FIRST-PERSON: An unnecessary boost to the gay rights movement
McMINNVILLE, Ore. (BP)--In the wee hours of the morning of June 28, 1969, New York City police raided The Stonewall Inn located in The Big Apple's Greenwich Village. Officers were there to cite the after hours "private club" for selling liquor without a license. The Inn, a known gathering place for homosexuals and the like, was packed to capacity. When officers sought to arrest the bartender, a doorman, three drag queens and an apparent lesbian, the crowd erupted.
Over the next five days sporadic rioting took place. As the mayhem subsided, the gay rights movement was born. Several organizations formed for the express purpose of achieving special rights for homosexuals. Among the groups emerging were the Gay Liberation Front and Gay Activists Alliance. Since then several other organizations have formed to push the issue of acceptance of homosexuality and other deviant behaviors.
In a short three decades, gay rights activists have successfully secured societal toleration for a behavior that was once illegal throughout the United States. With the June 26 Supreme Court ruling rendering Texas' sodomy law unconstitutional, homosexuals now enjoy a favored legal status as well.
Commenting on the Court's ruling, USA Today observed, "The decision comes as the presence and power of gay men and lesbians is increasing in the USA...." Portland's Oregonian editorialized, "Over the past two decades, the public's acceptance of gays has risen markedly, giving us reason to believe that this trend is now inexorable."
How has the homosexual movement managed to achieve such success? Gay activists have followed the method of perhaps the shrewdest propagandist of all time, Joseph Goebbels. The Nazi Propaganda Minster observed, "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly ... it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
For more than 30 years, gay activists have relentlessly echoed the message that homosexuality is innate, irreversible and normal. Even though no scientific evidence exits to support the aforementioned claims, many in our society have bought the misinformation like it was a bargain at Wal-Mart.
Whether they realize or not, the six Justices who voted to affirm homosexual behavior have themselves fallen for the mesmerizing message of gay activists. Writing the majority opinion Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle.... The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private conduct a crime."
In a concurring opinion, Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Conner wrote, "Those harmed by this law are people who have a same-sex orientation...." The use of the word "orientation" reveals that O'Conner's personal view of homosexuality parallels that of gay activists.
If Justice Kennedy's logic is applied to other behaviors, then anything consensual that takes place in private can no longer be considered illegal. Therefore, when a zoophile -- the politically correct label given to those who engage in bestiality -- decides to challenge one of the 30 existing state laws that declare his or her private activity a crime, the Supreme Court will have to rule those statutes unconstitutional.
The argument above may sound extreme. However, Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, recently wrote a favorable review of the book "Dearest Pet: On Bestiality" for Nerve.com. I once observed an interview Singer gave in which the professor indicated that he saw nothing wrong with bestiality per se, so long as the animal involved was not harmed.
In his dissent, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia rightly observed, "The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are "immoral and unacceptable." Scalia continued, "...the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity."
Scalia summed up the consequence of the Court's opinion, "This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review."
The only thing that now stands between the legitimization of pedophilia and ephebophilia (adult sexual involvement with adolescents) is age of consent laws. Even as I write this column, those laws are being questioned by like-minded activists and academicians.
In June of 1969 the homosexual rights movement took its initial steps toward gaining full acceptance for a deviant lifestyle. The recent Supreme Court ruling gave the movement a huge boost by legitimizing a behavior that is not only a choice, but a perversion of nature. What's next?