Gays Seek Only the ‘Special Privilege’ of Equal Rights

We Americans have ambivalent feelings about equality.

Mostly we’re for it, in theory. Our Constitution embodies its principles.

We don’t like people cutting in line, or cheating on their taxes, or “getting away with something” that we, somehow, haven’t been able to pull off.

“Who gave them special privileges?” is what we say about these people.

Now, increasingly, that’s what I’m hearing about gays: that they want too much, too fast, and that they are making too much noise.

In one of three anti-gay resolutions passed at the state Republican Party convention last week, Rep. William E. Dannemeyer of Fullerton put the GOP on record as opposing any legislation that would give gay men and women “special privileges.”

This, as the cognoscenti know, is aimed at laws intended to prevent discrimination against gays in such areas as housing and education or on the job.

Assemblyman Gil Ferguson of Newport Beach, pleased that his resolution denying party recognition to groups based on sexual orientation had passed, said the measure showed that the GOP “affirms the heterosexual lifestyle and family values.”

In November, Irvine voters took the same bait. They removed gays from protection under the city’s human rights ordinance, abolishing this so-called special privilege and upholding “traditional family values” in the bargain.

A few months later, many at UC Irvine are feeling the same chill. Despite a non-discrimination clause that includes sexual orientation, the university administration ended a pilot program that allowed gay couples to live in married-student housing. Since then, there have been sit-ins, camp-outs, rallies and arrests.

Oh, and there was a small counterdemonstration as well. “No special privileges” is what the counterdemonstrators said.

The topic of homosexuality, I know, sets many people on edge. It engenders a lot of mail. The last time I wrote about the abridged rights of gays, I believe I got my fill.

Homosexuality makes Americans queasy. Just thinking about it causes some people to become quite upset. They imagine all sorts of things, and most of it centers on sex.

On this, of course, the homophobes play. The tactic, they know, works pretty well.

Other minority groups that have felt their share of the public’s dislike can attest to this, as well. Would you want your daughter marrying one? is but a variation of the same theme.

Dannemeyer’s graphic descriptions of gay sex did not make it into last week’s GOP resolution, but last year the Congressional Record, to the outrage of many, carried the congressman’s portrayal loud and clear.

“Talk about prurient interest,” complained Rep. Andy Jacobs Jr., a Democrat from Indiana. “I wouldn’t want my kid reading that sort of thing.”

No, of course not, Andy. And that is the point. The truth be told, I wouldn’t read such material myself. I’ve got far more important things to take up my time.

But the political maneuver is clear. It intends to shock and then to dismay.

“It’s a tactic we feel compelled to use,” Dannemeyer’s spokesman, Paul Mero, told me over the phone.

“Most people find the subject completely disgusting. . . . The primary tactic from the homosexual side is to present this behavior in an abstract fashion, to talk about civil rights. . . . We say that euphemistically brushes off the notion at stake. What we are talking about is male sodomy . . . or female sodomy. We want people to get a clear picture of what is at stake.”

The definition of what is at stake, however, varies with the speaker.

Legislation outlawing discrimination doesn’t ban differences, be they in the color of a person’s skin, or in religion, or in sexual orientation.

It is not gay sex, still technically against the law in 24 states and the District of Columbia, that is at stake in the struggle for gay rights. Sex, regardless of the law, will always be around--and it doesn’t much matter what’s considered “natural” or “unnatural.”

The issue, I believe, is much broader than this. It rests on our ambiguous notion of equality, the often-slapdash application of the constitutional principle of equal protection under law.

Racism, sexism, ageism and other isms, are, today, legally taboo. But fire an employee simply because he is gay, or refuse to rent to a couple whose sexual preference is different from your own, well now, that’s OK.

It’s still a free country--for those who are not gay.

I’ve heard enough about these specious “special privileges.” Let’s start working toward equal rights.