Gay Rights Despite the Gains

Gay Rights

Despite the gains of the Civil Rights Movement, discrimination still exists in many forms. One of the most enduring prejudices is related to sexual orientation. Indeed, many analysts believe that gay people continue to be the targets of much social stigma and even attacks.

This paper argues that gay and lesbian people are entitled to the same rights and protections as all Americans. This includes the right to marry and protection from discrimination in employment.

In demanding the right to marry and protection from discrimination in employment, this paper maintains that gay people are not demanding "special rights." Rather, gays and lesbians are arguing that they should be entitled to the same protection as are anyone else.

Discrimination in employment

In the United States, rights are not granted by the Constitution, the President or by any other body. Instead, the Constitution specifies that these rights are inalienable, that all Americans already have these rights. The only caveat is that these rights have to be recognized.

However, for many gay and lesbian Americans, rights such as non-discrimination in employment. Critics of this statement argue that the popularity of television programs like Will & Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy seem to illustrate a growing acceptance of homosexuals in today's society. However, it should be noted that such as Will & Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy continue to present gayness as a lack of masculinity. Furthermore, the shows present gay people in stereotypical roles, such as hairdresser, fashion expert or, as seen in the character of Jack, the flamboyant gay man (Battles and Hilton-Morrow).

The situation is different in more traditional occupations, such as the military and corporate America. In this setting, former President Clinton observed that "some of the old kinds of discrimination we have sought to rid ourselves of by law and purge our spirits of still exist in America today" (Clinton). Indeed, many critics argue that having gay people in traditionally-masculine occupations such as professional athletes and the military interferes with the development of essential camaraderie and the bonding process.

During his term, then-President Clinton fought for the recognition of an Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would make discrimination in employment illegal. This includes hiring-based decisions, as well as decisions regarding advancement. In addition to gay and lesbian people, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act also outlaws discrimination based on gender, race, religion or national origin (Clinton).

In the 21st century, discrimination against gays and lesbians continues to run rampant. Many gay people do not have any legal recourse when they are unjustly fired from their jobs or evicted from their apartments (Gallagher). This problem further illustrates the need to protect gay and lesbian people from being discriminated upon, both in the workplace and beyond.

Right to marry

The right to marry is a basic human drive, and is another fundamental human right. However, the right to marry is another right that currently does not extend to all Americans. Outside of Massachusetts, gay and lesbian people do not have the right to marry. They therefore cannot benefit from the legal protections and benefits of a recognized union.

Critics of gay marriage cite numerous reasons for their opposition. For example, many opponents cite "ethical reasons" for their concerns. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith argues that couples and families should be based on a sexual complementarity. Children need to be raised in environments with strong male and female role models, such as a father and a mother. If legalized, gay marriages would pave the way for raising children in such non-traditional, and less than ideal settings. This arrangement, according to critics of gay marriage, is analogous to "doing violence to these children" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).

Others argue that married couples are the foundation of social order. Married couple unions ensure that generations reproduce, and that the human race continues. Legal recognition and protection of heterosexual unions therefore benefit the "common good." This line of reasoning, however, does not extend to homosexual unions (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith).

After all, same-sex couples cannot reproduce.

These reasons, however, fail to stand up under analysis.

For example, the claim that raising children without strong male and female role models can also be levied against single parents.

Further arguments that gay marriages do not contribute to the greater good are debatable, based largely on faith-based belief rather than empirical research.

In the 1930s, sociologist Edwin Schur wrote extensively about the idea of victimless crimes. For Schur, victimless crimes involve an exchange of commodities or services that are socially-disapproved. These exchanges are voluntary and do not cause anyone harm (Schur, 3).

Schur himself cited consensual homosexual unions as an example of victimless crimes. Schur writes that society has enacted laws against such deviant behavior based not on any harm these crimes cause, but because these crimes violate prevailing standards of socially acceptable behavior. These standards, however, are fluid and subject to change. Given this, Schur argues that laws against homosexuality, for example, penalize people who should not be labeled as criminals in the first place. Their actions meet the criteria of non-coercion and no harm. Therefore, no one is victimized (Schur 171).

Arguments against recognizing marriage between gay people are therefore based on specious reasoning. They are based on allegations that children will be harmed in such unions - an allegation that is far from proven. Furthermore, as Schur argued, the ban against same-sex marriage represents social biases, rather than a move to ensure the greater common good.

Equal rights

Critics of measures to protect the rights of gay and lesbian people in the workplace and in marriage have often painted homosexuals as arguing for "special rights" legislation. However, the right to marry and the right to protection from unjust firings are far from special rights. As stated earlier, these rights are guaranteed in the Constitution, and are inalienable. What remains is for the rest of society to recognize the rights that already extend to all Americans.

The movement for gay rights, however, has engendered a backlash. Many critics equated the recognition of these inalienable rights as special rights legislation. As a result, many uninformed members of the public voted to repeal state-based non-discrimination measures. Maine, for example, voters in Maine decided to do away with anti-discrimination instruments in their state constitution. Similarly, voters in Oregon did not approve a proposal to include similar legislation into the state constitution (Gallagher).