In other words, gay extremists wish to be granted what is known among civil rights authorities as protected class (sometimes referred to as "suspect" or "higher scrutiny") status, special legal standing and advantages historically applied by governments in the United States to classes of people characterized as, in the words of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harlan Stone, "discrete and insular minorities," sharing a distinct and immutable status.

Self-alleged gay activists also wish to be extended the same special class protections accorded to people of good character who are physically challenged or handicapped, whether from birth, or by unchosen accident or disease, also through no deliberate fault, behavior or thoughts of their own.

(As attorney Roger Magnuson has pointed out, such protected class status is generally predicated by demonstrated need resulting in measurable educational, cultural and economic disadvantage. Such protected status is "unrelated to behavior, traditional perceptions of moral character or public health... One's racial inheritance, for example, creates a true class status. Race tells us nothing about a person's lifestyle or behavior" [Are Gay Rights Right?, Magnuson, R.J., Multnomah Press, Portland, 1990. p. 73].) The question gay extremists raise is this:

Should homosexual behavior -- or "orientation," i.e., alleged inclination alone -- compel federal, state and local governments to grant gays their wish, and bestow on them fully recognized and legally sanctioned "protected class" status, with all accompanying special advantages, entitlements and privileges?

We do not wish to suggest denying homosexuals, lesbians or bisexuals any constitutional rights legitimately theirs. We do not question gays' claim to legal protections shared by all citizens on condition of good behavior, including (again, citing analysis by Roger Magnuson) the ability to:

• 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... on campus."
• Publicly assemble, rally, petition, lobby and carry out all forms of political activism and discourse in support of political ideas.
• "Wear badges and buttons in public schools and colleges without fear of disciplinary action by the schools."
• "Be employed under the Civil Service. The Civil Service Commission has given the following directive to its supervisors: `You may not find the person unsuitable for Federal employment merely because that person is a homosexual or has engaged in homosexual acts." (Cf. Magnuson, ibid., pp. 80, 81)
• Create and disseminate publications of interest to those in their lifestyle, subject to laws governing illegal obscenity.

• 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.
• The right to freedom from libel or slander against their persons or reputations.

In fact, most Americans reading this paper who have gay friends or relatives will correctly recognize that their acquaintances/loved ones in no way exhibit the systematic duplicity and absence of integrity so evident in the machinations of gay militants.

It is characteristic of Americans, not to be intolerant, but to be more than willing to believe in the sincere motives even of political opponents. For this reason, many Americans, whether they have gay friends or loved ones or not, are loathe to believe that any group sounding as sincere and professing "societal oppression" so fervently might be doing so knowing that their entire political strategy is based on conscious and programmatic deception and deliberate misinformation.

The author therefore invites readers to consider the following evidence with an open mind, and determine for themselves whether or not the charges made are a just indictment of gay militancy.

In any case, based on access to, and analysis of considerable information about gay political behavior and the current mean economic, educational, cultural and political status of gays in our society, we seriously question (1) whether gays as an entire class truly need or qualify for special protected class status, and (2) whether society may in fact need protection from the probable effects of granting gays protected class status and special advantages as a group solely defined by their claim to experience homosexual fantasies.

Regardless of militant gay protestations to the contrary, it is our conclusion that consistent Constitutional and U.S. Supreme Court analysis clearly reveals that gays as an entire class are not disadvantaged, possess no provably innate, obvious and immutable characteristics, and are anything but politically powerless; therefore gays as an entire class are clearly unqualified for protected class, suspect or quasi-suspect status.

(Careful study of the history of "gay rights" reveals the essence of gay militancy to be nothing more than the politically expedient brainchild of one Harry Hay, an allegedly homosexual Marxist agitator. Hay, founder in 1950 of the Mattachine Society, the first homosexual organization to promote "gayness" as "normal" and to lobby against sodomy laws, first conceived at that time the idea of positioning homosexuals as an "an oppressed minority culture" in American society [cf. The Trouble with Harry Hay, Timmons, Boston: Alyson Publications, 1990, p. 151].)

If gays are not a demonstrably disadvantaged minority class, what are they? Cut through the standard "gay rights" rhetoric to plain truth, and the "gay rights" movement is revealed to be nothing more than a powerful special interest lobby, intent on using its money and political "clout" to "piggyback" on the legitimate gains of the disadvantaged to gain special status and privileges -- at the expense of others truly in need. Certainly, affluent special interest groups, regardless of how frustrated these may feel at not attaining their political goals, are not -- and ought not to be -- protected by anti-discrimination laws. Such groups (as we shall see, gay activists included) are often able to exercise enormous power to advance their own interests. To secure in addition special government protection for their behavior and political agendas would be an outrageous injustice to others who have struggled long and hard against prejudice based on non-behavioral (or non-"sexually oriented") characteristics and experienced true oppression and disadvantagement.

This said, what follows is a discussion of gay "sexual orientation," "gay rights," and reasons why citizens holding to traditional family values may conscientiously, rationally and confidently oppose adding "sexual orientation" with protected class status to any civil rights statutes -- protection which would reward homosexuality, bisexuality and lesbianism with status equal to that enjoyed by traditionally-recognized protected classes. The main body of this discussion, "Protected Class Status for Gays: Civil Right -- Or Uncivil Wrong?" questions the validity of gay extremists' claim to special class protections in light of criteria clearly established by U.S. courts and recognized civil rights authorities. We suggest that the argument contained in this analysis be used as briefing material to inform Americans concerned about legislation granting gays special status and advantages.

Email this to a friend