Go back one page
PRO-GAY ESSAYS BY STUART NORMAN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Permission granted for anyone to distribute this writing
free of charge (including translation into any language)...
under condition no profit is made therefrom, and
that the document is distributed in its complete and
original form, including credit to the rightful author.
--------------------------------------------------------------
HOW TO FIGHT THE RIGHT WING
copyright 1995 by Stuart Norman
e-mail: cyrwyn@nr.infi.net
The gay community seems to believe that we cannot offensively
fight the right wing. Our political agenda is to act from a
defensive position that in itself is usually good, however,
it's no way to win. Within our defensive posture there is
victim consciousness, especially because we are the majority
victims of AIDS. We solicit sympathy from weakness, seeking
help from others stronger than us. The right wants to make us
victims, and we play into their strategy. They are experts at
creating us vs. them strategies. But the right wing has its
inherent weaknesses and is not well liked by the mainstream
americans who do not condone overt discrimination nor want to
be told how to live. Are we afraid to mount a frontal attack?
I feel that this concept is beyond the comprehension, or is it
courage, of most of our mainstream gay political leaders and
among the grassroots. Too many of us appear not to care. So we
have allowed the RW to define the field of battle. We're
always playing a game of catch-up after each of their attacks.
The fundamentalists have narrowed their focus towards
overturning all gay rights protections. We are becoming their
number one scapegoat. Some of their tracts say that they do
not hate us, but only the homosexual act. There is, after all,
some diversity within fundamentalist ranks. Some of them may
not hate us, but we can be reasonably sure that many of them
do hate and fear us. This issue would not be so important to
them without hatred and fear driving it. It should be very
clear to everyone that they cannot handle the debate over
sexuality. They wish to abolish all sex education and censor
all references to homosexuality in the schools and in society
at large. Obviously, they want us to disappear by taking away
our right to make our existence a social issue.
We gays have supported a diversity of lifestyle and opinion in
our political thinking. But there is so much diversity in the
nation that there can be little agreement among groups and
divisions within these groups; there is growing factionalism
and a sense of otherness. America has lost a commonality of
perception and purpose, and so has our movment.
Fundamentalists oppose this diversity, see and fear it as a
disentegration of society; they are attempting to create a
united purpose.
Along with these fears are worries about the economy and the
decline of the American dream as we approach the end of the
century and the millenium, thus growing fundamentalism is
"Millenial Fever" . It could well decrease after the year
2000.
Gay rights has been tied to feminism, pro-choice, anti-racist
and other social welfare causes. Not all issues within these
movements are pertinent to gay rights, and we have a diversity
of opinion within our community concerning these issues. Gay
rights need not be tied to all of the old liberal and
left-wing political thought. But the more we have in common
with other groups the more we strengthen our own cause.
Because the RW has declared war on us, and in war all morality
is lost, can't we use some of their tactics and strategies
against them? They do not fight fairly; we can't afford to,
either. Yes, we may be accused of lowering ourselves to their
level, but think what will happen if they win. Not only will
our community suffer, but others as well. Their kind of
discrimination knows no bounds. Once they subdue one scapegoat
they will look for another. There would be justice in causing
them to suffer the kind of discrimination they have
demonstrated against us. They think their way is best; but we
think ours is best and we have upheld a morality of fairness,
they have not. There is a fundamental difference, however,
because ours allows personal, individual freedom of thought
and action. We support plurality.
We know that the RW operates on the emotions of guilt and fear
to gain influence. After all, this is a Christian influenced
nation; its morality permeates our consciousness. Christian
morality is difficult to combat, even when it isn't moral
because Christianity is associated with morality. Any movement
that operates from hatred and uses fear to move people cannot
be healthy or sane. Members of such movements have
psychological problems. This is their weakness. They are
hurting and projecting their hurt onto others, seeking others
to blame for their hurts and not taking responsibility for
healing their own hurts.
We should understand that one's emotional makeup, learned in
childhood, influences one's beliefs, political and otherwise.
If one grows up in an authoritarian atmosphere of sexual
repression, abusive disciplinary practices, limited freedom of
thought and experience that characterize a fundamentalist
upbringing, then they will believe that the world is a harsh
place and will act out of hate and fear rather than love. This
closed mindset cannot tolerate some differences in others'
beliefs and actions which are perceived as a threat to its
existence. It defines a paranoid, fascist mentality.
Authoritarian politics arises out of this psychological
fascism. Thus politics alone cannot solve the problem.
However, a politics that takes into account this psychological
knowledge can forge an effective attack against it.
A fundamentalist political group, the Christian Coalition,
uses these strategies and tactics for an eventual takeover of
America: They believe that both the Democratic and Republican
parties are either bankrupt and will fade away or must be made
to do so or else taken over. Their strategy is to find an
issue that a voter will agree with and put him/her on their
mailing/support list, and then can direct their influence
toward that voter's beliefs. Thus they create ad hoc
coalitions out of disparate minority opinions. This creates a
huge voting block for their issues. Could we not do the same?
Also, christian lawyers are taking their agenda into the
courtrooms. We must be ready to fight their arguments with
informed discourse.
We need to hit the RW on issues not previously in the
limelight and define them for ourselves. The following list
offers many considerations for fighting the fundamentalists,
not all of them are compatible or applicable in every
instance.
* Many fundamentalist churches and organizations fit the
definition of cults. They have powerful leaders to whom the
followers must look for guidance and to whom most of the money
flows. This organization is in opposition to mainstream
organized religion, in that they build monolithic,
isolationist power bases rather than broad charities open to
everyone.
* Right wing fundamentalism represent the resurgence of
fascism. This authoritarian mindset represents a psyco-social
problem dangerous to the health of society. It needs a social
therapeutics. Thus we redefine fundamentalism and fascism as
dysfunctional and pathologically dangerous.
* Tell the media and the people that once fundies have their
way with us, then next will be Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, many
other minorities. Liken the right wing and fundies to Nazis,
KKK, etc. Use the holocaust, Hitler and WWII themes. If we
have to use fear tactics, then exploit the possibility of a
right wing, religious dictatorship. Fundies must have some
group to blame and hate. No one is safe. There would be
witch-hunts. And storm troopers marching in the streets.
* Fundies will first attempt to censor sex on TV, especially
MTV and similar videos which depict soft porn or rock music
that is suggestive of sex. The they will make any private
communication subject to draconian obscenity laws.
* Charge fundies as being unchristian; perhaps false
christians doing evil by pretending to be good. Their own
theology supports this doctrine. Evil must pretend to be good.
The more strident and self-righteous they are is a barometer
of their being under the influence of evil or emotionally
unstable. How many of them lie for their cause? Create
situations to expose their raw hatred.
* Fundamentalists are often humorless. Use humor to defuse
their anger. Satire of fundamentalist beliefs will work better
than direct attacks.
* Call the fundamentalist and right wing actions subversive,
deceptive. "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
* Fundamentalists are openly preaching intolerance and the
duty to hate. What do these people know of love? This cannot
be Christianity.
* Attack the seamy side of how fundamentalist groups
proselytise their followers by creating videos such as "The
Gay Agenda" and publishing and selling sensationalistic photos
and hate tracts against us. These are calculated to appeal to
prurient interests with the imprimis of promoting morality.
They are trying to have their sex and eat it, too.
* We may be able to get more media attention by using
sensationalistic rhetoric against the fundamentalists. Already
the fundies are using falsehoods that many of Hitler's Nazis
were homosexual and evil. But the Nazis purged their ranks of
homosexuals and sent many to the concentration camps. Turn the
tables on the fundies. Accuse them of rabid evil.
* The fundies are also fighting the disentegration of the
Judaeo-Christian culture, which no longer fits our lifestyles
and knowledge. Another religion may be in gestation, and they
are fighting against it.
* We need to oppose the RW contention that "Back to the Bible"
will solve all our problems. It is precisely some of the
biblical injunctions that are philosophically problematical
and are the source of modern problems. For example,
Judaeo-Christianity hasn't been able to philosophically
resolve sexuality issues. And America is the most sexually
immature society.
* Address the issue that Fundamentalists wish to change the
Constitution to admit prayer in schools and institutionalize
Christian "laws". Their beliefs and ideology that the U. S.
was a founded as a christian nation is false. They wish to
rewrite history.
* Fundies do not support the ideals of the American Founding
Fathers. The founders were well aware of the dangers from the
fundamentalists types - that is why this country was
instituted with a Bill of Rights. We can accuse the fundies of
being un-American. We support religious freedom. They do not.
* Not all fundamentalists are against us, however they may not
totally agree with us, either. Many are concerned, loving,
but misinformed people. We are opposed to the ones filled with
hate or political opportunists. We need to expose the raw
hatred beneath the rhetoric of apparent concern and
theological justifications. Therefore we must be able to argue
against their belief system to expose the reality beneath, and
to push the buttons that trigger the irrational hatred, then
we can demonstrate what the fundies really stand for.
* Fundamentalists lack of compassion and judgemental position
concerning AIDS is a cause for its spread throughout the
population. Their restrictions on the dissemination of sexual
information and condoms represent a threat to the social
health. They are the sick ones.
* In their defense of the family, fundamentalists want to put
women back under the domination of men and keep them at home,
abrogating the rights of women. This is simply a white male,
protestant power play, first for control of the family and,
ultimately, society.
* Do parents have a right to control what ideas their children
may be exposed to? We could make this a major issue. For a
parent to control a young mind to the exclusion of ideas the
parent does not like is censorship. Fundamentalists teach that
parents have this responsibility. But children are not owned
by parents, however the right-wing would like to make this so.
They fear government education, perhaps rightly so, believing
it indoctrination. That is why they want to control
government. They want the priviledge and power to indoctrinate
our society through its children. But there shouldn't be one,
approved method of education. A mind should be exposed to a
broad range of ideas and opinions, judgements and critiques
about those ideas. It is a violation of a human being to
indoctrinate and/or censor ideas. Parents should only be
guides. The right wing wants a strong, nuclear family headed
by a dominant male because it is an isolated entity and can be
more easily controled. The nuclear family can be
dysfunctional and a place to hide indiscretions. It is
representative of the closed mind, thus the cornerstone of
right-wing thought. This control leaves us with disadvantaged
people who are less productive and creative than those who
have a broad exposure to ideas. Children would flourish best
under many parents in extended families where they are exposed
to many viewpoints, also relieving the burden of parenting. We
should say that we do want to change society and the family
and offer this better, functional model.
* A greater number of child and spouse abusers and
dysfunctional families exist among the right wing. Of course,
most child abusers are heterosexual and in the family of the
abused child. Their defense of the family could again hide
untold horrors.
* A philosophical position to take on gay mariage is that no
one has the moral right to deny us or to decide whether we can
marry or not. That decision is wholly our right, particularly
of the parties involved. We need to make clear that any
beliefs denying rights to free expression are evil.
* In the fight for the right to marry, gays can attack the tax
status of married couples. Is there a hidden agenda of
resistance behind recognizing gay marriage because gays could
file income taxes jointly? Therefore we can attack the joint
filing special recognition for marrieds. The single person,
whether straight or gay, faces the greatest tax
discrimination. Marrieds without children have an advantage in
that they share living expenses and get tax deductions. Talk
about special rights! Marrieds with children should, however,
have tax deductions because they are financially supporting
others, as should anyone with dependents. We could gain the
support of a vast number of singles.
* We need to take a position that marriage is a sacred and
religious union and should not be recognized by the
government. This is a violation of the separation of church
and state.
* A strategy and tactics of the right wing has been political
attacks against us, many we have won, but at great monetary
and human-hour costs, limiting our energies needed to fight
AIDS. The right is trying to wear us down financially and
morally. Therefore we need to plan political attacks against
the right, whether frivilous or not, that they must fight by
using their money and precious time. We can deflect their
strategy against us. A good way to fight them is to tie them
up in litigation.
* When our rights are at stake we need to be able to publicly
question those who would deny us and expose their prejudices,
get to their core beliefs so that nothing is left of the
rationalizations that present an anti-gay position.
* Many fundamentalist leaders are afraid to meet with us and
engage in dialogue. Exploit this reticence and force them to
see us as real people. We should challenge the fundies to face
and debate with us. If they will not, then that is useful in a
media campaign.
* We need to find an issue to take before the nation that
would threaten any existing special rights of right
wingers/fundamentalists. Certainly the non-profit tax status
of some of their religious/political organizations bears
investigation. Can we hit them as they have us? Do they have
any "special rights" that we might threaten?
* We need to set up stronger computer networks for sharing
information. Already, gays dominate the high-tech computer
communications industries. We are ahead of the right wing
here. More of us should act as agents by infiltrating right
wing BBSs.
* We should organize a campaign to buy small radio stations in
some major markets to broadcast a specifically gay and human
rights agenda. We should have our own anti-fundy and
anti-fascist talk radio programs.
* We need to create mass-mailing organizations and PACs,
modeled after right wing organizations, to solicit for
broad-based human rights and issues. How can we fund these?
* Can we create or ally with a social policy think tank? How
could we fund it? We need input into progressive think tanks.
* We need to learn how to manipulate the media as well as does
the right wing. They are masters at it. It is image that
counts in today's world. Our spokespersons need to fit a
middle-of-the-road, mainstream image, whether they really are
or not. Call it protective camouflage, but our representatives
need to appear normal. However, they can speak for a diversity
that need not exclude any of our radical groups.
* Keep pushing into the public consciousness that the
right-wing's arguments are not based on reason. They don't
have any good ideas. They only want to stiffle the debate -
put it back in the closet - so that people cannot learn about
us and form any independent opinions. This is the rationale
behind their attempts at censorship. We are writing the best,
reasonable arguments and defenses for our rights and for
plurality.
* Work toward laws making censorship (for adults) and any form
of discrimination unconstitutional. A government representing
the collective of the people has never had an inherent right
and will never have the inherent right to censor private
communication among adults. Legalizing censorship is far more
dangerous than the chance that a child will be exposed to and
harmed by pornography. A campaign equating censorship as the
greatest obscenity should be mounted.
* We want no special rights for anyone nor any
institutionalized discrimination toward anyone for any reason.
Play down exclusive gay rights. We don't need specific gay
rights laws as much as we need human rights laws. It would be
better to press for legislation that removes discriminatory
laws, such as sodomy or "Crime against nature," or grants
special priviledges to any group, then we need no laws that
grant special protection.
* Push for a constitutional right to privacy, otherwise
strengthen state laws concerning individual privacy.
Consensual private practices are not morally the purview of
the government.
* The social restrictions that fundamentalist legislation
would impose could hurt the economy. The more the RW gains in
power the worse the economy, because freedom for all people to
act, make choices, buy, sell as they see fit is restricted.
Thus economic opportunities for discriminated minorities are
reduced. The far right influence would make the U. S. a second
rate power. (see the isolationist beliefs of the John Birch
Society)
* Because of right wing fundamentalist censorship, our
nation's textbooks have suffered a bowdlerization, especially
science textbooks - they are abysmal. No wonder our nation
ranks low in science education. And they are restricting
public access to knowledge by banning books from public
libraries. Thus the fundamentalists are creating an ignorant
populace, hurting our ability to lead and compete in world
markets. They want an ignorant, fearful populace that can be
easily ruled. We need to campaign for free thought and
exposure to all ideas in the public secondary schools.
* Attack the credibility of evangelists. It is well-proven
than many have been charlatans and criminals, exploiting their
followers in pursuit of political power and wealth.
* Outing: There probably are many closeted gays in the
conservative ranks whose fear and loathing of themselves and
fear of being exposed and losing respect of colleagues, job,
and positions of influence make them enemies. Any closeted gay
person in a position of political influence against the gay
movement deserves to be outed. It is a fair practice in this
war. Such persons might first be warned to cease and desist
their homophobic activities or withdraw from the position of
influence or else their sexual orientation will be made
public. We might expose the hypocrisy of some influential
right-wingers.
* No matter how many times it has been said, more of us must
come out of the closet and live our lives openly and freely,
unapologeticly as examples for our community and everyone
else. It is harder for the fundies to hurt those of us who are
out and more difficult for them to use us as scapegoats when
our lives are known. It is harder for the media to ignore us.
* Concerning elected judgeships by whom anti-gay issues might
be decided, a study of their records of past decisions should
be published to influence re-election.
* We must learn to have a respect for religion. It exists, and
has a place in society. Many of our own people are devoutly
religious.
* Present the argument that religious groups must not actively
promote a political message as they do now, otherwise they
should be classified as PACs or lobbying organizations, and
their current activities proscribed by tax and other
organizational regulations. We could then demand equal time in
the media to disseminate our political message to counter
theirs. We need to make this an issue of separation of church
from state.
* Various Christian groups have banded together in common
cause to oppose gay rights, abortion, many freedoms, but their
views differ greatly in many other respects. We can cause them
to fight each other over their fundamental differences.
* Can we institute a class action suit against right-wing
fundamentalists for defamation of our people, or slander?
* Devise ways to reflect fundy hatred back on themselves. They
will burn out.
* Create a clandestine "Mission Impossible" team to entrap and
expose fundamentalist criminals.
* Create an organization specifically for fighting the Right
Wing.
* Bigot Busters in Washington State is a good example of how
to fight fundamentalist led initiatives by disseminating the
truth and causing citizens to question the reasons for such
initiatives.
* Solicit gay-supportive Christians to witness for us. Mel
White is a good example.
* The RW uses recently refuted, false statistics that gays are
a financially advantaged minority. We are not. Their leaders
are obviously financially advantaged.
* They call us a militant minority. They are the militant
minority. Every chance we get we must call attention to these
dangerous militants in the media.
* We must grow beyond our political correctness and old
leftist ideologies because they are as doctrinaire and
dysfunctional as fundamentalist beliefs.
* Some fundamentalists are accusing all liberals and Democrats
of having no morals. We can make much of this patently
ridiculous attitude. Different sets of moral values are not a
total lack of morals. Study philosophy and debating tactics to
learn the art of rational argument to use against them.
* Fundamentalists accuse us and other groups of being
elitists. This has become a Republican ploy against Democrats.
But traditionally the Republican Party has been the party of
big business and the wealthy elites, the party of minimal
social responsibility. And the televangelists who control this
movement are very wealthy elites. The fundamentalists usually
support a rabid capitalism which bases God's approval on those
He makes wealthy. This causes them to disapprove of the poor
and disadvantaged. They are also defensive, militaristic and
isolationist. They want to be a chosen people. This is elitism
in its most irresponsible form.
* The old liberal Democrats have only been fair-weather
friends to our movement. They still represent a
middle-of-the-road cultural belief that doesn't make waves.
The democrats lost their vision of a better way of life for
the people. No longer must we feel an allegiance to them.
* Many of the fundamentalist positions on abortion, gay
rights, etc., are a diversion from the important issues that
need to be addressed. They don't want to face the real issues,
such as overpopulation, environmental issues, militarism,
government mismanagement, social problems, racism, the
economy, planning for the future. They wish to quell debate
and make invisible any issues they believe unchristian.
Anti-gay and abortion platforms give them a soapbox to divert
the public attention from issues nearer to the core of our
culture. They blame us for problems that we could not possibly
cause.
* Whether or not gayness is a choice or biological-genetic,
the fundamentalists will find a rationalization against it.
For us, the argument is: if a choice, it's a human right. If
genetic, it is natural or even God's will. Of course, the
fundamentalists will argue that gayness is either an immoral
choice or a genetic defect (they'll have a hard time
reconciling this with their views on abortion). Rational
argument will not affect them. It is not enough that we
support our own point of view. Many of us are not comfortable
with the idea that gayness might be a choice. We must destroy
the fundamentalist rationale as a valid philosophy.
* If fundies wish to discriminate against us, then we can do
the same against them. Should we call for discriminatory laws
against fundamentalists, limiting their right to employment,
housing, etc.? Probably not, but we can privately discriminate
against them and make it widely known that we will
discriminate against them.
* We must work more at the grassroots level in our local
communities and states rather than expecting to succeed on a
federal level. Too many of our high level activists are
relying on the courts and the federal government to save us.
But the fundies wish to infiltrate the judiciary, too, and
cause interpretation of law from their view. There is no final
refuge for us without us challenging their beliefs head-on.
Grassroots organizing in cities as well as small towns,
getting involved in common local issues and allowing neighbors
and political officials to know us, is the best way to difuse
fear and loathing.
* Write your Representatives and Senators, whether you voted
for them or not. Remind them that they represent you, too.
They need to hear from their opposing constituients.
* Be able to admit that our movement has made political
mistakes. We have been ill-prepared to face some political
fights. Too many times our political timing has been bad.
Hotheads and political incompetents have created too much
negative media attention. We want the public support,
therefore we must be able to work with them, not against them.
There are times when only radically outraged protest will
suffice; other times carefully planned and slow political
work, building coalitions and seeking favors is the best way.
* If fundies succeed in passing restrictive laws on us,
forcing many of us back into the closets or into jails and
concentrations camps, then we must be ready to declare real
war. Who among us is ready to violently defend ourselves when
they come for us? Or to create and join underground,
subversive organizations dedicated to the overthrow of a
fundamentalist government? If they are ready to kill us, then
we must be ready to kill them. But they must fire the first
shot. It is they who are forcing the issue of our survival.
Not we, theirs. This is an issue we must face now.
* In the end, fascism always burns itself out, but at great
cost to society. It must be viewed as a social illness that
cannot sustain a civil society. Can we find a cure?
Whatever we do to fight the restrictive behaviors of fascist
fundamentalists and right-wingers, we only defeat their
influence on a body of other people. We will have not changed
the biggots. The only way to change them is to get them out of
their closed world and involved in non-threatening ways with
people they otherwise would not meet. Then their compassion
might come through and break their doctrinaire beliefs and
they might truly see the harm they have done.
From time to time I will update this document as I discover
new ideas. I welcome all input. Send me your ideas. The more
ways we can find to fight the right, the better we can secure
our future.
This document may be reproduced and distributed in any media
free of charge as long as it is reproduced in full with author
and copyright information intact.
Stuart Norman
cyrwyn@nr.infi.net
==============================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------
Permission granted for anyone to distribute this writing
free of charge (including translation into any language)...
under condition no profit is made therefrom, and
that the document is distributed in its complete and
original form, including credit to the rightful author.
--------------------------------------------------------------
CAN WE TOLERATE A VOTE ON RIGHTS?
copyright 2000 by Stuart Norman
e-mail: cyrwyn@nr.infi.net
The issue of gay rights legislation, specifically
anti-discrimination ordinances, have caused me to wonder for
some time about how we discriminate and what is allowable in
the public and private realms. Although I am not a lawyer, I
am a student of the philosophical principles underlying law,
and I find the current legal thinking and practice on
anti-discrimination issues very disturbing. The legal
precedents we have been using to fight discrimination are
simply wrong-headed. I am constantly amazed that the concept
of constitutionally protected rights hasn't been considered in
the fight for equal rights. We GLBT people have always had
rights, it's just that some people think that the exercise of
our rights will threaten theirs and they must prevent us from
that action.
The U. S. Constitution states that all people are created
equal and have equal rights under the law. Nowhere in the
constitution is there any exception. Why do we not see this?
If we accept this idea then why do we citizens think that we
have a right to vote for or against the rights of any
individual or group? If we can vote to restrict the rights of
some group, then no one is safe because we can vote against
each other. This creates a conflict of rights. I contend that
all such referenda are unconstitutional. We have no right to
vote on the rights of others. That is reserved by the
constitution to lie outside the realm of government.
The theory of individual rights creates this premise: Human
rights precede government and law. Accordingly, government is
instituted to protect, preserve and promote individual rights,
otherwise it has no other valid reason to exist. All laws must
logically follow from this premise. Any other government is
simply a coercive might makes right power relationship of a
few over the many and cannot be fair and just. But rights also
carry responsibilities, a reciprocal relationship of the
individual to society. A citizen has a duty to uphold the law
and make sure that the government acts responsibly and does
not infringe on rights.
Under the law concerning the public realm, we are all equal,
therefore that law cannot recognize unique individuals or
groups. We are interchangeable, all treated alike, no
differences may legally be recognized among us. Therefore, we
have no right to discriminate in the public realm. Then why
should the government recognize protected groups, setting
their status above others? It becomes a fight among groups for
recognition that thwarts equal rights. But the civil law
concerning the private realm is essentially different. There,
individuals and their specific needs and wants are
significant.
Although we mouth support for human rights, we have a very
imperfect understanding of rights. With complacency, we accept
law without questioning it. Our neglect of imparting an
understanding of human rights and responsibilities to
succeeding generations falls squarely on all of us, however, I
lay the blame primarily on our educational system for not
teaching what living in a free society means.
We violate the constitution and the law because of prejudice
and apathy. The Jim Crow laws in the South of the past and
"Separate but Equal" were found unconstitutional, but these
decisions by the Supreme Court did not make them
unconstitutional; they were always unconstitutional! These
decisions only forced legal changes.
Much of discriminatory law still in force came from the common
law imported from Europe before this country was founded. When
the constitution was ratified shouldn't we have thrown out all
the old common law and started afresh or at least have checked
all those laws against the document to see which ones passed
muster? Yet the constitution has no legal force until
legislation is passed and statutes are implemented defining
permissible legal action. Taking this concept further, all
discriminatory laws now on the books should be considered
unconstitutional, including sodomy or crime against nature
laws because they concern only private behavior, usually of a
consensual nature, and do not violate another's rights.
The upshot of this idea leaves room for private discrimination
and solves many problems in the conflict of rights quandary
between public and private realms, after all, we do
discriminate against others and I doubt that that can be
legislated away. Freedom of association is also the freedom of
disassociation. It is free choice. Boldly, it could be called
the freedom to discriminate. It belongs rightly and
exclusively in the private realm where government may not
intrude. The one problem remaining is where and how to define
the boundary between the two realms.
For example, if a fundamentalist christian chooses to
discriminate against me by refusing to rent private property
to me, then why can't I refuse to rent my property to or enact
any business with fundamentalist christians who are actively
trying to thwart my freedom, even my life, my right to exist?
This kind of civil retaliation is a way to live in the same
society and yet disagree and it tends to demonstrate the
negative effects of discrimination in a free market of ideas
and economics. Yet this realm will provide the appropriate
socioeconomic niches for those who need them and allow their
unique development without rights being violated by government
intrusion.
We have only barely begun to implement the precepts of the
constitution.
This document may be reproduced and distributed in any media
free of charge as long as it is reproduced in full with author
and copyright information intact.
Stuart Norman
cyrwyn@nr.infi.net
==============================================================
---finis