 |
In an article in the November 8, 2005 issue of The Advocate, NAACP Board Chair Julian Bond is quotes, in part as saying, "Like race, our sexuality...is immutable... and the Constitution protects us all against...discrimination based on immutable differences." |
Much as I appreciate his support, this is wrong, and a bit dangerous.
First, it is not necessary (and it is a tactical error) to stake a claim to Constitutional protection on the idea that sexual preference is "immutable." The science on this is inconclusive, and subject to interpretation, and it creates the wrong debate.
Second, and more important, the Constitution neither proects against all immutable characteristics (eye color is not protected) nor is protection limited to immutable characteristics (e.g., religion). This is critical; even if I choose to be bisexual, that does not diminish my Constitutional protection any more than if I choose to be Jewish.
The criteria for protection should be that the person is being discriminated against arbitrarily and because that person belongs to a traditionally oppressed and marginalized group (e.g., blacks, women, queers, the disabled, and so forth).
12:52:23 PM 
|
|
