Rev. Lou Sheldon and Rights of Homosexuals

Sheldon’s intolerant, uninformed and poorly reasoned critique of homosexual political activism illustrates the need for “gay pride” days and legal reform to extend to all persons equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.

Sheldon cloaks his attack on homosexuals by trying to establish his credentials as a civil rights activist. A claimed involvement in the civil rights movement in no way establishes Sheldon’s capacity to decide whether or not homosexuals are rightfully classified as minorities for purposes of securing constitutional guarantees against discrimination.

The distinction between minority status based on genetics, historical accidents or behavioral preference is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not a specifiable group is being discriminated against. There is nothing in the Constitution or in statutory, case, or common law, that requires that such a distinction be made.

In a society that concerns itself with economic discrimination and discrimination based on marital status--both matters of behavioral preference--there is certainly ample constitutional room to consider discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Like most homophobics, Sheldon assumes that homosexuality is purely a matter of individual choice. It is convenient to do so. However, this claim has yet to be confirmed by the social or natural sciences.

Sheldon invokes the name of Jefferson to critique homosexuality. True enough, Jefferson condemned “buggery,” as did all public officials of the time. However, like the great English liberal John Stuart Mill, Jefferson believed that the individual should be sovereign over all matters concerning himself/herself. The liberal tradition, which Sheldon speaks of sympathetically, has moved historically to expand the rights of individual privacy, not to diminish them as would the so-called “traditional values” coalitions in Anaheim, Irvine and elsewhere.

Sheldon concludes that homosexuals are not entitled to have civil rights because their behavior is responsible for numerous deaths and financial ruination. Thousands of Americans die each year from firearm accidents, tens of thousands on America’s highways, and even more from tobacco, alcohol and drug addiction. Each individual engaged in a behavior that led to their death, the deaths of countless others and enormous financial losses. Should individuals who own a gun, drive a car, smoke, drink or take drugs be legitimate targets of unbridled discrimination? Of course not. Yet the “logic” of Sheldon’s argument would take us down this very unturnable path.

After we dispose of these positions, there is not much left to Sheldon’s critique other than claims based on a reading of the Scriptures. Presumably this is something the reverend knows something about, (aware that he is) that there are very different ways to interpret the Bible.

If he finds intolerance, abhorrence and castigation for homosexuality in the Bible, then so be it. However, I would remind Sheldon that Thomas Jefferson and other traditional liberals in America worked hard to establish a firm boundary line between church and state that should prevent a critique of homosexual political activism based on religious grounds from denying civil rights to any American.

MARK P. PETRACCA

Irvine