Monday, May 12, 2003

Note the frequency with which this phrase is used by those who would deny civil rights protections, protection against job discrimination, etc.,  to homosexuals.  We fully support equal rights, the mantra goes, but we do not support the granting of special privileges to those who follow the homosexual lifestyle.  Thus, Duane Motley of the New Yorker's Family Research Foundation, Inc., writes of that state's proposed Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act: This would give persons practicing the homosexual lifestyle special privileges and protections. This would be the first time that the legislature has amended the Civil Rights and Executive Law to grant special protection and privileges to a group of people based solely on their behavior patterns, which are a choice. These are special protections and privileges that most citizens do not have. Homosexuals have the same civil rights as anyone else, and now they are wanting more than others. Note the use of the phrase "special protections and privileges" three times in the course of three sentences.  His statements may be false, or they may be true, depending on the viewer's perspective.  Let's consider a couple of them.  "Homosexuals have the same civil rights as anyone else."  Well, sure.  The import is: if they are black, they enjoy the protections of the civil rights laws that protect blacks from discrimination.  If they are women, then the laws that protect women protect them, too.  But what he is cleverly not saying is that a homosexual who suffers discrimination based on that status alone does not have protection under the law as it currently stands, and that he feels that he ought not have that protection.  A black lesbian has some protection; a white Anglo-Saxon gay male has none. "Solely on their behavior patterns, which are a choice."  The controversy between nature and nurture has a long history in this field.  We would only note that homosexuality is to some extent more of a status than a behavior pattern, although it needs also be mentioned that the in-your-face behavior patterns of many gays give a great deal of credence to this position and ultimately do not help their cause. We believe that it is possible to turn any claim for equal treatment under the law around by 180 degrees and convert it to a claim for special privileges.  The characterization of these claims as ones for special privileges presupposes that the person asking to be treated equally doesn't deserve it.  If the natural state of affairs is that homosexuals be treated differently -- because they are, well, you know, different -- then asking to be given equal treatment is somehow asking for a special privilege.  And if we as a society backtrack fifty years, we can consider the same arguments as they might be made in a different context.  If God intended that blacks and whites live in separate neighborhoods, then the black family who wants to buy the house next door is looking for special privileges. If the natural state of affairs is that blacks and whites should not mix, then any black who wants to participate in politics, who wants to eat in the nice restaurants in town, or who wants to sit where he wants on the bus is asking for special privileges.  Consider the phrase in this light the next time you hear it. 11:28:02 PM     Thomas Bray of the Detroit News writes in "How the Judiciary is Becoming Politicized" about both the blocks placed on Bush's nominees such as Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen and the "blue slip" blocks placed by Michigan's senators on Michigan nominees.   By contrast to Estrada and Owen, all of the Michigan nominees are middle-of-the-road conservatives who will offend no one.  He comments: Again, the real reason for Levin and Stabenow's jihad is Democratic fear that they might lose their current majority on the Sixth Circuit -- which, among other things, last year upheld the University of Michigan's controversial system of racial preferences. . . Lastly, say Democrats, too many of Bush's nominees are outside what left-wing interest groups are pleased to call the mainstream of politics -- by which they mean anybody who dares to disagree with them about abortion, racial quotas and gay rights. False again. A wide majority of the public opposes gay marriage, racial quotas and unlimited abortion rights, according to most polls. Ultimately, the Democrats have dug themselves into a losing position. Americans understand that there will be a certain amount of politics involved in appointing judges. But it's doubtful they want to see the kind of open -- and extreme -- politicization of the judiciary that is the logical outcome of the Democratic abuse of the nomination process. 5:10:55 PM

© Copyright 2003 Franco Castalone. Last update: 6/9/2003; 11:42:58 PM. This theme is based on the SoundWaves (blue) Manila theme.