University Daily Kansan / Tuesday, February 2, 1988
TuesdayForum
5
Human rights deserve logical thought
Unless you've been out of town or out to lunch for the past two weeks, you're probably reasonably aware of the "Great Gay Rights Controversy" that has been lurking around Lawrence.
We think it's time to separate fiction from fact, hysteria from logic and myth from reality concerning this debate. What is all the fuss about anyway? What has generated such passionate outure and vitriolic venom? Two words. That's right, two words; sexual orientation.
FICTION: This ordinance is about "gay rights."
HYSTERIA: If we amend the Human Rights ordinance, Lawrence will be transformed into the Sin Capital of the Midwest. We will suffer
FACT: The Human Relations Department of the City of Lawrence has defined sexual orientation as "the preference and/or practice, either actual or perceived, of any person with regard to the sex of one's actual, potential, affectional or sexual partners, including either actual or perceived male or female heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality; or having an actual or perceived history of any such preference or practice." Can't think of anyone they left out, can you?
Liz Tolbert Karen Cook Guest Columnists
increases in sexually transmitted diseases, child molestations and S and M bars. Alcoholics, drug abusers and sex offenders will roam Massachusetts Street, preening on us with impunity.
to this process for everyone.
MYHUI This issue has split the community.
LOGIC: The existing Human Rights ordinance provides access to a legal process by which one can file a written complaint and have it investigated by the Human Relations Department.
Amending the ordinance would provide access to this process for everyone.
MYTH: This issue has split the community.
REALITY: Over 2,000 citizens of Lawrence openly have voiced their support for this amendment. Over 1,600 signatures were collected on petitions in less than three weeks. Hundreds of supportive letters and phone calls were directed to the City Commission. Supporters represented a wide spectrum of the community and a wide
spectrum of political, moral and social thought.
Why then has the "Great Gay Rights Controversy" taken hold of Lawrence? As a society, we suffer from a condition called homophobia, the irrational fear of gays and lesbians. Homophobia, along with racism, sexism, ageism, classism and ethnocentricity, allows individuals to feel superior at the expense of others. Homophobia has the basic right to which we, as citizens, are entitled to defend the moral character of gay and lesbian people. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states that "No State shall . . . deny to any person its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Even though the City Commission voted 3-2 to take no action on the amendment to the Human Rights ordinance, the issue will persist until a decision is made. Unfortunately, the "Great Gay Rights Controversy" will continue. Let's hope all parties concerned will attempt to balance their homophobia with fact, logic and reality. Until our prejudices against groups of people are put aside, we cannot fairly amend existing laws to provide all of us equal protection under the law.
Liz Tolbert and Karen Cook are Lawrence juniors.
Lawrence does not need 'Gay Rights Ordinance'
The Alliance of Citizens for Traditional Values has been asked to state the basis of our stand against the recently proposed "Gay Rights Ordinance" as presented to the Lawrence City Commission. We object to the ordinance in three areas, those being legal, moral and medical.
In the legal area, the proposed ordinance was defeated primarily on the grounds that there has been no demonstrable discrimination in Lawrence against homosexuals. The ad hoc committee of the Human Relations Commission could not document pervasive or systematic discrimination against homosexuals in Lawrence, nor did individual testimony go beyond a "fear of discrimination" during public comment on the proposed ordinance. In answering the question of "How much discrimination is too much?" the issue of individual instances of discrimination, whether perceived or actual, as opposed to widespread, pervasive and systematic discrimination must be addressed. Such discrimination simply has not been demonstrated.
Gordon Gruber Guest Columnist
Human rights laws always have required a sensitive balance of social interests. The tenuous balance represented by current laws is reflected in the few, and carefully chosen, classes protected by them. Relief has been given only in extraordinary circumstances. At least five common characteristics typify protected classes:
1. A DEMONSTRABLE PATTERN OF DISCRIMINATION. There is no such pervasive pattern involved with "Gay Rights."
vase pattern involved with "Gav Rights."
2. CAUSING SUBSTANTIAL INJURY. No such injury has been demonstrated by proponents of "Gav Rights."
3. A CLASS OF PEOPLE WITH AN UNCHANGEABLE STATUS. The immutable characteristics such as race, color, national origin and gender are not analogous to homosexuality. No human rights laws protect behavior, and certainly none protect preferences.
M,
4. A CLASS OF PEOPLE WHICH HAS NO ELEMENT OF MORAL FAULT. No moral fault is attached to being black or white, a native or an immigrant, a man or a woman. The state of Kansas, in KSA 21-3505, however, has defined sodomy as a crime. Criminal sodomy is anal or oral copulation between a man and a woman, non-consenting adults, or between a person and an animal. This is a direct indictment of moral fault.
5. WHERE PREJUDICE IS BASED ON
With the incontrovertible evidence of the health risks posed by homosexuals to others, prejudice against homosexuals indeed has a firm basis in rational fact.'
CRITERIA THAT ARE ARBITRARY AND IRRATIONAL. Human rights laws do not limit freedom to make rational choices, they simply cancel a license to be prejudiced and to indulge in irrational whims. With the incontrovertible evidence of the health risks posed by homosexuals to others, prejudice against homosexuals indeed has a firm basis in rational fact.
The issue also has been described in moral terms, and here ACTV also opposes the proposed ordinance. It has been blithely stated that "you can't legislate morality." This is patently absurd since virtually all of our laws are based on society's concept of morality. There are laws on the books prohibiting murder, theft, child abuse, fraud, libel, and yes, sodomy, all founded on moral principles. In fact, the Constitution was written by men who were profoundly aware of the moral basis on which this country was founded. That moral basis finds its foundation in the Bible. We do not apologize for using the Bible
as our source of moral inspiration; indeed, morality based on the shifting sands of public opinion is difficult to classify as morality at all. The Bible clearly states in the Old and New Testaments that homosexuality is a sin. The relationship to God of the individual who practices homosexuality is between that individual and God, and we have no right nor desire to condemn that individual. We do, however, have the right and obligation to condemn the sin, and we do so forrightly. When Jesus chastened those who would stone the adulteress in the eighth chapter of John, He also forgive the woman and then pronounced His caveat: "Go and sin no more."
The third area of opposition to the "Gay Rights Ordinance" is health. The homosexual community finds AIDS to be a dirty, fourletter word, not only because of the physical damage it does to them individually, but because of what it does to the whole "Gay Rights Movement." To quote from "Are Gay Rights Right?" by Roger Magnuson:
"If homosexuals harm no one, it is nobody's business what they do privately. At least so the myth used to run. Now the geometric proliferation of AIDS makes that line of reasoning irrelevant. Homosexuals are, to be sure, the unfortunate victims of this new plague. They are, also, however, the principal purveyors of it. The rise in AIDS, with its spread to the heterosexual community, quite naturally identifies the homosexual as a bearer of great risks for society at large."
The homosexual community is desperately trying to spread the giant lie that the spread of AIDS is not caused by homosexual practices, but by IV drug users and a tainted blood supply. Either this is patently false, or the Center for Disease Control and the American Medical Association, to name a couple, have been putting out incredibly inaccurate and spurious information. The New England Journal of Medicine reported in its Feb. 1, 1955, issue that "AIDS antibodies among homosexual men in San Francisco were found in 1 percent in 1978, 25 percent in 1980 and 65 percent in 1984." That was four years ago. The geometric progression of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases due to the promiscuous nature of the primary carriers paints a bleak picture. It is worthy to note that the legal rights obtained by the homosexual community in San Francisco started with a "Gay Rights Ordinance" that was as simple and innocuous as the one proposed in Lawrence.
Is a "Gay Rights Ordinance" necessary or desirable in Lawrence? In light of the above facts, the answer is a firm "No." Gordon Gruber is a Lawrence resident and a member of the board of governors of the Alliance of Citizens for Traditional Values.
You're thinking about it.
You're wondering what it would be like.
You're sure it would be exciting.
CHOOSING YOUR MAJOR: THE EXPERIENCE
THE PROBLEM:
- undecided about which major to pursue
- thinking about your courses for next semester
THE PROCESS:
- confused about CLAS rules and regulations
- discuss major plans with a trained advisor
- plan next semester's classes before the "enrollment crunch" begins
- profit from a relaxed discussion of your academic plans
THE SOLUTION:
- call or visit the
CLAS Advising Support Center
Today At
864-4371----4017 Wescoe Hall we can help Possibly the most meaningful challenge of your life...