Reality Check 101

            If there is any lesson to be learned from the history of homosexual activism, it is that the movement is adept at motivating the public to ignore reality.  Their method of operation normally includes distortion and very effective appeals to anecdote and emotion over fact.

            Over the years, thanks to completely invalidated research, homosexuality has gained more ground in urban myth as an inborn trait.  The popularity of that myth is the cornerstone of the sexual orientation civil rights movement.  Quite honestly, if LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender) lifestyles were truly genetically determined in the same way as race or if those lifestyles were constitutionally protected but discriminated against in housing, employment or public services, there would be a civil rights problem.

            It is very easy to complain about conservative research but much more difficult to refute its findings with unbiased science.  Honest investigation must rest on provable observable fact, yet there exists no bona fide and vetted research which demonstrates any genetic linkage to LGBT “orientation”.  Regardless of liberal claims, social or religious, to the contrary, the findings of LeVay, Hamer, Bailey & Pillard and Allen & Gorski have all been discredited.  At the same time, evidence continues to mount that LGBT sexual preferences are based in incremental decisions made progressively during psychological and environmental experiences.  Many of those decisions are made during times of confusion, alienation, discouragement, loneliness, temptation, rejection or abuse.

            Could there still be justification for civil rights protections without any factual evidence that alternate sexual lifestyles are determined at birth in the same way as ethnicity or sex?  This question embodies the crux of the issue.  The notion that certain characteristics are determined at birth and are unchangeable is at the heart of civil rights law.  No one should be penalized for endowments or heritage over which they have no control.  No one should be denied what is constitutionally due them as citizens.

            For Americans, there is no doubt about what rights are matters of civil protection.  The Bill of Rights along with amendments thirteen, fourteen, fifteen and nineteen very specifically define and enumerate those rights.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 codifies expected protections even further.  Sexual orientation is not even on the radar as one of those self-evident rights.  As Peter Sprigg notes, because homosexuality is not immutable or involuntary or inborn or in the Constitution, lifestyle is simply not a matter of civil rights.

            When the exercise of alternate sexual lifestyles reaches protected status, two consequences necessarily follow.  First, regardless of labeling a life choice as a civil liberty or not, a new open-ended mode of behavior is awarded special protections.  The protections are special because they are not based in a self-evident reality and do not have standing in constitutional law – either on the federal level or the state level.  The protections are based solely on government’s decision to protect a behavior.

            Secondly, government, in defiance of its divine purpose, must begin picking winners and losers.  It abdicates the equal protection of the civil liberties of the majority.  The right to reject what one deems to be immoral behavior becomes, by regulation, itself immoral.

            The battle over special protections for LGBT people is not about genuine civil rights based in at-birth conditions.  Citizen rights have been defined, enumerated and settled in law long ago. 

            Although accusations will now begin to fly out of necessity, facts must rule the day.  Being the object of hurt or rejection may be woefully wrong, but its avoidance is not a civil liberty.  If codified civil rights are ever violated, federal and state statutes already provide recourse.