The Court thus protected sodomy per se, but did so in a way that upheld the equals rights, the dignity, of homosexuals as well. The alternative, based on mere moral disapproval, "demeans the lives of homosexual persons." The Court, especially the concurrence by Justice O'Connor, made sure to note that the case did not involve "formal recognition" by the government. The very nature of the right, privacy and personal autonomy, separates this case from marriage, adoption, and perhaps military bans (many feel not, but then the military bans fraternalization of all sorts, which clearly the nonmilitary in most cases can not ... so who knows?). The "slippery slope," however, is on the horizon. And, the Court did note an equal protection argument was "a tenable" one.

The 21st Century of homosexual rights has begun.

I'm a guy. I am attracted to women, both emotionally and physically, just like most women are attracted to men both emotionally and physically. When I see an attractive woman, I feel it; I physically am attracted to her, and when I am with a woman that I am emotionally compatible with, I am emotionally attracted to her as well. I do not think about such things most of the time; it is basically uncontrollable, as anybody from teenage years on will tell you. I might be able to try not to think about it or not relate with a particular woman in such a way that would allow me to know how attracted I am to her, but this just avoids the clear reality. I am a heterosexual male, and the reason basically is that I was born one. Society might affect how I relate with men, and I am sure that for some males (and maybe even me), it affects how they think about them emotionally and physically, just like society influences how we relate to people of a different race or religion than our own. It probably also changes how we think of a particular type, be it by weight or physical appearance; nonetheless, the basic attraction between the sexes remains. We do not ultimately choose it; it is there, like it or not (and for many, especially teenagers, those unable to attain a particular person, or married people, they do not like it that much).

In various ways, I am not like the typical person, but in this way, I am. There is however those who are attracted physically and emotionally to people of the same sex, including those who are attracted to members of each sex. It is unclear, especially given societal pressure, how many fall in this class, though some estimate it any where from one to ten percent (especially if we include those who are attracted to members of the same sex at only particular times, a class whose numbers are higher than many would like to admit). These people, homosexuals and bisexuals, do not choose their feelings. They may choose whether or not to act out them, but that is a completely separate issue. The fact is clear that the feelings are there, even if they will cause a lot of pain because of societal disapproval or complications it might cause in their lives. A homosexual man emotionally and physically is attracted to other men, while homosexual women (lesbians) are attracted to other women, no less than heterosexuals are attracted to people of the opposite sex. The ultimate question is if such feelings are okay, though realizing that they are there and can not truly be avoided, is an important first step.

The presence of a relatively small (though large in actual numbers given even one percent of the US population is twenty seven million or so) class of people that challenge a (if not the) central component of society is rather upsetting to many people. Many feel heterosexuality is not just a norm of the majority of the population, but in itself the only normal type of sexuality, as well as the only moral type. As a preliminary matter, it is to be noted that the morality issue is a matter of debate; many religions do not feel homosexuality is immoral. Therefore, a country that claims to be one that practices religious freedom has no right to base laws on matters of disputed morality such as this. It is hard if not impossible to refute some moral and religious beliefs, since they ultimately are based on not logic but faith. It is quite another thing to base laws on them, as continues to be the case. Nonetheless, morality of a particular practice is often only determined by examining it in light of our basic moral principles. If looked at this way, it might be shown that homosexuality is not immoral, though only if we can accept the basic moral principles and how we use them that would allow us to reach such a determination. If so, we might be on the road to show how treating homosexuals differently actually is a way of discriminating them in ways that we can not rightly allow.

Basically, it is hard for me to understand how being attracted to or loving people of your own sex should be held to be wrong, so wrong that we are justified in discriminating against them. It is understandable that something so foreign to our common experiences can make us feel uncomfortable, but this usually does not lead to the overall inequality that homosexuals and bisexuals must suffer. For instance, I might feel a particular religion or belief is wrong, even if a sizable amount of people hold it, but I do not therefore think it on its own make such believers bad people, that they should not be allowed to think that way, teach my children, join the armed forces, or marry. Furthermore, caring for people of your own sex is really not even comparable to that example. How does it hurt me if my neighbor is a homosexual or lesbian? If they were thieves, or lied a lot, or were generally bad people, sure they are in some way immoral and a threat. Such things are what we think of when we think people are immoral, not the type of people they love and care about.

Though it is so obvious that it should not need to be mentioned, it unfortunately must be, that clearly just because you love differently that it makes it all right. Some people care about people who are too young or old for them, such as the case of the thirty-year-old teacher who had an affair with her young student. Nonetheless, comparing homosexuality with pedophilia, incest or polygamy is not just wrong, it is outrageous. Being homosexual does not mean you are a member of NAMBLA any more than being a heterosexual teacher makes you want to have affairs with your students. Some fear homosexual adults will "encourage" their children to be homosexual, like such a thing is a life choice or something. The fact that many if not most children come from heterosexual parents and spend most of their childhood surrounded by heterosexuals makes it obvious that sexuality of adults around them do not cause them to be homosexual. It might allow them to have an easier time of it, but no less than a black mentor might help a black child get through the trials and tribulations of growing up in a racially troubled world. It is one thing to be opposed to any one helping people know who they are, it is quite another to claim such people "made" them that way.

The arguments against homosexuality (and bisexuality) usually boils down to the "it's not natural" variety. This is akin to saying you should not be a particular religion or political party because most people are different than you. It is more misguided actually because homosexuality is a part of who you are, just like you might be left handed or have some less normal blood type (for instance, more people in this country probably have had same sex relationships in their life time than have O- blood, which is my blood type), not only a particular belief or way of life that you can choose. The argument that God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, is not only irrelevant, it is just plain wrong. God or nature did create those who are attracted to the same sex, even if some of us feel s/he/it created a problem by doing so. The fact homosexuality is "natural" does not end matters (some dangerous people were equally naturally made), but does seriously weaken this argument against homosexuality. Furthermore, it is unclear how such a relatively small class of people can hurt heterosexuals and their role in having children. I am not suddenly stopped being attracted to women because some men are attracted to men. It is also clearly not the case that there is not enough children or families because a few people are homosexual. After all, not only do many homosexuals choose to start families, most homosexuals are born of heterosexual parents.

Some use the AIDS crisis to show that God or nature does not like homosexuals, which is a particularly cruel argument, especially by the fact that many "innocent" people suffer in the process. Furthermore, it seems that God and/or nature waited pretty long to decide that it was time to punish (?) homosexuals, besides the fact that the AIDS crisis makes lesbian sex one of the safest types. Also, other venereal diseases have been around much longer, suggesting that heterosexual sex is much worthier of punishment. Should the heterosexual partners, children, hemophiliacs and other straight people who contracted AIDS be just accepted as unfortunate innocent victims of God's wrath? Finally, given the way AIDS is transmitted, it seems just as logical to argue that the true problem is too much casual sex -- this after all, is a major cause of venereal disease, including AIDS (many got it from prostitutes, men who sleep around, and so on, not even going into those cases caused by IV drug use). I wonder if those who use AIDS in their arguments against homosexuality really would be happy to know that a logical extension of their argument would support lesbianism and gay male marriage!

The ultimate resource used by those who argue homosexuality is immoral for religious reasons is that their particular Holy Scripture holds it to be especially the Bible. This is a very hard nut to crack because it is not easy to explain that such resources were written by those who instilled them with their own prejudices and ignorance. Scripture is ultimately written not by God, but by men and women inspired by what they felt was the word of God, who made us to be imperfect scribes of his/her word. Furthermore, it requires a somewhat select reading of the Bible for many to oppose homosexuality on biblical grounds, but not any number of other things the Bible (especially the Old Testament) oppose. If one reads the things that justify the death penalty by biblical command, one would be a tad shocked. Furthermore, Jesus himself as well as his disciples told us that many Old Testament commands (including kosher food) need not be followed. Also, things such as divorce, women preaching, and slavery all were accepted in the New Testament. Finally, many of the homosexual practices damned in the Bible were actually veiled opposition to pagan practices, not just sexual practices.

A debate over morality really is not my concern here, though it always seems to me to be an interesting (if futile) one to examine. My concern is more a constitutional one; that is, to show how allowing homosexuals and bisexuals to be true to their nature is mandated by our constitutional ideals. "Constitutional ideals" sounds weighty and legalistic, but what it really boils down to are basic values that I think we can all agree upon. How these values are carried out is a bit trickier, but that is what I'm here to discuss.

I find (though it often is not discussed in such a way) that many of the most controversial issues of the day boil down to questions of morality and religion. Issues that are discussed in law books and elsewhere as rights of privacy, equality, due process, and so on are really as much questions of our sense of right and wrong. Furthermore, we determine this by our religious and moral values; concepts I feel are clearly intertwined, especially for most people. So, to put it simply, I feel that saying homosexuality is immoral is no reason to make its practice illegal or hinder homosexuals in various ways (marriage, sex, jobs, benefits, etc.).

Let's put aside that some Jews and Christians accept homosexuals as moral beings. The fact our society is largely Judeo-Christian does not mean we can establish a Judeo-Christian society, or hinder those who are not of the Judeo-Christian persuasion to freely live their own religious beliefs. This is what religious freedom means, plain and simple. I will not force the Catholic Church to uphold equality by having female priests, but if I want to have sex with a guy, it or its followers have no right to say it is "immoral" and therefore should be illegal. [This makes a recent Supreme Court case upholding the Boy Scouts' ban on homosexual scout leaders logical, since as a private group, it has the right to ban members it feels are morally unfit. The same applies to private marches such as those for St. Patrick's Day.] Those who are so concerned with societal morality are simply hypocrites to not support moral people who just love differently than them. Honesty dictates we see what is being called for here: selective religious freedom, liberty for some, not all. Sorry, that is not how things are supposed to be.

Once we notice that the morality argument is built on sand, discrimination against homosexuals and bisexuals starts to seem a blatant violation of equal protection. The fact people are not truly equal in certain ways does not mean they should not be treated equal in regards to protecting their fundamental rights. Men and women are not equal in all respects, but in basic ways we must treat them equally. The same applies to homosexuals, who in all the important ways are equal to you and me, especially if you happen to be homosexual or bisexual. Do they care and love for their mates less than heterosexuals? Does the simple fact of them not being straight justify job discrimination? How about simple safety from violence and abuse? If not, why?

Well, there is always the tried and true morality reason, usually tied to the fact that society as a whole disapproves. It is less commonly noted that the reasons it disapproves are prejudicial and not worthy of legal sanction. Threat to straights? Perhaps, but only to those who might not be as straight as they might think. Threat to marriage? I think a small minority is not a reason why divorce is so high or why so many marriages are in trouble from the beginning (unless it is because one of the people is not really heterosexual). Not only do I find it hard to think of reasons, I go back to the fact that heterosexuals are as much or more are trouble, as seen in the marriage arena alone. Don't even get me started with morality and misguided (and in various ways dangerous) religious beliefs.

The only reason that I find mildly valid is those situations when homosexuals are somehow intimately involved with members of the same sex. This exception however opens up a whole can of worms, since it would mean homosexuals couldn't use public gyms, be certain kinds of teachers, serve in the military, perhaps work in certain department stores that require you to see nudity, and various other areas. Furthermore, many have done such things in the past and currently, and we have not seen many problems. If anything, a co-ed military has caused more problems than the continual existence of homosexuals. Furthermore, it apparently true that women are much freer with experimenting sexually with members of their own sex then men, but still manage to interact intimately without loads of trouble to society or the institutions involved. The problems that might arise in this area might suggest we should tread lightly, but surely does not carry over to the society at large.

The privacy argument (limited by the way, since many would not like to give people out of the military the right to be homosexual either), which has the scent of after the fact justification to it, is a bit funny really. Suddenly, the same guys who are so macho and at times prone to physically beat up homosexuals are upset that homosexuals are around them. I do feel these guys (and to an extent women) doth protest too much. Men are more intimate with each other than they might care to admit, and their oversensitivity and concern for gay people (as seen by jokes etc.) suggests they are thinking about men a bit much, no? For instance, a talk radio station I listen to has a show that at times seems obsessed with making homosexual jokes, or jokes accusing someone to be "gay." After a while, this really gets boring to me, but apparently some of their male listeners get a big kick out of hearing about homosexual men, or being assured they are not one. Such a fear (perhaps in some cases justified to some extent) might be understandable, but it is not a legitimate reason to burden homosexuals.

This brand of radio also raises a related equal protection issue, one as touchy as basing homosexual rights on freedom of religion. The shows have a lot of fun with lesbians, who rarely are seen as that bad by the male listeners, unless perhaps if they do not find them attractive. As noted, women often are less upset with sexual attraction or experience with their own sex than men are. One major reason for this is that men often perceive gay men to be effeminate, which is only sometimes true. Nonetheless, this is perceived as a violation of the normal division of the sexes. Lesbians also are sometimes believed to not be true women because they never marry or have children (though many get upset if they want to marry women or have children), or in some case do not act or look like women should.

Such a stereotypical look at sexual identity is a violation of true sexual equality, and also tends to further a stereotypical version of femininity and women's place in society. Males who are feminine are seen as "bad," as if femininity is something only fit for women, while lesbians who are "masculine" are seen as "bad" because only men should act that way. This is the definition of sexism. It furthers a stereotypical view of how the sexes should live their lives with a special burden on those who act "feminine." Not only is this seen as somehow bad and a step down by many men, those women who do not act in this way are also seen as bad. Women who are actually straight might be perceived as lesbians if they act too manly, do not submit to the will of men, desire to take part in so called masculine activities (the military, construction, even politics -- Hillary Clinton is seen by some as a lesbian) and so on.

The first landmark case concerning homosexuality that reached the Supreme Court (Bowers v Hardwick, Bowers being the Attorney General of Georgia, who later fired a lesbian state employee on morality grounds, but also was shown to have had an extramarital affair) was argued on "due process" grounds. The basic idea being that homosexuality (sodomy between either sex was the law involved, but only homosexual sodomy was attacked by the decision) is such an intimate and personal issue that the state has no business interfering. The fact that this particular act of sodomy took place at home only made it that much more worthy of protection on privacy grounds. Hardwick lost 5-4, though the fact his conviction was suspended factored into the decision. Nonetheless, the lack of criminal sanction clearly does not mean one's privacy in sexual choices will not be burdened. Privacy it is to be noted is not just the right to secrecy, but the right to make intimate (private) choices in your life without undue state interference.

The right to choose one's sexual partner in such a way is clearly a fundamental liberty worthy of respect. Sexuality is a question of identity, an intimate part of your very being as a person and ultimately a citizen of this country. The inability to be true to your true identity in such areas as religion, political party, nationality, or class would clearly be seen as a violation of freedom of expression, equality, and even citizenship itself. Why should it be any different for a part of oneself as or more important than these areas? What is more important really, being Catholic or Jewish, or whom you are attracted to and love? What right does the state (or anyone really) have to interfere with living and acting out honestly and fully your true self, to have control of your intimate being not only in private, but in public as well? Society need not agree with your identity, but it has not right via government force you to change or hide it.

This is to be remembered when we look at the issue of homosexual marriage. Let it be noted front and center that marriage is not just about having children, never has been, and surely is not now. Do we just choose anyone and start having children? Does not love and respect factor in, especially in our society? Furthermore, marriage is also in part (often a much bigger part than even love) a union of two people for each of their benefit. Marriages through the ages were set up for political and economic gain, and still are. We need not look to couples who can or wish not to have them to see marriages where children are not the main purpose of the ceremony. Furthermore, homosexuals do have children, either before they come together with their partners, or afterwards.

Therefore, tradition does not mandate that marriages only occur between people of different sexes, who can have (and/or will) have children together. Children are actually only one part of three of the core reasons for marriage (love, security, and family). Furthermore, if we see marriage as a sacrament, the sex of the members of the union are basically irrelevant (and currently you can have a same sex religious union in many faiths). As long as the two join together meeting the requirements of the religion in question, the marriage can be seen as religiously sanctioned. Finally, since many more people are heterosexual, there tends to be many more marriages of men and women that we find immoral than same sex marriages, but do we block them? Morality means little to us (as compared to polygamy, incest, and age) in marriage, unless same sex marriages are involved.

This acceptance of society of a whole range of shall we say distasteful marriages is very important in countering the major argument against homosexual marriage: societal displeasure. This was not justified in the case of bans on interracial marriages or those of different religions. Why, except the same old selective cry of immorality is same sex any different? We allow women to marry old men for money, the Supreme Court has held even felons who will never see their wives in freedom have the right to marry, but not for same sex marriage? We hear homosexuals might abuse the privilege (e.g. for health benefits), as if many heterosexuals do not do the same thing, perhaps by marrying a homosexual in a sham marriage!

It is also ignored that marriage has many benefits (settling down and having someone there to help you to name but two) that are especially beneficial for some gay men (it is for straight men, imagine two for the price of one marriage). Some say that they do not mind homosexuals being together, but do not want to give acceptance to their union by allowing a civil marriage, so why not let them be? The problem being that marriage brings many domestic benefits including health, insurance, and so on. A domestic partnership agreement that protects these benefits is a start, but they tend not to fully do this, and is an inferior recognition of what truly is a marriage. Society is not truly accepting of who they truly are and that they want to be together, so why should they consider themselves to be? A nice way to break up unions that with a bit more support would stay together to the benefit of us all.

The fact that states do not recognize same sex marriage is worse enough, but the federal government decided (partly because the Hawaii Supreme Court held it was necessary under state equal protection laws, later overturned by a change of its Constitution) to make it clear that it does not recognize them, even if certain states do. In the height of hypocrisy, this was done via the Defense of Marriage Act a nice Orwellian turn of the phrase. States usually have to accept the acts of other states ('full faith and credit'), including marriages and divorces. Congress has the right to regulate this area of law, thus the above act, though Article IV says they could do so only by "general" laws. Putting aside the stupidity and prejudicial components of the law, a law that targets one class of people does not seem that "general" to me.

Furthermore, a federal law that unnecessarily interferes with marriage seems to go against the idea of states rights (not to say personal liberty). Marriage is usually a matter for the states to decide, and a law that defines marriage really is no business for the federal government. Let us not forget there was no big crisis at hand that required such a law to begin with, except the suggestion one state might overcome popular prejudice to protect true equality. Homosexuality is still far from being accepting by the people at large (barely half of many polled accept it as moral, many more are willing to limit many rights of homosexuals), but acceptance is not helped those who do not. Racism still exists, but this does not mean we should put forth laws to help it, the same applies here.

This law reaffirms that national distaste that is still present regarding homosexuals, as does the opposition to laws that try to deal with the discrimination and violence that many homosexuals suffer daily. Laws that try to show the special repugnance to violent attacks (or even murders) motivated by anti-homosexual bias might not be good policy since a general law against violence is arguably better policy. The same applies to laws that highlight certain groups (e.g. various races, creeds, genders, sexual orientations, and so on) that are discriminated against and are therefore especially in need of protection. This, however, is often not the reason laws that benefit homosexuals in some fashion are especially disfavored. The reason is that homosexuality in itself is passionately rejected, so much that the rights and needs of homosexuals and bisexuals as individuals are ignored. Such prejudice is as sad as its misguided, but surely should not be reaffirmed by force of law. Nonetheless, this unfortunate situation will continue, until it is fully understood that sexual orientation does not make one any less of a citizen, no less of a moral individual with all of the rights and understanding such a status entails.