CRITICAL ISSUES: VOLUME I, ISSUE 3

On Sunday, April 25, 1993, approximately 300,000 gays, lesbians, and supporters took to the streets of Washington, D.C. in what they saw as a continuation of the struggle for civil rights. As the 60's had ushered in real emancipation for blacks, and later fueled the rise of women, the 90's, in marchers' hopes, will be when homosexuals enter the mainstream of society.

The march was smaller than many had expected. In the week before the event, organizers had confidently predicted a turnout of up to one million. But even at 300,000, the number of protesters was statistically impressive. In the annals of Washington marches, last month's march is eclipsed by only three others: Two anti-Vietnam War marches, and the National Organization for Women's rally on April 2, 1992.[1]

The protesters have gone home, and the streets of Washington are filled now with only their usual traffic. But the end of the march promises to be only the beginning of the debate on homosexuals and society. Already the debate has grown more strident in the op-ed pages of the nation's newspapers and in the pages of prestigious journals of opinion; how to present homosexuality has been an overriding issue in the recent school board elections in New York City; and the new Pulitzer-winning play "Angels in America" is bringing the dramatization of gay lives to Broadway.

Whatever the outcome of the debate, the issue is one that is sure to stamp the character of our era. As the twentieth century draws to a close, it's likely that its last ten years will be remembered with the same nickname of the decade one hundred years previously--the gay '90's.

Common Ground

Given the high levels of rhetoric--not to say invective- - the debate on homosexuals and society inspires, it takes some patience and discernment to untangle its real essence.

One thing the debate is not about is whether the state should actively punish homosexuals or private, consensual homosexual behavior, or whether homosexuals should be deprived of the basic rights granted them under the Constitution. Though it may come as a surprise to the extremists, serious opponents of "gay rights" readily admit our political system should provide an arena of tolerance for homosexuals, and be assiduous in assuring that all citizens--regardless of their sexual orientation--are secure in their basic rights.

This is true even for those whose opposition to gay rights has a religious motivation. Roger Magnuson, an attorney who has published extensively on the gay rights question, says opposition to special gay rights laws should not entail questioning gays' rights to (among other things):

• Incorporate businesses and non-profit, tax-exempt organizations under state and federal laws.

• Form student organizations on state-supported campuses, including rights to the same benefits received by any other campus organizations, such as organized social functions.

• Publicly assemble, rally, petition, lobby and carry out all forms of political activism and discourse in support of political ideas.

• Be employed by the Civil Service, which has given the following directive to supervisors: "You may not find [a] person unsuitable for federal employment merely because that person is a homosexual or has engaged in homosexual acts."[2]

Tony Marco, a scholar and Christian who has also researched the gay rights question, agrees with Magnuson-- and himself insists that gays are certainly entitled to (1) the right to physical safety in their persons and property, and to speedy legal redress for acts of physical violence against them, (as for any American who suffers assault), and (2) the right to freedom from libel or slander against their persons or reputations.[3]

Some find this political philosophy--comparatively tolerant of private and consensual homosexual behavior--at odds with the Christian teaching that such behavior is a sin, and sin of a particularly destructive kind. According to the Christian Scriptures, not only are homosexual acts a sin of unchastity, a defiling of the body that Christ has bought at the price of His blood; the sin of homosexual acts especially is related to a deep rebellion against the fundamental order of nature, binding on everyone and instituted by God. The Apostle Paul points to homosexuality in general as a consequence of people's failure to acknowledge the sovereignty of God: "Men did shameful things with men, and thus received in their own persons the penalty for their perversity. They did not see fit to acknowledge God, so God delivered them up to their own depraved sense to do what is unseemly." (Romans 1, 27-28; emphasis added).

But if Christianity holds that homosexual acts are seriously sinful, it does not necessarily believe that the coercive power of the state to punish such acts is a suitable cure. In fact, Christians have traditionally looked rather skeptically at the role of the state in fostering the sanctity to which they are called.

One of the most notable passages in Christian political writing on this subject was written over seven hundred years ago by Thomas Aquinas. In his treatise on law, Thomas asks "Does it belong to human law to repress all vices?" Citing a statement from the early Christian leader Isidore, Thomas answers in the negative. He sums up:

Now, human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore, human laws do not forbid all vices from which the virtuous abstain but only the more grievous vices from which it is possible for the majority to abstain and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained; thus human law prohibits murder, theft, and suchlike.[4]

"Because of the Lord, be obedient to every human institution, whether to the emperor as sovereign or to the governors he commissions for the punishment of criminals and the recognition of the upright. Such obedience is the will of God," (1 Peter 2, 13-15). This was the command from Peter to the new Christians scattered as strangers throughout the ancient world. Of course, obedience to the civil law did not exhaust a Christian's responsibilities. Their new faith called them also to "strip away everything vicious, everything deceitful" (1 Peter 2, 1). But it was within the discipline and fellowship of the Christian community where this real growth in holiness could best be accomplished. Enough for the state through its civil law to keep a basic peace.

A Troubling Agenda

If everyone seriously participating in the debate on homosexuals and society agrees that gays should be vouchsafed all their basic rights, then why does the debate continue? The answer, briefly, is that many observers are beginning to realize that the goals of the "gay rights" movement go far beyond securing basic rights.

John Leo, a syndicated columnist and contributing editor for U.S. News and World Reports, recently summed up the concerns of people who, though sympathetic to civil tolerance for gays, are wary of following the pathway of gay rights:

What's wrong with gay rights laws? Gay activists argue that they are neutral, merely guaranteeing rights already enjoyed by the straight majority. But don't they actually create a special protected class?...Creating these categories has consequences. This path, taken for blacks, a truly victimized group, isn't necessarily appropriate for other groups. And we are not sure where it would lead. Could it provide the legal scaffolding for gay affirmative action and quotas, or attempts to establish same-sex marriages? No one knows.[5]

[O]ne need only read the manifesto issued by last [April's] Gay and Lesbian March on Washington to see how sentimental and anachronistic is the view that gay rights today is about "freedom."

"We demand," it reads, "inclusion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender studies in multicultural curricula." And "full and equal inclusion of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgendered people in the educational system." And "that the definition of family include the full diversity of all family structures."

Freedom--the ability to conduct private acts without harassment or molestation--of course. But the homosexual movement demands much more: not toleration but public legitimation of homosexuality--through such public institutions as gay marriage and gay school curricula--as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality.[6]

I'm guessing that if lifting the ban meant only that homosexual service personnel would no longer have to lie, no one would care very much. But the fear is that something else would change, in unhealthy directions ... There seems to be some larger fear that lurks just beyond our ability to define it--a sense that we may be about to release some deadly cultural genie.[7]

Lifting the ban is not enough. We intend to sue in federal court as soon as the ban is lifted to ensure compensatory representation in the service academies. In particular, we intend to get a ruling mandating a set number of places for homosexuals in the Air Force Academy, the Naval Academy, and West Point.[8]

Another was "Repeal all laws governing age of consent."[9]

Disrupting the Peace

In legal terms, gay activists are seeking government to grant them what is called special class status and advantages . This would define homosexuals as a disadvantaged minority group, similar to blacks or Native Americans and Hispanics--and grant to gays the same advantages and privileges these other minorities receive in recompense for years of injustice.

While justice demands that the fundamental and Constitutional rights of gays (and all people be) respected, it is far from clear that it calls for the awarding of special class status and advantages. Not all minority groups are eligible for the special status and advantages given to blacks and Native Americans; corporate executives and multimillionaires, for example, rightly have no claim to appeal to the laws and statutes designed to redress the situation of minorities who have a long history of being discriminated against.

The courts have traditionally relied on three criteria in determining whether a minority group is eligible for special class status. According to Marco, these criteria are :

1. As an entire class have suffered a history of discrimination, evidenced by lack of ability to obtain economic mean income, adequate education, or cultural opportunity.

2. As an entire class exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics, like race, color, gender, or national origin, that defines them as a discrete group.

3. As an entire class clearly demonstrate political powerless.

These are the conditions that minority groups seeking special class status have to fulfill; on all three of these criteria, gays fall well short of the mark. gays are not politically powerless; they have enlisted for their cause Hollywood stars and producers, powerful fundraisers, and influential senators and congressmen. Gays do not exhibit any distinguishing characteristics; it is in fact a staple of the gay movement that homosexuals are all among us, making up perhaps a hidden 10 percent of our neighbors, family and friends.[10] And gays have hardly failed to advance in our society; as figures provided in the last section of this paper show, gays are far and away richer, better-educated, and more professionally successful than the average American.

Despite all this, the gay movement is well-advanced towards obtaining special class status under federal law--a prospect causing increasing alarm in quite different sectors of American society. Tony Marco lists some of the outcomes citizens can expect if gay activists succeed in passing gay rights laws that would treat homosexuals as another disadvantaged minority group such as blacks or Hispanics.

• Schools would be forced to hire openly homosexual teachers, and teach children in their curriculum that homosexuality is both normal and attractive behavior.

• Employees would be forced to "value" homosexual behavior --or lose their jobs.

• College students would be forced to "value" homosexual behavior--or be suspended from their schools.

• Landlords would be forced to rent to open homosexuals, thereby subsidizing and protecting behavior both landlords and renters may consider unhealthy and perverse.

• Churches and religious ministries would be forced, against strongly held beliefs, to hire open homosexuals for staff positions. Further, they would be threatened with criminal action and loss of tax-exempt status for preaching against homosexual behavior.

• Taxpayers and consumers would be forced to foot the bill for "spousal benefits" awarded to homosexual "domestic partners," --benefits such as lower tax rates and comprehensive insurance coverage.

Marco asks:

Under special gay advantage legislation, might a Christian minister or Sunday school teacher publicly calling homosexuality a sin be prosecuted for verbal abuse and felony harassment? Might a day care center owner who declined to offer a care-giver's position to an avowed homosexual AIDS sufferer be prosecuted for felony harassment? Might an elderly lady of delicate sensibilities be prosecuted for...discrimination if she refused, conscientiously, to rent a room in her small boarding house to practicing homosexuals? Might a church face criminal prosecution and the threat of loss of its tax exemption if it refused employment to a practicing homosexual?

• The Catholic archdiocese of Minneapolis, Minnesota, was recently forced to pay $20,000 in damages and $15,000 in fines--for refusing to allow a homosexual club to hold meetings in Church-owned facilities. This event followed a 1977 lawsuit filed against Father John Buchanan, a Catholic priest in St. Paul, Minnesota, for refusing to hire a homosexual to teach in his Catholic school. While Buchanan eventually won the suit, it was only after a protracted, costly, and time consuming legal battle. The plaintiff, on the other hand, was represented by city-paid attorneys.

• In May of 1989, two heterosexual women in Madison, Wisconsin were fined $1,500, ordered to write letters of apology, and forced to attend special "sensitivity classes" taught by gays involving graphic depictions of homosexual behavior--all because they had refused to rent a room in their apartment to an openly lesbian applicant. The women's punishment was eventually overturned. But no clear precedent was established in favor of privacy. The Wall Street Journal editorialized on July 20, 1992: "As the definition of discrimination continues to expand, the definition of privacy continues to shrink. Today the fight is apparently over in Madison. But tomorrow in some other city [someone] may find himself in court, defending the very issue of whether he has the right to choose with whom he will live."

• Right now in Boulder, Colorado, under a "gay rights" ordinance, apartment dwellers and dorm-residing college students are told they are legally prohibited from asking if a prospective roommate is gay. If their roommate does happen to be gay, and they wish to change the situation, the financial burden is on them.

Shortly before a "March on Washington" launched by gay extremists in 1987, Jeffrey Levi, then executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said in remarks at the National Press Club that his movement would only be completely successful when "government and society affirm our lives." His remarks are worth quoting at some length.

The demands of the march on Washington reflect what [our] agenda will be in the years ahead. They include passage of the gay and lesbian civil rights bill, an executive order dealing with that branch's discriminatory policies --from the military to security clearances ; passage of similar measures at the state level as well as repeal of sodomy laws.

But our agenda is becoming broader than that: we are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a right to protection from wrong. We also have a right--as heterosexual Americans have already--to see government and society affirm our lives.

Now that is a statement that may make our liberal friends queasy. But the truth is, until our relationships are recognized in the law--through domestic partnership legislation or the definition of beneficiary, for example--until we are provided with the same financial incentives in tax law and government programs to affirm our family relationships, then we will not have achieved equality in American society.[11]

Six years later, the goals of the gay rights movement are all the more settled on achieving affirmation and encouragement by government and society, over and above civic tolerance. And the movement has come a long way towards meeting those goals.

There is good reason to feel "queasy."

Responses

However, several facts relevant to the questions of whether gays should receive special rights under federal law, or whether public schools and institutions should promote homosexual lifestyles as healthy and life-affirming, are not widely known. Such facts--which are independent of any religious or revelational teaching on homosexuality-- include the following compiled by Marco:

• Homosexual behavior is medically unhealthy, and should not be promoted among school children as just an "alternate" way of life. In his study The Homosexual Life-Span, Family Research Institute Founder Dr. Paul Cameron found that the average life-span of an AIDS- stricken homosexual is 39 years; the life-span for homosexuals who do not die of AIDS is 43. In Cameron's study (based on a sample of 4,153 homosexual obituaries), even the minority of homosexuals who did not succumb to AIDS averaged 32 less years of life than the average married man. Said Cameron: "The discrepancy between the median life-span of married men and homosexuals is considerably larger than any registered discrepancy between lifestyles (e.g., smokers and non- smokers) which we could locate in the [medical] literature.

• The homosexual lifestyle is typically distinguished for its promiscuity, as well as for being directed towards lovers of the same gender. AIDS research released in 1982 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that the typical homosexual interviewed claimed to have had over 500 different sexual partners. To put that in perspective, a 1990 University of Chicago study found that the average lifetime number of sexual partners for the U.S. population as a whole is 7.15.

• Even those who do not admit homosexual behavior is destructive per se must be troubled by the promiscuity and lack of intimacy typical of homosexual sex.

• While homosexuals undoubtedly suffer from a social opprobrium directed against their lifestyle, they are not discriminated against in any way measured by economic, professional, or educational indicators. For example, the Simmons Market Research Bureau, in conjunction with the U.S. Census Bureau, found recently that gays have an annual household income of $55,430, compared to $32,144 for the general population. More than three times as many gays as average Americans are college graduates (59.6% vs. 18%), and more than three times as many gays as average Americans hold professional or managerial positions (49% vs. 15.9%).

For Christians, however, the struggle against the gay rights movement does not end with an indictment. The indictment is real enough; but all those who claim the title "Christian" know that the realization of such indictments are fruitful only insofar as they bring us to rely on the saving grace of Christ.

None has spoken more powerfully of the grace offered to homosexuals than Tony Marco. It is fitting that with his plea and charity this paper is closed:

We would ask every gay person to consider a question asked by a great prophet of the Bible: "Why are you striving for that which doesn't satisfy?" (Isaiah 55:2).

Does homosexual behavior meet that need that burns inside us all for deep and lasting love? Gays' extraordinarily fervid promiscuity argues an eloquent "no!" No amount of special gay advantage legislation will bring gay extremists the dignity and fulfillment they crave. But thousands of gay people have stopped striving to find love in ways that don't satisfy. They have found rest from their desperate promiscuity and torment of soul. They have gained true dignity and found love that does satisfy--in the life-changing grace of God. In happy marriages and biological parenthood. In lives of authentic peace and freedom.

The road to release from the torment of homosexuality is not an easy one. But escape can be found from the false "freedom" of gay behavior and other forms of sexual addiction. Hundreds of ex-gay men and women are living proof that sexual addiction can be conquered through compassionate therapy and the power of God.

That is why the deepest purpose of this paper's author and distributors is to extend a hand of hope to gays. To whenever possible introduce gays and families and friends of gays to friends who can tell them more about this hope and encourage them, every step of the way, to walk in true freedom. To all who reach out to it, we are eager to extend that hopeful hand in return.

EDITOR'S NOTE

1. As usual, numbers game follows the demonstration,O The Washington Times, April 26, 1993.

2. R.J. Magnuson, Are Gay Rights Right? Multnomah Press, Portland, 1990. P. 73. As cited by Marco, Tony in Special Class Protection For Gays: A Question of OOrientationO and Consequences. Mr. MarcoOs work has yet to be published. It will soon be available from Christian Leadership Ministries.

   This paper is deeply indebted to research originally compiled by Mr. Marco. Rather than pepper the paper with footnotes, I have acknowledged Mr. Marco internally where possible.

3. Marco, op. cit.

4. Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, Question 96, Article II. Taken from Saint Thomas Aquinas On Law, Morality, and Politics, edited by William Baumgarth and Richard Regan, S.J. Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis, 1988. P. 67.

5. John Leo, OShrinking specters of the gay cohorts,O The Washington Times, April 27, 1993.

6. Charles Krauthammer, OA Matter of Indifference?O The Washington Post, April 30, 1993.

7. Cited by David Horowitz and Peter Collier, OFine print in the line of march,O The Washington Times, April 23, 1993.

8. Cited by Horowitz and Collier, ibid.

9. ibid.

10. Reference to the common gay claim that 10 percent of the population is homosexual is given only as evidence that the logic of the gay activist movement itself argues against gays being a discrete and readily identifiable minority group. In fact, the percentage of homosexuals within society is probably far lower than the 10 percent figure originally put forward by researcher Alfred Kinsey in a highly questionable study released in 1948. Several recent national surveys have put the number of men who have had homosexual experiences at somewhere between 1-3 percent of the population. See, for example, the 1990 National Health Interview Survey, conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. This report, which polled 10,000 subjects, found that less than 3 percent of men had had sex with another man even once since 1977.

11. Marco, op. cit.