|
|
  
Special Class Protections for Self-Alleged Gays: A
Question of "Orientation" and Consequences
A public policy analysis
by Tony Marco
Copyright Tony Marco, 1991-1994, all rights
reserved
Previous| Table
of Contents | Next
"Fairness/Compassion" Argument
Gay activists claim that those who would deny them special class status
and advantages are "unfair" or "lack compassion." This is not a
moral issue, they say, but a fairness
issue. Morality shouldn't be an issue here, they say. We beg to
differ. Nowhere does our Constitution demand moral relativism. As
Chief Justice Warren Burger observed in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1986
"Bowers vs. Hardwick" decision, "The law... is constantly based on
notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral
choices are to be invalidated... the courts will be very busy
indeed."
It is impossible to define fairness or compassion without referring to
some moral code or ethical standard. And by what code or standard do
gays imagine it would be fair or compassionate for America to give legal
or protected class status to a special interest,
created by gay militants solely to benefit themselves, whose aggressive
political agenda (1) threatens the civil rights of thousands of people
impacted by it; (2) would forcibly redistribute benefits from the truly
needy to the already well-advantaged; and (3) demands recognition as a
suspect class on no more substantive basis than allegations about how
its members want to engage in sex?
Previous| Table
of Contents | Next
Email this to a friend
copyright
© 1995-2008
Leadership U. All rights reserved.
Updated: 13 July 2002
|