'No Special Rights' for those who Choose 'One Man, One Woman'
Date: Sep 20, 2005
Word Count: 850 words
Cross-Reference: "No special rights", "gay rights", marriage amendment, "one man, one woman"
As the “gay rights” debate changed in 2003, many supposed-to-be conservatives stopped saying, “No special rights” - as they instead started demanding their own “special rights” liberalism.
"No special rights" used to be the battle cry of all conservatives. But as the "gay rights" debate changed in 2003, many supposed-to-be conservatives stopped declaring "no special rights." Instead, they started demanding their own "special rights."
In the 1990s, the "gay rights" debate at the time revolved around the creation of new "anti-discrimination" laws, designed with the claimed intent to protect homosexuals from discrimination. After the combination of U.S. Supreme Court decisions Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003) with the subsequent Massachusetts State Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge decision (2003), the "gay rights" debate then evolved to "same sex marriage." And that changed everything.
Previously, during the 1990s debate about "anti-discrimination" laws, conservatives decried those new laws as creating "special rights" for homosexuals.
Summarizing that 1990s debate, Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily.com authored an article in 2000, titled, "Special rights for homosexuals." And when conservative American Values president, Gary Bauer, ran for U.S. President, the "Strengthen The Family" section of his 2000 campaign literature expressly declared his opposition to "'special rights' legislation."
The underlying foundation of the "no special rights" argument always pertained to the issue being a matter of "choice." Homosexuals and their liberal supporters, contrariwise, claimed that they were only asking for "equal rights" because homosexuals are purportedly "born that way" - comparing it to how victims of racism are undeniably born with their skin color. Conservatives responded by arguing the "no special rights" position, stating that homosexuals simply choose to "practice" their homosexual relationships.
The conservative argument declares that, as much as homosexuals might choose to "practice" such chosen behavior and relationships, they can equally choose to not "practice" such things too. Because "choice" is at issue, they argued, there should be "no special rights."
On April 24, 2000, the Family Research Council (FRC) posted an article affirming that view. It was titled, "The Gay Gene: Going, Going...Gone."
The teaser-summary of that article explained, "Using 'biology' as a stamp of legitimacy, homosexual activists have pushed for special rights, from sex-partner subsidies to 'gay marriage' to adoption. There is no scientific evidence to support such claims, and it is wrong and dangerously misleading to say that people are born homosexual and cannot change."
Further verifying that point, the FRC.org web-site then described the article's author, Yvette C. Schneider, as "a former lesbian who is now married."
Two months later, in June 2000, a staff writer, Trudy Chun, at Concerned Women for America, wrote a similar bibliographed essay, titled, "Born & Bred: The Debate Over the Cause of Homosexuality." It was subsequently updated five years later on April 5, 2005, by Robert H. Knight, who re-titled it, "Born or Bred? Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic."
Undoubtedly, conservatives openly continued that position about choice over genetics - even after the key court decisions in 2003. But those same supposed-to-be conservatives also changed course as a result of those decisions.
Romer v. Evans (1996) had set the precedent that laws may not make an "impermissible targeting" against any classes of people, such as homosexuals. Lawrence v. Texas (2003) had set the precedent that laws may not violate the "right to privacy" of freely-consenting adults in their choosing to do things which others are not also disallowed.
Later that year, on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts State Supreme Judicial Court decided the Goodridge case. That state court determined that laws denying big government marriage to homosexuals violated the Massachusetts State constitution.
Instantaneously, the homosexual debate fully transformed from being about "anti-discrimination" to being about "gay marriage." Not only did those court decisions change the debate, but they also changed many conservatives into "New Liberals" as they called for a marriage amendment to constitutionalize "special rights" for those who choose to "practice" "one man, one woman" "government marriages." Not only did they demand their own "special rights legislation," but they actually wanted that marital socialism to be codified in the U.S. Constitution.
However, just as the conservative argument had previously explained how homosexuals merely choose their relationships, the same argument equally applies to those who choose their "one man, one woman" relationships. Either way, it is a choice to "practice" or not to "practice" that form of relationship. And there is certainly no genetic basis which biologically "requires" anyone to "practice" a "one man, one woman" relationship. Just as individuals have free will to choose to "practice" a "one man, one woman" relationship, they equally have as much free will to choose to not "practice" it too - whether celibacy or polygamy.
Thus, directly betraying the "no special rights" argument during the "anti-discrimination" debate back in the 1990s, those same supposed-to-be conservatives were later calling for their own "special rights" in the "same sex marriage" debate from 2003 onward.
But true conservatism rejects such profound hypocrisy and big government liberalism.
For true conservatives, including pro-polygamists, the argument is unchanged - regardless of the debate. Just as there should be "no special rights" liberalism for those who choose "same sex marriage," there should also be "no special rights" liberalism for those who choose "one man, one woman."
PFD file: http://www.4president.org/brochures/garybauer2000.pdf
Date found at: http://www.frc.org/itemtype.cfm?it=IS&row=21
PDF file: http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf