agenda” (“Hostile
Climate”). Former U.S. Congressman, William Dannemeyer, describes
gays and lesbians as "the ultimate enemy" who will "plunge our
people, and indeed the entire West, into a dark night of the soul"
(Herman 64), while an anti-gay Oregon referendum won 43% of the
state vote using a slogan reminiscent of the Cold War era, "Gays
are the enemy within." While many pro-gay activists work quietly within
churches and mainstream political parties to increase tolerance for
sexual minorities, some, embittered by physical and rhetorical
attacks, belittle orthodox Christians as "the crazies," slick
televangelists fleecing their followers for money and power,
abetting gay bashing and covertly facilitating the AIDS epidemic
(Rist 77; Goss 50, 54; Smith and Windes 108). Gay author Paul
Monette labeled Roman Catholic officials "Nazis," and "the polish
Pope and his diabolical sidekick, Cardinal Ratzinger, the Vatican's
Minister of Hate" (55). At a 1993 march, demonstrators threatened
violence if legal protection for homosexuality was not extended,
while others chanted “F–k the church, F–k the state, Hormones will
decide our fate!” (Button et al. 1). Each side inhabits a different
moral universe, avoiding the challenge of understanding how the
other thinks about issues. Anti-gay groups dismiss pro-gay
arguments as distorted reasoning made specious by sin. Pro-gay
groups dismiss anti-gay arguments as unthinking prejudice or a
rationalization for the desire to control others. Joe Dallas, the
founder of Genesis Counseling, describes pro-gay religion as "a
theology of lies," a “strong delusion” that requires not analysis
but adamant opposition (206-207); Martin Duberman rejects anti-gay
arguments because “to treat their insulting simplicities as
legitimate arguments and to dignify their smarmy psyches with a
rational probe feels like an exercise in self-hatred” (quoted in
Smith and Windes 42). In a review of the rhetorical war, Ralph R. Smith
warns: For many gay activists, debates are futile and
counterproductive spectacles. From their perspective, individuals
opposed to gay civil equality cannot be argued out of their
emotional anti-gay biases. . . . The attempt may harden prejudice.
. . . Some rhetoricians and social scientists are no more sanguine
about public moral argument. Pearce, Littlejohn, and Alexander . .
. assert that such arguments degenerate into reciprocated diatribe
because "disputants lack a common moral frame with which to
understand the issues." Sociologists . . . see opposing sides on
gay issues as "worlds apart," making "any mutually agreeable
resolution of policy, much less cultural consensus . . . almost
unimaginable.” (98) To varying degrees, each side feels it is
fighting for its way of life and that the other side represents the
ruin of America. The tenuous political position each side occupies
is exacerbated by a patchwork of conflicting sex laws from state to
state. Until 1961, all states outlawed consensual sodomy (generally
defined as oral or anal sex); today only 15 criminalize it (ACLU,
“Update”), though 45% of voters still support such laws (Lewis and
Rogers 120). Campaigns are annually mounted by each side to
convince state legislatures to shift positions, but finding good
rationales for either policy is uniquely difficult because sodomy,
as Walter Barnett argues, is the only class of sex acts judged
criminal regardless of context. Rape is defined by the force
involved, statutory rape by the partner’s age. Pedophilia injures
children. Necrophilia dishonors the dead. Prostitution is illegal,
while promiscuity is not, because money is exchanged. Only sodomy
laws penalize the sex act alone, in any and all circumstances, as
intrinsically evil (81), but penalties vary widely because
intrinsic qualities are difficult to demonstrate or prove: Kansas
(6 months/$1,000), Missouri (1 year/$1,000), Oklahoma (10 years),
Texas ($500), Alabama (1 year/$2,000), Florida (60 days/$500),
Idaho (5 years to life), Louisiana (5 years/$2,000), Mississippi
(10 years), North Carolina (10 years), Puerto Rico (10 years),
South Carolina (5 years/$500), Utah (6 months/$1,000), Virginia
(1-5 years), Massachusetts (20 years), Michigan (15 years) (ACLU,
“Sodomy”; Rubin). 35 other states impose no penalties. These legal inconsistencies were judged
constitutional by a 1986 United States Supreme Court ruling,
Bowers v. Hardwick. Four years earlier, two Georgia
policemen had appeared at 29-year-old Michael Hardwick's door with
an unpaid traffic ticket. When they discovered him in bed with
another man, the case shifted from traffic to a “crime against
nature.” Hardwick sued on the grounds that his right to privacy had
been violated, and he expected to win (Millman 269). The Court had
already set a precedent in a 1965 ruling, Griswold v.
Connecticut, which recognized a constitutional right to
privacy for married couples using contraceptive devices; until
then, contraception, also viewed as an "unnatural" act in orthodox
Christian theology, had been illegal in many states. In
Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Court extended the same
protection to unmarried couples, and it seemed only a matter of
time before equal protection would be extended to same-sex couples.
If a state could not prohibit non-procreative sex between husbands
and wives, how could it prohibit other non-procreative forms of
sexual expression, such as oral and anal sex (Barnett 52)? Justice
Thurgood Marshall, in an allied case, Olmstead v. United
States, had argued that privacy was worth protecting for it
allowed each citizen to develop and put into practice religious
beliefs in his/her daily life: The makers of our Constitution
undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of
happiness. They recognized the significance of a man's spiritual
nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a
part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be
found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their
beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They
conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let
alone--the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued
by civilized man. (Barnett 59) And the Hardwick case, as Kendall
Thomas, Professor of Law at Columbia University, put it, “seemed to
be the most private of privacy cases" (1437). But by a 5-4 vote the Court upheld any state's
power to criminalize whatever sexual activity it deemed depraved on
behalf of its citizens. The right to privacy, Justice Byron White
argued, is not absolute. The Court was also reluctant to invent new
rights for specific groups: fundamental rights should be limited to
those "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition"
(Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 [1986]). America's
sodomy laws were certainly “deeply rooted,” having been written
three centuries ago to outlaw various non-vaginal sex acts by both
heterosexuals and homosexuals. Gay activists argued that the Court
narrowly framed the case as an appeal for legalizing "homosexual
sodomy" only. As Justice White said: The issue presented is whether
the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon
homosexuals to engage in sodomy and hence invalidates the laws of
the many States that still make such conduct illegal and have done
so for a very long time. (Hardwick, 478 U.S. 190) In fact,
the Georgia law was not so specific: "[a] person commits the
offense of sodomy when he performs or submits to any sexual act
involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of
another" (Baird and Baird 101). Technically, sodomy was illegal no
matter who performed it, but since Hardwick was gay, the case
became, in the minds of the justices, a referendum on homosexuals
only (Nan Hunter 541-542). The Court was deeply split over the issue, with
the deciding vote reluctantly cast by Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.,
who felt unhappy with either alternative, as John C. Jeffries, Jr.
(University of Virginia Law School), argues: Just as creating a new
fundamental right went too far in one direction, flatly rejecting
that claim went too far in the other. If, as the conservatives
contended, consensual sodomy was not constitutionally protected,
then presumably the states could regulate such acts as they
pleased, including by criminal prosecution and punishment. Powell
found this prospect barbaric. (109) Personally, Powell despised
sodomy laws, but he also feared that denying states the right to
regulate sexual behavior "would entangle the Court in a continuing
campaign to validate the gay 'lifestyle' in a variety of other
contexts," such as employment, same-sex marriage, and adoption
(108). He could find no "middle ground" and so voted for retaining
the status quo. As a result, Bowers v. Hardwick legalized
an empty space where no constitutional guidelines exist for
choosing liberty or imprisonment except for the political power of
the groups involved. "Might makes right" when it comes to sexual
orientation, since the Constitution does not mention protecting
heterosexual behavior either, yet seldom are heterosexuals arrested
for non-vaginal sexual behavior, even though it is widespread.
Laumann et al.’s 1992 survey found that 60% of men and 41% of women
with less than a high school education had experienced oral sex at
least once in their lifetime, while the figure for both college
educated men and women was 80% (105). In other surveys, 13% to 23%
of women admitted to practicing anal sex "regularly" (Voeller
247-249). Yet heterosexuals are rarely arrested for “unnatural sex”
unless rape or aggravated assault charges are also made (Law 189).
Missouri law explicitly states that non-vaginal sex is a crime only
for homosexuals. When Hardwick appealed his conviction, a married
couple joined him as plaintiff, arguing that they too should have
the right to engage in non-vaginal sex; but the District Court
declined to add them to the case with the rationale that
heterosexual couples were in no immediate danger of arrest since it
is assumed that non-procreative sex is not fundamental to their
natures. As a later court explained: "the act of homosexual sodomy
'defines the class' of gay men and lesbians,” but the same act
between opposite sex partners is only a diversion and so should not
endanger their liberty (Nan Hunter 540-543; Halley, "Reasoning,"
1734-1735). To LGBTs, this explanation targets not proscripted
behaviors but proscripted persons for whom those behaviors are
centrally meaningful (Nan Hunter 532). Thus, sodomy is presumed to be socially
destructive but only for nonheterosexuals. Sex is a metonym for
mind (Halley, "Reasoning," 1747), not just a physical or emotional
act but a manifestation of being, not something one does (that
anyone can do) but something one is, influencing all areas of the
self: emotional, cognitive, moral, and political (Foucault 43). As
lesbian writer Pat Califia remembers, identifying her desire
profoundly redefined her self: Knowing I was a lesbian transformed
the way I saw, heard, perceived the whole world. I became aware of
a network of sensations and reactions that I had ignored my entire
life. (Weeks 186) For Califia, liberated sex produced a liberated
mind. Anti-gay rights groups think along the same lines but reverse
the polarity: depraved sex produces a depraved mind. When the
Reverend Fred Phelps picketed a Kansas Bar Association meeting in
opposition to a gay judge, Terry Bullock, he reasoned that sodomite
judges always vote their rectums! God has given every sodomite up
'to a reprobate mind' Rom. 1:28. Which means that no fag
can think right about anything. ("More Bible Commentary on Current
Events") Phelps is infamous for his bluntness, but St. Thomas
Aquinas, the influential medieval Catholic theologian, reasoned
similarly: When the lower powers are strongly set on their objects,
the result is that the higher faculties can no longer function, or
do so only in a disordered way. Now, in the vice of sensuality the
baser appetite, that is, lust, does strive most eagerly after its
object of pleasure by a vehemence of passion and delectation
[delight]. What comes of this is that sensuality runs a disorder
through the nobler powers of reason and the will. . . . it fathers
a mental blindness. (Gilson 297) Thus, sex either usurps mentality
if not controlled by "higher" concerns (marriage, children, social
order, God) or it frees mentality to see justice, politics,
relationships, and spirituality in new ways. Phelps reasons that
Bullock's judgements will be contaminated by the deceptions of gay
desire. Gay activists hope that a gay judge will think differently,
because his private behavior will help him see their "truth." Like
the American communists of the 1950s, LGBTs are assumed to be
"lost" to both conscience and community. Indulging a deviant desire
that permeates their being shapes them mentally and spiritually so
that they cannot "think straight" (Rubin 273, 306). Relying on this
assumption, Colonel Ronald D. Ray, USMCR, recently argued that gay
and lesbian soldiers presented a clear danger to our military
because: Even if homosexuals are not "turned" [blackmailed to
commit treason] by foreign agents, evidence exists that
homosexuals, as group or subculture, can and do turn against their
country simply on account of the nature of homosexuality and its
hostile attitude toward the existing moral order. (77) It is ironic, but not surprising, that the most
active anti-gay groups are commonly accused of being obsessed with
sex too, abducted mentally and spiritually by an extremist way of
thinking that penalizes dissent, so that they cannot, even if
invited, "think queer." The strength of their convictions is
regarded as proof of their mental disability. Marty Klein, in his
Internet essay, "The Sex Lies of the Religious Right," sees no
problem with pathologizing millions of Americans simply by
connecting political orientation with private sexuality: Clearly,
the religious right and its cohorts are dreadfully frightened of
their own eroticism. They struggle against their fleshly desires,
but they cannot deny that their flesh desires. . . . Repelled by
their own sexuality, they loathe and thus fear others' sexuality.
And as a misplaced attempt to control their own eroticism, they try
to control others'. According to Klein, fundamentalists are not
merely wrong; they have lost the capacity to see that they are
wrong--the same accusation anti-gay rights groups make of LGBTs.
Each side believes that changing public policy on sex will subvert
an individual's ideology, conduct, and free will--the foundations
of social order. Those who disagree with group politics can be
written off as incompetent to judge the rightness or wrongness of
their views. Although LGBT groups and the Christian Coalition are
both politically active and courted by liberals and conservatives
respectively, centrists throw crumbs to each while letting them
fight their internecine war (Button et al. 13). Bill Clinton's
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy illustrates how the activist margins
can be effectively “contained” by the moderate middle. Introduced
as a compromise between pro-gay and anti-gay groups, it benefitted
neither while having the appearance of being a major event. Indeed,
lesbian, gay, and bisexual military personnel still face exposure
and discharge (and the numbers of LGB discharges have increased 67%
since 1993), while the religious right is dismayed to see tolerance
of evil made official government policy (Gallagher and Bull 132;
Haeberle 148; Galatowitsch). Can a consensus be forged when each side
discounts the other side's ability to think? And what role should
schools play in this controversy? Prior prejudices--antisemitism,
racism, sexism --seemed ideal subjects for educators because
increased knowledge contradicts stereotypes and reduces the fear
response behind hatred. But when the groups in question are
identified by an abductive ideology based either on sex or
religion, merely providing the basic information students need to
join the debate, to eventually vote on the issue in an informed
way, raises fears in parents that their children are either going
to be "queered" or "reborn." Each side is tempted to regard
education as a form of indoctrination. The result has generally
meant blatant censorship of what can be said about Christianity or
sexual diversity in the classroom. Although a few school systems
have designed curricula to teach students about LGBTs in a
fact-based way (Fairfax County in Virginia, Broward County in
Florida, Houston in Texas, and San Francisco in California), many
more are required by law either to ignore the issue altogether or
issue vague condemnations (Alabama, Texas, Utah, Arizona, New York
City, South Carolina) (Tenney 1600-1604, 1642-1643). At the same
time, Christians feel discriminated against because teachers are
allowed to include various secular and non-Christian books in their
curricula, but the Bible cannot be one of them, as Ralph Reed,
former Executive Director of the Christian Coalition, complains:
For example, when a group of students in Mobile, Alabama, decided
in 1993 to include verses from the book of Ephesians in daily
inspirational messages over the school intercom, attorneys for the
school board muzzled them. The students explained that the Bible
verses were no different than other readings they had included from
Voltaire, Plato, and Thoreau--a source of inspiration and
introspection. School board attorneys were not persuaded. . . . The
rights of the students to freedom of expression to read any passage
went unquestioned until they included the Bible. (43) Does
instruction in Christianity constitute education or religious
indoctrination? How does awareness of LGBTs affect students? Does
it induce enlightened tolerance or moral apathy, a personal change
or merely an intellectual change? Can schools ever guarantee
students will not embrace what they learn? Should they have to?
Activist groups who work to silence the other ironically find
themselves reduced to invisibility in the one place students should
be free to learn about the world. As James D'Entremont ruefully
concludes: Despite strong First Amendment protection for free
speech at government-supported colleges and universities, both Left
and Right have sought and obtained abridgments of speech on campus.
The Right, which is quick to excoriate censorship rooted in
[liberal] "political correctness," forgets its professed devotion
to free speech when it comes to queer expression. . . . Many in the
gay community, such as the angry crowd who shut down the
information table of gay anti-abortion activists at the 1995 Boston
Gay Pride Rally, see no contradiction in fighting fascist
tendencies fascistically. (223-224, 227) Silence is a poor alternative to debate because
it denies students the opportunity to prepare themselves for the
responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. Between 1974 and
1992, thirty-three anti-gay initiatives and referenda appeared on
local ballots around the country, with victories evenly split
between the two sides (Keen and Goldberg 6). Since then, the number
of gay-related measures has been increasing annually, as Donald P.
Haider-Markel reports: In 1995 the National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force (NGLTF) tracked 105 gay-related bills in the states. Only 16
states considered a total of 41 progay measures and 29 states
considered 64 antigay measures. During the 1996 session there were
160 pieces of gay-related legislation of interest to the NGLTF.
Only 25 states considered a total of 61 progay bills and 40 states
considered the 99 antigay bills. In 1997 the amount of gay-related
legislation in 49 states jumped to 248. Some 128 progay measures
were considered in 38 states, while 120 antigay measures were
considered in 44 states. . . . (“Lesbian” 300) The most famous
measure of the last decade was Colorado's 1992 Amendment Two, which
would have denied gay men and lesbians any legal appeal to any
government agency--local, state, or national--to defend themselves
against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Such extreme
measures would be unthinkable if applied to African Americans or
Jews or women, but the amendment won by a margin of 53% to 47%
partly because voters were inundated with fliers containing
demonizing stereotypes and misinformation vilifying homosexuals as
sexual predators of children (Gallagher and Bull 116). Without open
and informed discussions in the classroom, will only false
information become enshrined in law and perpetuate the conflict?
Ballot descriptions, by themselves, often can not give voters the
information they need. While initiatives are quintessentially
democratic (populist groups lacking representation in government
are able to create new laws by persuading the public to agree with
their cause), they also risk circumventing the checks and balances
of the representative legislative process in favor of whichever
special interest group can spend the most money or best exploit
public fears. As law professor William E. Adams, Jr., has argued,
ballot initiatives can create havoc merely by reducing complex
issues to simplistic "yes or no" resolutions. Some amendments are
so poorly written, ambiguous, long-winded, or numerous that voters
misunderstand their intent and cast votes they later regret. Recent
ballot descriptions in California and Oregon were written at the
eighteenth-grade level, which meant that less than one-fifth of the
voters had the ability to understand them (DuVivier 1195). In
general, LGBTs lose at the polls but win in court: in 69 elections
studied, 77% of anti-gay referenda won, while 84% of pro-gay rights
initiatives failed. LGBTs have been more successful in the court,
blocking repeals of existing anti-discrimination laws or preventing
bans on laws protecting gay rights (Adams). But, in the end, this city-by-city internecine
war exhausts time, resources, and good will without building
consensus. Classes should be open, inclusive, and respectful,
allowing different students to value different things whether or
not students reach a conclusion about gay rights. Freedom of speech
is not about closure. Its value lies in opening up discussions so
that they can incorporate ideas from both sides, so that students
can understand how arguments and consensus-building work, not so
that one side wins. The First Amendment protects the rights of
students to receive accurate information and diverse points of
view. In the 1967 decision, Keyishian v. Board of Regents,
the Supreme Court ruled that "the role of education is to expose
students to diverse viewpoints to teach them to assess competing
ideas in preparation for their full participation in a democratic
society.” Lower court decisions since then have generally
concurred, ruling that schools cannot ban or restrict speech merely
because it conflicts with parents' or school officials' political
views (Tenney 1625-1627). Schools can legitimately censor
information if it is unrelated to the curriculum, but restrictions
on curricular content are unconstitutional if they eliminate access
to a particular idea or view, present only one side of a
controversial issue, give inaccurate or misleading information, or
compel students to hold a particular belief that precludes debate.
The gay rights debate affects the sexual and religious rights of
all Americans, but how this status is to be negotiated and
legislated teachers should leave to students. This textbook is
designed to illustrate just how complex, interdisciplinary,
irreconcilable, and yet unavoidable the gay rights debate is.
Students learn best when they can synthesize diverse material on
their own, to take what is known and imagine for themselves the
unknown. This textbook is structured to give them that
opportunity.
This book is available in paperback
from Amazon.com
Return to Home
Page keywords: gay, gay rights, gays and lesbians, gay politics, Christianity |
