I have never been
keen on singling out a particular group to be ostracized because of something
over which they have no control. Racism fits this description. You’re white
or you’re black, yellow or brown. You’re Hispanic or you’re Latino, Chicano,
whatever. And, of course, there’s the old reliable bias against Jews. Catholics,
too, catch a bit of this and just about any church-going Protestant.
So I approach the issue of sexual preference with some trepidation because,
throughout history, homosexual behavior has always been regarded as an aberration
and, more specifically, a threat to civil and social norms. With considerable
bravery and skill, homosexuals in America have fought to secure an equal
footing under the law. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States…” It does not, however, reference
In recent weeks, the Supreme Court extended to homosexuals the right to be
free of a law in Texas that defined their sexual behavior as a crime. This
decriminalization of that State’s and all other’s laws seems to me correct.
The most private and personal thing anyone engages in pertains to one’s sex
life. I think, too, that those who have extrapolated this decision to include
pederasty or bestiality are mistaken, as these are clearly either a threat
to children or a perversion of Nature. Such laws remain intact for these
reasons. And should remain.
What we have all witnessed, however, is a growing body of “entertainment”
in which homosexuality has been offered to the public as a “normal”, i.e.
a variation of heterosexuality, component of society. Shows like “Will &
Grace” and the plethora of new shows featuring homosexuals now fill the airwaves.
Americans have been subject to a vast propaganda campaign, particularly coming
out of Hollywood, aided and abetted by the mainstream news media, to grant
homosexuals both social and legal acceptance and rights that run counter
to the general well-being of society. History teaches that societies that
“bent the rules” declined and failed. Ancient Greece and Rome come instantly
The result, however, has been a notable backlash of public opinion. A recent
poll taken by USA Today showed that, whereas 60% of adults previously thought
homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal, only 48%
concur with that now. The opposition to homosexual “marriages” had risen
to 57%, the most since this was first polled in 2000.
What I suggest is that there are limits that any society must put on the
“mainstreaming” of homosexuality. Marriage is the core of all societies and
universally recognized as a union between a man and a woman. This is as Nature
dictates. The argument put forth by homosexuals that their sexuality is “normal”
ignores the obvious. It is not. To deny such couples the “right” to marriage
Criticizing “right-wing, Christian fundamentalists” or any other religious
group for their opposition is a deliberate diversion from the simple, obvious
truth that marriage exists for the maintenance of society. One could remove
religious objections entirely and still recognize the need to maintain the
institution of marriage.
Homosexuals, of course, do not see it in this manner. They argue that their
sexual preference is “natural” to them and poses no threat to society in
general. My view is that homosexuals are “wired” for their sexual preference
and, most likely, are homosexual from birth. That does not, however, render
it “natural.” Sex is the means by which Nature insures the continuation of
a given species. Homosexuals do not engage in sex for that purpose, nor can
they procreate. Heterosexuals understand this instinctively, even as homosexuals
protest for their “right” to marry.
Society has the right and duty to protect and preserve itself. This does
not mean persecution of homosexuals, but it does mean that it is absolutely
necessary to set limitations on the assertion of homosexual “rights.” Among
the many ways a society can be set on the path to decline is the failure
to protect the concept of family.
The Fourteenth Amendment was later amended by the Fifteenth that stated,
“The rights of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color,
or previous condition of servitude.” It does not specify sex. The Sixteenth
Amendment addresses the right of women to vote. Nothing in the Constitution
grants homosexuals the right to marry, nor should it be interpreted as such.
Therein lies the reason to reject the many politicians who today are “playing
the Gay card” in exchange for votes. If that were the only reason to vote
against them, it would be a good and valid one.
Alan Caruba is the author of Warning Signs, published by Merril Press. His weekly commentaries are posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center.