The following is a short essay I threw together for one my classes, the theme being the role our government has and should play in the case of so called "gay marriage". There was much more content that I wanted to add to this, but the limit of the paper prevented me from doing so. I hope you enjoy.
The
Progression of Reason on Homosexuality
To
map out the role in which our Government has played in the battle for
gay-rights, is to see a concerning marked transformation. I want to start by defining
what one of the roles of government is. One important purpose of a governing
body is to promote the common good by enforcing the rule of law. Laws are
coined by rationally deliberating on issues that are desirous to people; they
are rarely conceived by flippant passion. The law regarding the prohibition of homosexuality
can be traced back thousands of years across many cultures and that law has
been singularly and definitive prohibited from time remember. Have we been
mistaken all this time of the pernicious nature of sodomy?
We
begin by looking at Thomas Jefferson, in his Bill of Proportioning Crimes and Punishment; his views on the
matter are thus: “Whosever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with a
man or woman shall be punished…” It is no mystery that our country has maligned
homosexuality from its conception, but the progression of this position is
pertinent to understanding its constitutionality in regard to “gay Marriage”
(Bill 64). When the 14th Amendment was passed, all but five of the
states in the Union had criminal sodomy laws, 24 states to this day continue to
have these laws. There are records from the late nineteenth century up to 1995
of criminal persecution of individuals who participated in sodomy numbering
over 200 (Reilly 71). From this, we see little change in the position of our
justice system, because they understood something about the nature of marriage
and subsequently sexual relations and their purpose. James Wilson’s views on
family typify those of our founders, which are thus: “It is the principle of
the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners
as well as for its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the
source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, the
family must precede every institution of government, which is wise and good.”
Next
we come to Bowers v. Hardwick, one of
the more recent cases that pertain to sodomy, in which Justice Burger,
upholding the constitutionality of an Alabama sodomy law, references William
Blackstone, a Judge in England who wrote Commentaries
on the Laws of England (O’Connor, Sabato, and Yanus 119). This reference
echoes orthodox views of sodomy as a “crime against nature”. This is another
clear example of a Justice in recent times (1986) staying the course on traditional
sodomy laws. I just want to make it clear, that we have here the Supreme Court
upholding the sodomy laws of a state, the justification of which not being
based on any statements in the constitution, but on rational common knowledge
of the destructive nature of the act.
At
this point I want to focus a bit on what exactly are the dangers of sodomy. To
do this, we must first consider teleological characteristics of things.
Everything has a purpose and when a thing is fulfilling its purpose, you could
say that it is acting according to its nature; it is performing an act that is
in accordance with its function. Now let’s move to the illustration of the
body. An ear’s purpose is for hearing; you may be able to do other things with
your ear, e.g. pierce it and place an earring on it, but its main function is
hearing. Ornamentation would be a secondary function of the ear, but you can
continue to hear noises with it in place. Next you may decide to put a knife in
the ear, but this would be damaging despite your intended purpose. As you see,
there is a hierarchy of functions, but its main end is for listening. The
sexual organs are no different. Genitalia are use for procreation primarily and
secondarily micturition. When you start using objects for their unintended
purpose, risky consequences may ensue. What are some specific health risks of
anal sex? Anal Cancer is one of them, which the risk of acquiring is 4000
percent more than heterosexuals (Daling et al). Next you have HIV, the CDC
states that male to male sex results in an increase of acquiring HIV by 44
times. Likewise, 61 percent of people who acquired new onset HIV are gay men.
The numbers for syphilis cases among both men and women were in the 70 percent
ranges. Now keep in mind too, gay men only make up 2 percent of the entire adult population. These are staggering
numbers that cannot be ignored; yet don’t seem to have the attention of current
legislatures. There are numerous more confirmed statistics from solid sources
including those pro gay, who present startling data of the health risks of gay
sex and this does not include the data regarding mental disorders of both the
individuals and the children raised by them. These figures indicate a direct
correlation of this behavior to mortal diseases.
Getting
back on track we come to Lawrence V.
Texas. Here we finally see the beginning of the transition in thought,
starting with Justice Kennedy. Here, Kennedy deems the restriction of sodomy unconstitutional (O’Connor, Sabato, and
Yanus 119). He states that liberty consists of “autonomy of self.” This
translated essentially means self rule, which according to Aristotle is the
freedom to choose the good habitually and thus forming a virtuous person. I
don’t think this is what Kennedy meant; maybe his idea was the freedom to
choose the bad regardless of the consequences and without interference of the
state. Either way, we know from the research that such activity is grave;
therefore, if he meant the autonomy to choose the benign, he is obviously
misinformed. He also states: “The fact that the governing majority in a state
has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient
reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.” We finally come to it.
Sodomy is here rationalized as a congenial act, whose actions cannot be
sanctioned by a state. Sodomy is now on par (according to the Court) with
heterosexual intercourse. The question remains however: what, aside from
immorality would be reasons for vindicating the longstanding sodomy laws; the
court does not seem to know. The answer to this is as we mentioned above: is to
protect sex, with its natural procreative end which is its primary purpose. The
continuation of this ignorance can be followed by reviewing contraceptive
rulings in Griswold v. Connecticut,
Eisenstaedt v. Baird, and Carey v. Population Services International, in
which implied constitutional rights of privacy are invoked from the Bill of
Rights and used as immunity for offenders of Natural Law (Davidson et al. 826).
The
catalyst for this change in mentality surely had to have had some sources. One
of these sources, I presume to be the scientific breakthroughs made in
Psychiatry. Up until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) defined
Homosexuality as a mental disorder. The removal of this disease from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of
the APA, (the authoritative manual of mental disorders) ushered in a new found
bill of health for all homosexuals. Studies have concluded them sane. Wait a
minute; what studies? Oh that’s right, there are none. Come to find out, the
editing of this manual was a result of the relentless pressure from outside Homosexual groups at APA
meetings and the conflict of interests of Dr. John P. Spiegel, president-elect
of the APA and other homosexual psychiatrists groups working inside the APA (81 Words). The change in
the DSM wasn’t based on a single scientific study whatsoever. It was the result
of oppression by gay activists, the cause of which is not denied by many
homosexuals. The new status of homosexuality no longer being a disease follows
that it no longer needs to be cured (Davidson 852). With this established, gays
can claim that they are “born this way”; therefore, bestowing on them the right
of being called a social class, worthy
of civil rights.
Lastly,
we will look at the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). There are four cases that
demonstrate the progressive resistance of the BSA against accepting openly gay
Scouts, whose rulings were in favor of BSA core values (Reilly 177). However,
these cases were not the only front which gay rights advocates were targeting.
They were aiming at a chink in the armor that is vulnerable to many
organizations; that is, their financial support. Pressure was put on many of the big
contributors to the BSA, who themselves pulled funding, which in turn was
effective in compelling the BSA to cave in.
By
chronologically breaking down the history of rulings of the courts, you see an apparent
shift in perspective from reason to rationalization. The process of change has
taken three faces: first staunch adherence to orthodoxy, then tolerance and
finally imposing sodomy as a good. If this “diversity” is not embraced, you
will be targeted for discrimination and potentially incriminated against. We
see examples of this more and more frequently. Shop owners are being fined for
not serving gays, employers and employees are being fired for speaking out, and
Religious are being attacked for their traditional views; it seems roles are
reversing as this continues to progress.
The
framers of the constitution understood that with a republic, a certain
responsibility is placed on its citizens; a responsibility of personal virtue. “We
the People”, what sort of people are envisaged by the framers when this was
written. Montesquieu taught that “there are three essential forms of
government, each of which calls for the shaping of a distinct characteristic in
those governed: under despotism the characteristic of fear, under monarchies
the disposition of honor, but under a republic what is called for is nothing
less than the cultivation of virtue.” The framers of the constitution had great
respect for is citizens because they understood the endurance of a nation was
in their hands. The attempt of separating the verdict of immoral from an act
that is inherently disordered is by definition unjust. Therefore, a government
which is charged to uphold justice is obliged to uphold the rule of law; which
is an ordinance of reason.
Work Cited
“Bill 64.” Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia.
Monticello, 2012. Web. 5 Aug. 2014.
Daling, J.R., et al.
“Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer.”
Journal of the American Medical
Association. 14 (1982): 247. Print.
Davidson, James, et al.
Experience History: Interpreting
America’s Past. Vol.2. New York:
McGraw-Hill,
2011. Print.
O’Connor, Karen, Larry
J. Sabato, and Alixandra B. Yanus. American
Government: Roots and
Reform.
12th Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2014. Print.
Reilly, Robert R. Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing
Homosexual Behavior is Changing
Everything.
San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014. Print.
“81 words: The Inside
Story of Psychiatric and Homosexuality (Part 1 of 2).” All in the Mind.
Australian
Broadcasting Corp. Natl. Radio. 4 Aug. 2007. Transcript. ABC. Web. 1 Aug.
