They have a right to love

 

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.

The relevance of monarchy: Who needs a king?

 As new reports come in on Princess Diana’s inquest, one has to ask what all the fuss is about. Surely, Princess Diana was a highly influential person, whose support for charities was legendary (and continues on), and whose spat with the “Establishment” in the United Kingdom fractured her marriage to Prince Charles. Here then we gain a clue as to her popularity. Being the “People’s Princess”, Princess Diana’s rise to royalty from civilian life was the driving force that gained her her following, her clout in the public eye, with all the attendant consequences. Needless to say, it was this worship of Diana (as well as a drunk chauffeur/security chief) that led to her death.

What is the need for royalty in modern times? Let us discuss one important aspect of the royalty, and that is its political power.

 

There is a spectrum of the political involvement of royalty in the world. Absolute monarchies still exist in Brunei, Saudi Arabia and the Vatican City. In these places, they are considered infallible and their word is carried out as law. Other countries impose legal limitations on royal power in the form of constitutional monarchies, as observed in many European States, the United Kingdom, and Japan. A similarity in these monarchies is their succession by primogeniture, a mechanism that caused the Japanese Imperial Family a recent headache. Because tracing bloodlines is important, a certain status is given to members of the royal family by society in recognition of their closeness in succession to the reigning monarch. Through this, and given the absence of any meaningful opposition to their rule (enough to overthrow them from power), a monarchy is able to perpetuate itself in eternity. Exceptions to this are elected monarchs, such as the Pope, who is elected by the College of Cardinals in the Vatican, in a highly anticipated ceremony, and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or Paramount ruler (elected by and from the hereditary sultans of each state in Malaysia).

Based on the process of succession, and the resulting longer terms of a monarchy, some argue that this system of rule confers an immunity from politicking and corruption that prevail in more temporary arrangements (such as in elections). As a lasting symbol of the state, there is allegedly less tendency for others to attack the monarchy, avoiding the scandals that tarnish the reputation of a country. As a power beyond the political realm and not requiring political support, the monarchy becomes a neutral and independent arbiter of the people’s interests. It is provides stability during times of political upheaval as permanent holders of power. Being born and trained to rule, monarchs are allegedly reliable and dependable.

Most of the benefits mentioned above do not seem to be applicable in the here and now. For one, most monarchies today are constitutional, a situation that binds the monarchy (in various ways, in different countries) from any meaningful political involvement. In fact, monarchs are largely ceremonial figureheads rather than actual rulers. And when constitutional monarchs do become rulers, they have to embroil themselves in the politics of the day, favoring or disfavoring their prime ministers, and seeking to gain popular support. The arguments above apply more to absolute monarchies. One single but weighty question  for absolute rule is: can we always have an enlightened despot? History argues otherwise. Enlightened despots are rare, and rulers have always been fallible. It is even arguable that with so much subjectivity vested into one person, despite the possible existence of advisers and all, an environment is created that breeds nepotism, cronyism and corruption. (consider case studies in Tonga, and Saudi Arabia) It is no surprise that royal families are extremely rich and decadent, whose funances are even propped up by taxpayer money.

Politically, then, monarchies haven’t proven themselves to be particularly effective. How about their social aspect?

 

Monarchies retain so much social attraction even today because of their socioeconomic disparity with the public. Going around in “elite” social circles, protected by their gilded walls and their towering castles and boasting of a bloodline that goes back hundreds of years, royals enjoy an elevated social status that begets itself. That is, royal families are popular because they are royal. The public seems embroiled in cheap entertainment based on gossip and rumors, and fueled by raunchy intrusions into the royal private life. Sometimes though, that popularity extends beyond the tabloids and the paparazzi. In places that elevate a monarch’s status to that of a deity, monarchs can wield a great deal of influence on social norms and political policies by virtue of their strong public support. Thailand’s multiple coups, such as the one in 2006, have been dependent on royalty for their mandate. Recently, the King of Spain rallied his country against an attack by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on a former Spanish prime minister (his “Shut up” statement is now a huge ringtone hit)

On the other hand, and here even some royals may agree with me, the constant presence of the public eye on their every move gets to be more annoying. Royals are pressured to conform to what the public view as “royal behavior”, deviance from which is punished severely by the press (remember Prince Harry and his costume?). Scandal after scandal is published on what would otherwise be ordinary news if it weren’t for the regal factor. Social pressure may not even be tolerated by members of the royal family, causing them to cast away their title in favor of a more private life, free from the constraints that burden a prince or a princess.

But here is where Republicans become a little myopic: No one else is listened to more than Royalty. In a modern era where people have become exasperated, even fed up with the reckless and unbounded ghost statements of their political leaders, a monarchy provides the strong voice that unifies everyone. As a bastion of conservatism, the monarchy functions as a barometer by which the public can gauge their actions. As a symbol of the status quo, the monarchy is able to show people where progress is needed and galvanize them into action.

As archaic, fanciful, peculiar and old as it may seem, the concept of monarchy is still relevant today. Acting as a powerful catalyst for social change, having a king may not seem so bad at all.