Don We Now Our Gay Apparel.....

One of the most controversial issues of our time is that of rights for homosexuals. Even fifty years ago, America never had to address this problem because heterosexuality had always "worked" for man-kind from time immemorial.

Thus far, there is no scientific evidence for existence of a "gay gene", which would occupy a parallel basis for homosexual rights, as an inherited and immutable trait similar to skin color, race and gender does. But genetics alone does not form the basis of our Constitutional rights: We have freedom of religion, and yet our religious beliefs are not genetically determined. Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution First Amendment does extend to all citizens a freedom of assembly, which by extension, also means freedom of association.

Homosexuals argue that government has no place in the human heart, to decide whom we can and cannot love. It is on this basis that the traditional Bible-based marriage model of one man for one woman, and one woman for one man, is being challenged. But this argument hinges upon how we define love: Indeed, the Bible does command its followers to love thy neighbor as thyself. The Bible does give several illustrated examples of love being extended to men by other men. The parable of the Good Samaritan, for example, comes to mind. Ostensibly, then, it is the marital relation, and not just "agape" or "filio" love which is under consideration here.

Given the presence of the 14th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, it would be extremely unwise to outlaw gay marriage--or any other unpopular behaviour--just for reason of its extreme unpopularity, per se. Such prohibition could put America on a slippery slope of outlawing any number of free exercises of constitutionally-legitimate behaviours merely for reason of their extreme unpopularity. We would all do well to remember that most of us are unpopular with somebody else somewhere, for one reason or another. Unpopularity cannot be a valid reason for cancelling out Constitutionally-enumerated freedoms, because these freedoms were and are extended to individuals, to protect them against mob-ocracy. It is to be admitted that the Constitution 14th Amendment in our day is being given extended applications beyond that of the original intent of its authors, i.e. to guarantee equal rights of former slaves with all the rest of the American citizenry. But words are words.

In my earlier BLOG article, "The Limits of Freedom", I stipulated that our exercise of Constitutional rights and freedoms are limited by whether a)said exercise inflicts physical injury upon other persons; b)said exercise inflicts physical damage or destruction upon anybody's property, and c)said exercise constitutes theft or fraud of anyone's money from them. If opponents of homosexual rights(including gay marriage) can come up with objective reasons why the exercise of homosexual rights would inflict physically-measurable damage upon other persons or their property, then indeed, homosexuality deserves no protection under our U.S. Constitution. Otherwise, homosexuals should be entitled to all the same rights under the 14th Amendment to which all other Americans are entitled, and should not be denied said rights merely for reason of their extreme unpopularity. It is true that homosexuals, as a class, have never been denied basic civil liberties, nor have they faced the economic deprivations that certain ethnic minorities have historically encountered. But past history should have no bearing upon our decision to acknowledge the rights of our fellow American citizens today.

Finally, we should also acknowledge that there are thousands of former homo-sexuals who have come out of that life-style, mainly due to the response of God to prayer from His people. What is impossible with man is possible with God.

-LKM