Some say that the law is reason free from passion. However, the right to pursue our passions has been the most legislated and debated issues in many legal systems around the world. Despite our intrinsic need to fulfill our burning desires and our self-charted destinies, barriers exist on paper that bind us to mediocre and uniform lives.
For instance, the rights to free speech, to an education, and to free enterprise are heavily bound by a net of bureaucracy, of rules and regulations, of minutiae and requirements. And these are basic rights. But how about the most intrinsic right, which is that of identity? Do all men have an equal right to assert who they are and what they believe in?
The best prototype for this is homosexuality. On this issue, the divisions of religious and secular society run deep, and are reflected in the law. Such are the ironies of democracy that even in nations that espouse “tolerance” and “freedom from discrimination”, the right to marry is curtailed, the right to be a parent is stopped, and the right to be recognized by the law is prohibited. Society reacts in oxymoronic ways named with equally oxymoronic titles, such as the Defense of Marriage Act signed by Bill Clinton in 1996 which actually shuts down legal recognition of marriage from one state to another and by US federal government. Even the Boy Scouts of America, an organization that is supposed to “prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices”, is currently in a row with Philadelphia over discriminatory screening policies. On the other hand, the bias against gay rights may not be as covert as these. They can be as outright and shamelessly direct as any other advocacy (like this petition), or use political propaganda such as linking homosexual advocacy to communism. Many have invoked religious reasons for opposing gay rights.
On the other hand, the gay and lesbian rights movement (the more politically correct term, though, is the LGBT movement) has reacted strongly to these assaults on their culture. In the long history of the rights movement, there is a sprinkling of successes among failures, including the striking down of anti-sodomy laws, establishment of anti-discrimination laws in the employment setting, the conferment of lesser forms of recognition (which they feel are still partial), domestic benefits, and even adoption rights. The number of same-sex marriage households is growing with the last census showing more than half a million in the United States. The numbers represent the clout of the LGBT community, which is important especially when it comes to setting the electoral agenda of presidential candidates ,who have to walk on eggshells to appeal to both the liberal and conservative commnities. Around the globe, there is a trend of liberalization of same-sex unions ranging from full recognition, to celebration in various media. In fact, these trends of normalization show how legal recognition of homosexuality has become less of a polarizing factor in different societies.
So, how should state react to this? How should a liberal democracy handle the issue?
Of course, one has to consider the premises of the law first. Many countries already have conceded to the need for changes in the treatment of people in different social strata. The recognition of this problem is rooted in the belief that all men are equal, all men deserve equal treatment. Here, we establish the first crucial conclusion: homosexuals are human. As different as you or I may be from a homosexual, they exist in the same sphere of humanity as you and I. From here, it becomes easier to argue that they deserve the same rights as anybody else, including the the right to marry and the right to adopt children.
A sociological approach to the argument would have to take into account the considerable opposition that exists against LGBT rights. How can a homosexually tolerant state be democratic when the majority of people oppose fundamental gay rights? In answering this question, we look at historical examples, such as the emancipation and suffrage movements in the past. Even at present, tolerant communities do not experience the “difference” all that much. In fact, it is in intolerant communities that gay hate crimes proliferate. But even these statistics have remained stable over the past decade. Even Charles Howard, a famous gay hate crime victim, would have approved. So, why should the freedom of the minority be oppressed at the behest of the majority? Why should laws repress gays when it is others who have a problem with them and not vice versa? Is there intrinsic harm to being gay anyway (as asserted by Muslims, Catholics, and other “family protectors“)? The only way you’d have to be really affected by a homosexual is if you are one yourself… and that doesn’t augur well for critics. In fact there is a study on homosexual arousal among homophobics. State should exist to protect vulnerable populations. The potential violence of a closed-minded majority should not force governments back into the closet of intolerance.
On a personal note, I don’t force everyone to be heterosexual. I don’t force my morals on others. But I can preach them. I stand for tolerance and understanding for this is the only way that dialogue can occur, the only way we can reach out to them.
In the end, we should not fear the homosexual community’s right to love. While some guys fall for girls, other girls like girls, and other guys go crazy over guys. But if you notice, homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder. Homophobia is.
Golden Shield Project (
humanity at its finest 