Sodomy laws are discriminatory
N. Eugene Walls
graduate student
It is important that people understand that there is more at issue in the Supreme Court case regarding the Texas sodomy law than the "right to privacy." Currently in the United States there are basically two types of sodomy laws. The first type is a law that pertains to certain consensual adult sexual acts (usually oral and anal intercourse) regardless of whether these acts are committed by opposite-sex partners or same-sex partners.
And then there are sodomy laws such as those in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri that target only same-sex sexual expression. The same-sex only sodomy laws move us into the realm of "equal protection" issues. It is this type of sodomy law that is currently before the Supreme Court.
If Andrea Arnoult's primary concern about sodomy laws in her April 29 letter is to insure that people use their body parts for the purposes for which they were designed, she should be lobbying the four states with only same-sex sodomy laws to make sure that heterosexuals also don't use their mouths, fingers or anuses in improper ways. I am sure she understands that sodomy laws in their original intent were to prohibit any type of non-procreative sexual expression. That would include many common sexual practices among married heterosexual couples including vaginal intercourse with birth control.
Arnoult also invokes the Catholic party line of differentiating between the "person" and the "act" when it comes to gay people. Interestingly, research shows that intrinsically religious folk don't seem to be able to implement this line of thinking in their behavior (see Daniel Batson 1999 "And Who Is My Neighbor?: Intrinsic Religion as a Source of Universal Compassion" in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion). Perhaps when Christians start acting more Christ-like, secular America may not be so harsh in their criticism of the religious.
Finally, Arnoult's example of comparing smokers to lesbian and gay people is invalidating and trivializing. An addiction to a substance is not the same as a person's sexual orientation. Does crack addiction and heterosexuality work the same way? There is mounting evidence of a genetic and hereditary link in the determination of sexual orientation (both heterosexual and lesbian, gay or bisexual) and all of the major clinical and psychological associations have condemned so called "reparative therapy" because guess what? The evidence is that sexual orientation is not changeable.
If you want to support sodomy laws at least tell the truth about it. They are laws that are unenforceable, but are on the books primarily to discriminate against lesbian and gay people in custody cases, adoption cases and sometimes in employment situations. They maintain stigma and second class citizenship. I don't really care if Sen. Rick Santorum steps down from his Republican leadership position, but I would respect him a lot more if he would just own up to being anti-gay. After all, he doesn't have to look far in his own party to find excellent examples of "bigotry pride" — David Duke, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Dick Armey.
N. Eugene Walls
graduate student
off-campus
April 29
All Viewpoint Stories for Wednesday, May 7, 2003
