Conservative Protests Against Gay Rights Lacks Coherence on Campus
Jenna Steinhauer '04
During these past few weeks, as the jet stream brought Indian summer to campus and the discourse of the Prince’s Op-Ed page turned to the debate on sexuality, I thought back to this summer’s momentous Lawrence decision, in which the Supreme Court overturned Bowers v. Hardwick and declared Texas’ anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional. It seemed at that moment that the prediction (hope?) that the issue of homosexual marriage would go the way of interracial couples was on its way to becoming history, and that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation would soon be as taboo as racial discrimination.
After the decision was announced in late June, there was, of course, a reactionary conservative backlash. Just a few days after the decision was handed down, Senator Frist declared his support for the constitutional amendment to define “marriage” strictly as the union between a man and a woman. But it seems that the conservative take is losing steam, if not in the public opinion then at least in its logical basis and rhetorical support. It is certainly losing momentum here on campus. The Prince’s plea for a conservative voice was noble but necessarily doomed. All it did was boost liberalism. I was extremely impressed by the wit, sensitivity, prudence, and passion expressed in the series of convincing anti-discrimination pieces and letters before and after this request for opposing opinions.
I was also not surprised that, although Michael Fragoso ‘06 and Ryan Anderson ’04 contributed well written and respectful articles espousing more conservative perspectives, neither added anything substantial to the debate. Fragoso, in his October 22 opinion piece, answered the editor’s inquiries, stating that conservatives on campus are cautious about expressing their views, that legitimate conservative arguments are too often grouped together with hateful and biased speech, and that there does exist a stock pile of “rational” and “principled” arguments to support the conservative position. The one argument he included in his piece, taken from this stockpile, is extremely tenuous. Subsequent letters to the editor pointed out the argument’s dependence on the assumption that anything done purely for pleasure fundamentally lacks dignity and other such absurdities. Two weeks later, Anderson explained the Catholic perspective on sexuality, which, though interesting and informative, was not especially relevant to the debate.
Not only does the non anti-discrimination position lack rational or principled bases, but it also lacks any recognition of practical considerations. In a November 3 letter to the editor, Jennifer Bryan ’83 implores Michael Fragoso, “What exactly would Mr. Fragoso like me to do with my partner of fourteen years, my two children, our house and mortgage… my Princeton degree… Is he expecting me to go crawl under a rock somewhere?” What exactly is the conservative plan for sexuality? Create some sort of convoluted separation between homosexual status and homosexual acts that requires homosexuals to recognize that their existence lacks dignity and they should never express desire or romantic love? Anderson’s article in the Prince clearly outlines the Catholic perspective on sexuality and what the Catholic Church expects of all people. However, what about non- Catholic, non-Christian, or even atheist individuals?
With all the current debate currently over sexuality and the rights of homosexuals, from the highest federal echelons to the lowliest campus newspaper Op-Ed pages, sexuality appears to be on the road to becoming as important and contentious an issue as race was during the Civil Rights Movement.
Is sexuality, then, the new race? In fifteen years, will we look back on President Bush’s declaration of “Marriage Protection Week” – a celebration of marriage as the exclusive union between a man and woman – as absurd as if he had declared the third week in October “Racial Purity Commemoration”? This racial analogy is very tempting, and it holds up to comparison.
The same sort of moralistic, assumption-ridden defenses are used by those wishing to stop the advancement of rights for homosexuals as those who wished to preserve institutionalized racism. Michael Fragoso is not alone in his guilt here; if you were to replace “sexuality” with “race” in Justice Scalia’s dissent in Romers v. Evans – the Supreme Court case that declared Colorado’s efforts to prevent protection for homosexuals against discrimination unconstitutional – you would be left with a pretty coherent case for discrimination against African Americans, very reminiscent of historical racist rhetoric. As the Princeton example demonstrates, there is a real lack of legitimate, compelling arguments for the continuation of sexual orientation discrimination. Just like race, once that is recognized, perhaps all the country needs is time.
This comparison is further supported by the fundamental strength of the anti-discrimination argument for both race and sexuality. A fellow Princeton student recently told a friend of mine that homosexuality is “a political agenda.” I actually think he might be on to something here. However, just as African Americans don’t have black skin for the sole purpose of advancing a set of political prerogatives, homosexuals are not attracted to those of the same sex in order to effect any sort of political change. Discrimination against each group is so contrary to American ideals of liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the guarantee of equal protection, that clear and compelling political imperatives precipitate in a discriminatory society. The fact that the argument is compelling and coherent does not mean that it is purely an agenda.
The racial analogy is encouraging, especially since it grants us great optimism that over time the status of homosexuals in American society will improve. It’s not a perfect fit, but it is an illuminating comparison.
However, we should not be overconfident. The truth is that, although they haven’t proven compelling here at Princeton, convincing arguments against homosexual rights are still influencing Americans. At the same time, these arguments depend on assumptions that are increasingly showing their logical and moral fallibilities. Ideas based on religious notions, like many conservative rationales, will no longer be compelling.
People who claim that homosexuality is a choice and therefore should not be constitutionally protected will no longer be so convinced when they realize that family members and other loved ones are actually gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. An abstract, unfounded idea that this trait is not immutable should not convince the American people that the rights to happiness and love should be taken away from those they care about.