And They Say We Already Have Equal Rights

I've gotten into many debates, online and in person, with those who claim that passing hate crime legislation or laws that prevent discrimination against GLBTs would be granting them special rights. So I thought I'd take this opportunity to demonstrate why, contrary to the claims of those who make this assertion, that gays do not have equal rights. And I'll even give a few examples of where I agree it would be granting special rights.

I used to be a trained leader of the Boy Scouts of America. My opinion of the BSA may appear contradictory at first, but I support the local packs who really have nothing to do with the politics of the regional or national offices. I was very involved in the BSA, as a den leader and as pack secretary and treasurer. I never brought my orientation into scout meetings. In fact, when I was forced to resign, it took all the parents in the entire pack by surprise. I completely explained that I was being forced out and why, but I did it through a letter to the parents that I personally handed to the parents so that I could not be accused of attempting to force the "gay agenda" on the boys. At that time, the BSA was embroiled in a lawsuit over the firing of a gay leader. The case was taking place in New Jersey, which had anti-discrimination laws. But the BSA said it was a private organization and was therefore exempt from such laws. I agree with their argument that private organizations are exempt from anti-discrimination laws because they are private. However, the BSA received billions of dollars every year in funding from the government, which made them legally a public organization. The outcome of the case was that the courts declared the BSA to be a private organization, and therefore they lost billions of support from the federal, state and local governments, which they complained about. But it's a case of "you can't have your cake and eat it too." If you want to be a private organization, you can't accept sponsorship of money from the government. It's really that simple. (Or at least was until Bush created faith-based initiatives, but that's another story.)

So our first story is about the alleged lesbians who were kicked out of a private Lutheran school. While I don't agree with discrimination, the school is perfectly within its rights to discriminate against these girls, whether they're lesbians or not. A private organization, which this school is, can allow or disallow "membership" based on whatever reasons it chooses. To force this school to allow gays to attend would be a violation of the separation of church and state. As long as the school receives no government funding, then they can allow in who they want and keep out who they don't want regardless of the reason. If a court rules that gays are allowed to attend this private school, then it would most definitely be a case of granting special rights to gays.

The next topic we come to is hate crimes. Hate crime laws do not, as many claim, outlaw hate speech, hateful thoughts, or hatred of any particular group. What hate crimes do is define "mitigating circumstances" much the same way as the differentiation between first and second degree murder or murder and justifiable homicide define the mitigating circumstances that make a crime one as opposed to the other. What hate crime laws do is say that if you target someone because of their race, age, gender, faith, orientation, nationality, etc., then the punishment will be higher. Just like saying If you target someone with the intention of killing them the punishment will be higher than if you target someone with the intention of just scaring them and accidentally kill them. Hate crimes apply to everyone, so if a black man targets a white man because of his race, then the black man will be charged with a hate crime. If a Jew would target a Christian because of his faith, then the Jew would be charged with a hate crime. Hate crime legislation does not create a specially protected group of people. It protects all people from being targeted for a reason that is beyond their control. It may seem like it protects gays more than other groups, but that's merely because gays are attacked more than other groups.

And now we come to the granddaddy of issues for gays. Marriage. In November of 2009, more than 150 Christian leaders and social conservatives signed a document called the "Manhattan Declaration". The document focused on three of the big hot-button issues in our day and age: abortion, gay rights and what the rrr calls "religious liberty" (which actually means "we want to go back to the time when Christians had special privileges in American society", but that's another story.) Among the signers of this document were James Dobson, Jonathan Falwell (son of Jerry Falwell) and syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher (who I wrote about on my Exposed! pages).

The irony of this is document is that these are, for the most part, very learned individuals who have made the logical fallacy of putting forth their faith as facts and basing their entire argument against gay marriage on the mistaken premise that their faith is fact. This is called circular logic. Simplified it's would be like me saying "This book about fairies is true because I believe it is true." and then going to to say that the existence of fairies can be proven by the fact that the book says fairies exist!

The founders of this great nation we call America did not intend for any one set of spiritual beliefs to be the basis for the laws of this country. And in fact, they are not. The Golden Rule, which is really the basis for all our laws (or at least should be the basis) is found in virtually every faith known to man in some form or another. And it is also mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What else does that mean if not the right to live our lives as we see fit according to the beliefs we hold dear? And how can that be done if we don't first extend that same right to everyone else? Which is exactly what the Golden Rule tells us to do: treat other people the way we want to be treated.

The very purpose of a government, according the Declaration of Independence, is to protect each and every individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means if I'm gay and I want to marry a woman, then the government must protect my right to do so because by doing so, I am not interfering with anyone else's right to live their life as they see fit or to believe what they want about gay marriage. Therefore, laws that prohibit such marriage are unconstitutional and those who support such laws are advocating for the overthrow of the US Constitution. If I am not free to marry who I choose (assuming, of course, that we're speaking of someone who is capable of making an informed decision), then I am not protected under the laws of the US Constitution like heterosexuals are. And yes, this means allowing polygamy, but it does NOT mean allowing the marriage of children or of animals or other absurd claims by the rrr. It will also NOT force churches who are against gay marriage to perform a gay marriage any more than the courts can force a private school to allow two students who might be gay to attend that school.

While I find it sad that we need laws to allow gays to marry (I find it just as sad that we need laws to allow blacks to vote and to marry whites), to prohibit such marriage is a violation of the civil rights of gays to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

However, if anyone can provide me a logically valid reason that is not based on personal beliefs for not allowing gays to marry, I'll never post on the topic again.