Would lesbian mothers call for additional entitlements because they were not just lesbians but mothers? Would a disadvantaged black lesbian be entitled to triple protected status benefits the moment she came out of the closet? Retroactive to birth? What if she became a mother? Then became handicapped?

The mind boggles! How would status and entitlements ever be equalized given all these new factors? In light of the extreme affluence of gays relative to the general population (see this study, pp. 12 ff.), what would prevent opportunistic individuals from becoming closet heterosexuals, claiming gay class status in order to secure benefits only available to minorities? The New American reports, from an early-1993 Los Angeles Times article: "Producer-turned-gadfly Julia Phillips says that being a lesbian is such a chic '90s thing in Hollywood that many heterosexual women are actually faking an attraction to women to get ahead in the industry" ("It's Hip to Be "Gay," March 22, 1993, p. 37). On the other hand, how will a person perceived to be gay prove otherwise? A June 2, 1993, Associated Press article reported: "The Marine Corps said Tuesday it will review the case of a man who said he left boot camp 10 years ago after a drill instructor falsely accused him of being gay" ("Ex-Marine left boot camp after being called gay," Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, p. A-4). For ten years Robert Farley has been unable to prove he isn't gay! What conceivable standard of proof will America's civil rights authorities devise to determine "sexual orientation" with certainty?

In states still maintaining sodomy statutes, the problem of "gay rights" becomes even more acute. "Gay rights" laws cannot be passed with homosexual behavior as their basis, because "gay rights" statutes would plainly represent a condoning of criminal acts. Thus "gay rights" laws would have no more substantial basis than alleged fantasy or inclination -- obviously impossible qualities to prove, and making "gay" status impossible to define or limit in numbers. No "microphone" exists capable of "amplifying" human thoughts; no camera exists able to capture mental visual sexual imagery. Thus, most narrowly defined, the entire concept of "gay rights" is utterly lacking in Constitutional merit or rational basis. We might as well award "sexual orientation" protection to religious fundamentalists who practice (or just say they wish to practice) sex in man-on-top-"missionary"-position only. Such people probably outnumber homosexuals in America. Or why not "gentlemen who prefer" buxom blonde women only? Again, "sexual orientation" as defined by gay militants to constitute alleged desire but not behavior affords an utterly insubstantial and unprovable basis on which to build an entire new edifice of special status protections. Until and unless it becomes possible to monitor thoughts and/or sexually-related mental imagery, "sexual orientation" can only be alleged -- and special status laws protecting "sexual orientation" so defined cannot be rationally established or enforced.

Consider the following operative definitions of "sexual orientation" recently offered by "gay rights" supporters in the "constitutionality" trial of Colorado's Amendment 2:

• ".a physical attraction to and desire to share sexual intimacy with partners of a particular gender.
• .an emotional attraction to and desire to share emotional intimacy with partners of a particular gender
• .personally identifying oneself as a heterosexual, lesbian, bisexual, or gay
• .establishing a public identity based on your sexual orientation
• .identifying with a community defined by its sexual orientation"

(Source: Civil Rights, Democracy, & Amendment 2, pamphlet produced by GLAAD/Denver, in consultation with the American Civil Liberties Union and others, cop. 1993, page F)

In an era when only 16% of African American women and 12% of African American men hold professional or managerial jobs (vs. 49% of gays), and black-owned businesses annual grosses average less than $50,000 per year (vs. $50,000+ average yearly earnings for individuals comprising gay households -- see The Denver Post, "L.A. riots renew focus on minority firms' plight," May 17, 1992, p. 3-H), to allow gay advantages legislation to bestow resources on a new "protected class" that is in no way disadvantaged, is in truth a special interest and cannot be established or limited on any rational basis would be simply unconscionable. Furthermore, a curious paradox ensues if "sexual orientation," always defined in "gay rights" laws as including homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality, is granted protected class status: Suddenly, even if "sexual orientation" could be proved, more than 90% of the adult population would become equivalent under law to a disadvantaged "minority" class -- regardless of income, education, behavior, political clout, or even ability to prove their "orientation." Come again? 90% of nothing definable becomes a "minority?"

Clearly, grant protected class status and special privileges solely on the basis of how a few people representing a concerted special interest choose to have (or merely say they desire to have) "divergent" sex, and the whole concept of special civil rights protections and their enforcement will become hopelessly compromised, meaningless -- in fact, destroyed.

If "gayness," defined only by unchallengeable alleged fantasy is allowed to establish itself as a protected class for civil rights purposes (a precedent not even allowed for religious profession, which must be verified for civil rights purposes by clear demonstration that religious profession is consistent with religious behavior), the privilege extended to gays will be required to apply to any group claiming benefits and status under civil rights law.

No one's claim by mere allegation will be deniable (or even investigatable) by civil rights authorities. Someone of Scandinavian descent might well secure a legal name change so as to establish a Hispanic identity, in order to gain access to minority civil rights entitlements. If gay militants have their way, the very ability of civil rights authorities to investigate the legitimacy of claims will be destroyed. Thus, the entire fabric of civil rights protections will collapse -- at untold cost to true minorities.

Since civil rights law pertaining to suspect or protected class status was first enacted, it has involved, as it were, temporary abridgements of fundamental Constitutional rights, such as that of free association, to ensure that classes of people who have been demonstrably persecuted or oppressed by society, leaving them disadvantaged and politically powerless, based on non-behavioral characteristics over which they have no control are not excluded from full participation in society.

Presumably, when these protected classes have been "made whole," to use civil rights terminology, and these classes achieve parity of opportunity and status relative to society at large, these special protections will no longer be needed. Gays as an entire class cannot prove a need for suspect or protected class status. To arbitrarily introduce into suspect status groups far more advantaged than America's people-at-large would surely defeat the purpose and intent of civil rights laws as they have always been conceived and enforced, and injure the interests of legitimately qualifying protected classes.

Email this to a friend