Protect and extend equal rights of all our citizens
Let states and communities choose solutions that work for them
Support and protect traditional institutions and values
In 21st century America, its shameful that we allow gays and lesbians to be denied the same basic rights as every other citizen. Gays and lesbians are routinely denied employment and housing, unable to obtain official recognition of their life partners, and even become the victims of hate crimes. The United States has struggled with how to provide equal rights to all of its citizens -- blacks, women and the disabled, to name a few. The civil rights movement has shown us that it is often necessary and right for the federal government to step in and protect those groups. Government protection and assurance of equality under the law must extend to gays and lesbians as well. It is the only way to ensure that all citizens enjoy full human rights, and that is what American government is all about.
Our nation is a diverse one, and that diversity has contributed mightily to our growth and strength. Communities hold different values and opinions on dozens of issues, including homosexuality, and that diversity should be respected. Communities must be free to make their own choices because solutions really only work if they come from the grassroots and reflect the values and norms of most people. Local policy on gay and lesbian issues has evolved over the years based on changing comfort levels, without government interference. Some places have chosen to offer protections for gays while others have imposed bans on same-sex behavior. That's their right, particularly with our tradition of federalism. Those who disagree with local decisions can seek remedies by moving elsewhere. On this issue, the federal government should follow, not lead.
There is a big difference between tolerating private behavior between consenting adults and endorsing such behavior by granting legal protections. Giving domestic partners benefits and special privileges legitimizes same-sex relationships even though they cant create children, which is the major reason underlying governments traditional protection of marriage and family. Same-sex relationships are also deeply offensive to many Americans, often based on religious beliefs. Marriage is not just about love and commitment, but about the stability of family, which is the linchpin of society. Were already seeing the social damage caused by families weakened by divorce and single-parent households. Granting new rights and benefits to gays and lesbians benefits and inheritance rights would crush one of the pillars of stable, civil society.
Protect and extend equal rights of all our citizens
Let states and communities choose solutions that work for them
Support and protect traditional institutions and values
What should be done?
Enact federal legislation specifically prohibiting discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment or housing.Broaden hate crime legislation to include sexual orientation, and repeal sodomy laws for consenting adults.Require that employee benefits be offered to people with domestic partners.Provide the same rights to gay and lesbian couples that are currently only afforded to heterosexual couples -- the right to marry, adopt and receive benefits.Permit gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
Rather than dictating a solution, the federal government should let individual communities decide, based on their own norms and values, whether to allow same-sex marriages or civil unions.The government should let individual states, communities and businesses decide whether they want to offer domestic-partner benefits.Communities should decide for themselves whether they need hate crime laws or whether current laws are sufficient. If they do adopt them, the laws should cover hate crimes against all minorities, including but not just gays and lesbians.Government should let individual communities decide, based on community sentiment, whether to include discussion of gays and lesbians in sex education, or how to sanction committed relationships between two people of the same sex.
Enact legislation to strengthen and support traditional families -- like a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.Allow employers and landlords to live by their moral and religious codes. Prevent gays and lesbians from getting any special legal rights or protectionsReinstate the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military.Ban adoptions by gay parents.Prohibit public schools from incorporating discussions about homosexuality into curriculum.
Arguments For This Approach
Theres no justification for treating any group of people as second-class citizens simply because of their sexual orientation.Citizenship rights, including the right to marry and serve openly in the armed forces, are available only to heterosexuals. Eliminating discrimination against gays and lesbians is no different from granting voting rights to blacks in that it gives full citizenship rights to an excluded group. Society benefits when two adults make a commitment to each other, because strong long-term relationships ultimately strengthen society. The government has taken steps to strengthen such social bonds before -- including tax credits, Social Security, pension and employee benefits -- and its only fair that it offer a helping hand to nontraditional families as well.Hate crimes laws have given law enforcement a powerful tool against physical attacks on a person based on their race, ethnicity or religion, crimes which are all the more heinous because they are driven by bigotry. Its time to give gays and lesbians the same kind of hate-crime protection granted to other minorities.People once argued that it would harm military discipline for black and white soldiers to serve together. Now some make the same arguments for excluding gays from the armed forces. It was wrong to do that to blacks and its wrong to do it to gays. The military adapted to integrating blacks and women into its ranks; it can adapt to gays as well.
The United States has always been a diverse quilt of communities. New Yorks laws differ from Iowas, and for good reason: Whats right for one place isnt necessarily for another. It makes no more sense for Greenwich Village to dictate to Des Moines, Iowa, how to act than for Des Moines to dictate to Greenwich Village. Until now, the federal government has largely stayed away from legislating issues related to homosexuality, and communities and states have developed their own rules in accordance with their needs. Thats the right response and politicians shouldnt meddle with what works. Just as private employers are responsible to their stockholders and employees, the same principles of responsibility apply to communities. They are beholden only to the best interests of their constituents. Those who dont like the choices their communities make can always move elsewhere. Other important matters -- such as criminal law and the death penalty -- have been left to the states to decide, and that should be the case with gay rights.
We shouldnt be granting special rights to people based on their behavior, particularly when it involves activities that many Americans find deeply disturbing. Civil rights protections should extend to citizens based only on qualities no one can help, such as their color, gender or disability, not their behavior. New hate-crime legislation is unnecessary because gays and lesbians already are protected by laws against murder and assaultGovernment has a responsibility to protect relationships that strengthen society. While tolerance for gays has varied historically, theres a reason societies have never considered same-sex couples to be married, with full property and child-rearing rights.Requiring employers to grant domestic partner benefits not only legitimizes such relationships, but also imposes financial burdens. For example, health insurance premiums might go up. It also would encourage endless haggling over who should share in employee benefits. Religious employees, employers and citizens should not be forced into the dilemma of either violating their faiths teachings or breaking the law when the refuse to hire or rent to homosexuals.Allowing gays and lesbians in the military will undermine the armed forces ability to preserve order and morale among the troops, and thus the ability to fight wars.
Arguments Against This Approach
The government should not be extending rights and benefits to people based on behavior, including sexuality. Protections for blacks, women and the disabled -- who are born with those traits -- cannot be compared with homosexuals, who can control how they act. No one else gets benefits based on behavior. If consensual sexual behavior were the standard for receiving government spousal benefits, we would therefore also have to give benefits to unmarried men and women living together. This will introduce an endless battle over whose relationship is serious enough and whose is not. Recognizing gay and lesbian unions will erode the institution of marriage. Since society began, marriage has been a sacred bond between a man and a woman, and the foundation of a stable society.Granting rights to gays and lesbians effectively sends the message that their lifestyle is condoned in our society. Many Americans have strong personal beliefs, often based on deep religious beliefs, that such behavior is unacceptable and certainly should not be encouraged.
African-Americans would never have received civil rights protection if the matter had been left to local authorities. This is another case where the federal government needs to step in to guarantee the rights of a minority.Without federal action, we will end up with a patchwork of laws that offer gays and lesbians protection in some areas but not in others. Either gays and lesbians are citizens deserving of full civil rights or they are not -- you cant split the difference. This kind of attitude may lead to positive changes for gays and lesbians, but it could take decades. In the meantime, discrimination and hate crimes continue every day. Government has to take a stand at some point about marriage being a union between a man and a woman, if for no other reason than to provide some consistency about our morals and laws. Once this definition of marriage is abandoned, there is no logical reason for limiting it to two people. Why not have three partners?
People have a right to their own personal beliefs, but the government has a responsibility to take action when people are being treated unfairly simply because of their sexuality.Multiple studies have shown that gay and lesbian parents can provide a stable, nurturing home life for children. If the government wants to protect children, it should support and encourage long-term relationships, no matter what gender.Giving partner benefits to same-sex couples and being allowed to serve in the military arent special rights. They are no different than bringing an excluded group such as women and blacks into full citizenship. People with disabilities are given special rights because of unique characteristics. Gays deserve special rights, too, because sexual orientation is a very deeply rooted trait that cannot be changed.Marriage is about more than just bearing children. Its about love and companionship. We dont differentiate between heterosexual couples who intend to have children, and those who dont, whether they are infertile or childless by choice.Most major religions prohibit various sexual choices, including adultery, but we dont criminally prosecute adulterers anymore. Why should people be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals and not adulterers?
Talk It Over