America's War On Sex

Marty Klein

Part 14

Report Chapter
webnovel
webnovel

The public-izing of s.e.x attempts to mobilize the community to protect the American hearth, to contain the power of s.e.xuality. The antis.e.x community fears this power can spread from one home to another like a contagion. Like witchcraft did. Like heresy did. Like the 1960s did. That's one reason they're so committed to maintaining the myth of kids' s.e.xual innocence-kids are seen as the generational firewall that helps contain the contagion.

In reality, s.e.xuality encompa.s.ses a broad range of our self: what we think and feel, do with our bodies, fantasize, how we choose partners, and express ourselves. More pragmatically, it involves what we wear, contraceptive choices, role-playing, toys, and more. Public-izing our s.e.xuality attempts to limit or eliminate a broad swath of these options, which is a lot of our human heritage to lose. And Americans are not safe from further losses: as you read this, churches, morality groups, legislators, and prosecutors are busy narrowing your s.e.xual choices even more.

Americans deserve to reclaim the intrinsic privacy of private s.e.x. Fulfilling the American promise demands it. To do so, we need to reestablish the comprehensive concept of private s.e.x. Outside of s.e.x, this principle is already established throughout our culture: personal activity is considered private unless it involves coercion, fraud, or the forced, disruptive partic.i.p.ation of the public.

Playing soccer during rush hour in the center of Times Square is, rightly, prohibited. Making love there should be, too-for exactly the same reason, no more, no less. The s.e.x part is irrelevant.

But "There is no fixed consensus on privacy and s.e.xuality, in spite of the fact that most people feel their bodies are private," says Kinsey Inst.i.tute Executive Director, Dr. Julia Heiman.4 Antis.e.x forces have found many ways to create a gray zone between private and public s.e.xual expression. The War on s.e.x pursues that gray zone with 160 160 legal, economic, and political pressure. Zoning laws, morality crusades, powerful but meaningless anecdotes, and undoc.u.mented claims of secondary effects transform private activity into gray zone activity, and gray zone activity into public activity. And so Phoenix, Arizona, was able to close private swingers'

clubs by declaring them places offering "live public s.e.x acts," and an Arkansas strip club has been forced to stop offering erotic "birthday spankings" because "people can get hurt." Texas has actually made it illegal to educate customers while selling s.e.x toys; the seller has to state "these are novelty items only."

When "pa.s.sion consultant" Joanne Webb refused to pretend that in 2003, she was arrested.

WHO'S ALLOWED TO PRACTICE s.e.x UNRESTRICTED?

Throughout history, legal or religious codes have restricted various people in expressing their s.e.xuality: the unmarried, elderly, adolescent, mentally ill, physically handicapped, terminally ill, warriors in training, menstruating women.

And, in many cultures, anyone having s.e.x with someone of the same gender.

In most modern societies, those restrictions are either gone or facing chal enges. In their place, however, Americans now face other restrictions.

They're based on the discomfort and superst.i.tions of those who legislate, and the vocal minority that alternately critiques and supports them. Whether it's a zoning board, city council, district attorney, family mediator, or police chief, the story is almost always the same: Adults shouldn't be al owed to do just any s.e.xual thing they want, even when everyone involved consents and no one complains. Certain activities, relationships, and equipment are judged both bad for partic.i.p.ants, and bad for the community.

Or to put it more honestly, "That stuff seems weird and it scares me," or, "That stuff seems exotic and exciting and it scares me," or, "If that's allowed, then other stuff that's even scarier might be allowed, and it scares me."

As New York City prosecutor (Special Victims Unit) Linda Fairstein said in 2001 when describing why she was prosecuting S/M activity that she knew was consensual, she doesn't believe that "one human being should be allowed to do that to another, even if it is consensual."5 And as Robert Peters, President of Morality in Media says, "Conclusive scientific data is not necessary" when restricting s.e.xual activity.6 A bunch of people being scared or disgusted is apparently all that is. It works in Iran, it worked for the Taliban, so I guess there's no reason it can't work here.

There's a word that accurately describes this policy: discrimination.

Discrimination against those who enjoy inflaming their own pa.s.sion (l.u.s.tism?), and against those who enjoy s.e.xual activity of which others disapprove (kinkophobia?). When people are denied rights simply because society disapproves of who they are or what they do, it's cal ed discrimination.

Kinkophobia and l.u.s.tism are like racism and s.e.xism. Remember when jobs were advertised according to gender? And houses were rented according to race? Now access to jobs and housing (and to s.e.xual expression) is available Battleground: s.e.xual Privacy and s.e.xual Minorities 161 s.e.xual Privacy and s.e.xual Minorities 161 according to s.e.xual preference/orientation: "House for rent: no swingers, please." "Job promotion available: no gays, please." "s.e.x al owed: nothing kinky, please."

WHAT'S A s.e.xUAL MINORITY?

As we look at this question, do keep in mind your experience with whatever minority you're most familiar: racial, ethnic, religious, and so forth. You'l see that "s.e.xual minority" fits the familiar model of ethnic minority almost perfectly.

During three centuries of American history, "minorities" have included immigrants, Jews, African Americans, "Orientals," Mexicans, Quakers, Mormons, and Catholics. The designated "other" against which the majority defines itself, ethnic minorities have typically been described as: * a h.o.m.ogeneous group; * less than adult, perhaps even less than human; * not "normal"; * proselytizing or seducing "normal" people; * dangerous and therefore needing to be controlled; * pract.i.tioners of secret, exotic rituals; * impulsive and/or compulsive.

American society has historically maintained myths about minority groups, their activities, and the consequences of allowing minorities to follow their "nature." At the same time, society often lacks awareness about the extent to which minorities are deprived or in pain.

This is what it's like to be gay or bis.e.xual in America, or to prefer s.e.x that involves variations such as swinging, S/M, exhibitionism, cross-dressing, s.e.x toys, or adult entertainment. The tens of millions of people in one or more of these categories know that their activities could cost them their job, their apartment, their physical safety, or their freedom at any time. They also know that anything that involves their s.e.xuality may be met with ignorance, hostility, or both.

The way professionals are trained, and the services they provide us, are an example. To protect consumers by guaranteeing a minimum level of competence, al states credential professionals such as physicians, attorneys, and psychologists.

Thus, everyone has the right to expect their doctor, lawyer, marriage counselor, social worker, and physical therapist to understand a variety of clients; lawyers are expected to understand that some children are cut out of their parents' wil s.

Physical therapists know that not everyone is right-handed.

When it comes to s.e.xuality, training in all professions is limited, and many s.e.xual minorities cannot expect expert or non-judgmental services. Because of lack of training and cultural ignorance/prejudice, a physician might misdiag-nose an S/M-playing patient with bruises as an abuse victim (and be legally required to file a police report). A marriage counselor who doesn't understand 162 162 open relationships might a.s.sume that a swinging couple coming for communication skills are afraid of intimacy. Many psychologists would mishandle a bis.e.xual patient ambivalent about committing to marriage. Even Oprah's therapy guru, Dr. Phil, responded to a question about swinging with derision and ignorance. Calling a caller's boyfriend "a loser" and "slime," he cautioned her not to "wh.o.r.e yourself and screw his friends."7 The 1999 National Coalition for s.e.xual Freedom survey of those in alternate s.e.xual lifestyles, for example, found that 30 percent of the respondents experienced discrimination, while 36 percent suffered violence or hara.s.sment (including losing jobs or custody of children).8 Similarly, Dr. Joseph Marzucco's 2004 study of 786 people regularly involved in sadomasochism showed that men and women were significantly concerned about getting adequate medical care if physicians saw the physical results of their s.e.xual play.9 The majority remain unknown to their physicians. With millions of Americans practicing S/M regularly or occasionally, studies like these reflect a serious public health problem.

Similarly, a majority of women who self-identify as lesbians do not disclose their s.e.xual behavior or orientation to their physicians. This can prevent them from receiving appropriate medical and psychological information and services.10 Let's turn now to some of the ways that s.e.xual minorities-millions and millions of tax-paying, mind-their-own-business Americans-are facing legal and economic violence from judges, prosecutors, and other authorities.

"But blacks can't help being black," you might say, "while s.e.xual expression is a choice, so a democratic society can pathologize any s.e.xual choices it wishes." Actually, much s.e.xual expression is inborn the same way race is.

s.e.xual orientation-same-gender or other-gender-is, for almost everyone, fixed at birth or very early childhood. Millions of other people experience s.e.xual preferences so strong that they function as an orientation. These can include sadomasochism, cross-dressing, exhibitionism, and a rigid erotic at-tachment to objects such as leather or rubber garments.

More to the point, America has also outlawed discrimination in employment and public accommodation against a person's religion-which is adopted, not inborn. The right to wear a turban or cross in public is protected no matter how uncomfortable it makes others. There is no reason that someone's choice to go to a swing club can't be as protected as his or her choice to go to church (and yes, lots of Americans do both, swinging on Sat.u.r.day night, praying on Sunday morning).11 CASE STUDY: CRIMINALIZING YOUR RIGHT TO SWING.

Swingers' clubs-private places where couples and individuals can congregate and have s.e.x with each other in a safe environment-have quietly existed in Battleground: s.e.xual Privacy and s.e.xual Minorities 163 s.e.xual Privacy and s.e.xual Minorities 163 most major metropolitan areas since the 1970s. Fueled by the aging of the baby boomer generation and their belief in personal liberty and s.e.xual expression, the phenomenon has grown every decade since. By most estimates, there are now at least 5,000,000 swingers in the United States.12 By 1966, the military had some 50,000 swingers in its ranks under investigation, intending to court martial and discharge all of them.13 When civilian aeros.p.a.ce engineer Robert McGinley was identified as one of these "s.e.xual deviants," he lost his Air Force security clearance (and therefore his job). In 1975, McGinley founded the Lifestyles Organization (LSO); in less than five years, LSO was hosting weekend conventions attended by 500 or more couples. Soon, hotels and resorts throughout southern California were bidding for their lucrative convention business. They had learned that these thousands of couples were relatively affluent, well-behaved, and often returned-with their friends. They were perfect customers.

But in 1996, some California state officials decided to discourage swinging, and to "run LSO out of the state of California."14 Since swingers weren't doing anything illegal, how could this be arranged? By declaring that their s.e.xual behavior was dangerous: that it was immoral, which led to the breakdown of family values, and therefore bred crime. The police had no authority to stop this legal legal behavior, but the state did have an agency mandated to protect the behavior, but the state did have an agency mandated to protect the "public morals" in places it licensed: the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC).

And so, in October 1996, the ABC told the Seaport Marina Hotel in Long Beach that their liquor license could be revoked if they hosted the Lifestyles Halloween Banquet and Ball. Six weeks later, the ABC temporarily suspended the liquor license of the Town and Country Hotel in San Diego that had hosted the lifestyles convention that August. In response, the hotel cancelled the contracts it had signed with LSO for the next three years.

A few months later, the ABC warned that any California hotel hosting the 1997 LSO convention (of 4,000 swingers) could lose its license. ABC District Supervisor Dave Gill declared that their morality rules applied even at events at which no alcohol was served. Even more astonishing, he added that the ABC rules applied even to hotel sleeping rooms, since they were on the premises of license holders: "The regulations apply at all times to their facilities regardless of whether the activity is private or public in nature." The ABC was declaring that adults could not swing in their own locked hotel rooms.

Frightened hotels and convention centers were breaking contracts with LSO left and right, creating financial havoc.15 In subsequent court hearings, the American Civil Liberties Union described the ABC as "drunk with its own power." Robert Burke, president of the University of California, Los Angeles, Law School, accused the agency of practicing "state Gestapo-ism."16 Ultimately, a 9th Circuit judge ruled that the ABC was aggressively misusing its authority in order to suppress expression, and invalidated the regulations that prevented "any depiction of s.e.x in any 164 164 manner" at licensed venues. In addition, the ABC had paid the city of Long Beach to uncover dirt about LSO; the city was fined when it was discovered its police officers had lied about the debauchery they supposedly found while undercover at an LSO event.17 "From 199699, there were over 30,000 swing club gatherings in North America," reports multipleaward-winning investigative journalist, Terry Gould. "They were verifiably peaceful. . . I couldn't doc.u.ment a single 911 cal placed from a club. But local police nationwide persisted in raiding these private clubs, arresting and humiliating couples inside. Sometimes tipping off TV stations ahead of time, police would drive people out into the glare of waiting cameras," he revealed in his landmark study, The Lifestyle. The Lifestyle. "Swinging is peaceful activity that the government insists on treating like criminal behavior."18 "Swinging is peaceful activity that the government insists on treating like criminal behavior."18 But the nationwide crackdown was just getting rolling.

You couldn't describe Phoenix as sleepy when the fuss there started, and you certainly wouldn't now-with a million and a half people, it's America's fifth largest city. By 1998, it had an active community of tens of thousands of swingers, with gay bathhouses, mixed-gender clubs, and regularly scheduled house parties. Lots of people got laid, and no one complained.

But then the Phoenix City Council adopted the Live s.e.x Act Business ordinance. Drafted primarily by the Christian-based National Family Legal Foundation, it declared that s.e.x at a private swing club was a "live s.e.x act," and that clubs are "detrimental to the health, safety and morals" of residents. It was adopted as an emergency ordinance, so the city could declare declare a problem rather than having to a problem rather than having to prove prove it. And so the city could ignore the vocal input of "the community"-swingers. it. And so the city could ignore the vocal input of "the community"-swingers.

The first U.S. law specifically banning swingers' clubs, the city's reasons for it were phony from the start: * Eliminating prost.i.tution, although not one complaint or arrest was ever made; * Limiting overuse of police services, although no unusual level of calls was ever noted, and no one was ever arrested prior to the ordinance; * Preventing STDs, although al clubs required safer s.e.x practices, although no one has ever shown higher rates of STDs among swingers than non-swingers. Not only did al clubs provide condoms, the gay club The Chute offered free HIV testing, often at their own expense;19 * Preventing blight, although the clubs were in industrial and other non-glamorous neighborhoods. The building that housed The Chute was eventual y sold for three times its original cost. Wouldn't you love to suffer such blight?

* Zoning infractions: The relentless, discriminatory inspections required club bathrooms to be cleaner than a restaurant's. Some inspectors promised to return daily. Clubs were cited for missing lightbulbs.

Battleground: s.e.xual Privacy and s.e.xual Minorities 165 s.e.xual Privacy and s.e.xual Minorities 165 Other problems the city's swing clubs and bathhouses never experienced were drunkenness, violence, guns, s.e.xual a.s.sault, gambling, safety problems, financial irresponsibility, corruption, illegal drugs, or underage people. This is a record of public decorum unmatched by the Phoenix 7Elevens or the Arizona State University football program.

And yet, ordinance in place, the Phoenix police hounded swing clubs. At a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars, they sent in undercover officers week after week (hazardous duty, to be sure-"Honey, it was all in the line of duty. I swear I didn't enjoy it."). When the busts came, it was by cops in riot gear, with guns drawn. Did they imagine the swingers had concealed weapons? It's hard to imagine a bunch of naked 40-year-olds in the middle of kissing, sucking, lick-ing, and s.c.r.e.w.i.n.g becoming a dangerous mob.

The night that police raided Flex, there were 10 felonies in the area, including car theft. It was a great example of how Phoenix's obsession with s.e.x clubs distorted their public safety priorities.

Club owners spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees simply for the right to stay in business. They met with the city and attempted to compromise; the response was everything from bizarre applications of arcane hotel regulations ("no more than six in a bed") to falsified police reports. Courts disallowed doc.u.mented facts while relying on the "common sense" of city and church officials, anonymous zoning inspectors, and reports by cops who per-jured themselves. Phoenix City Attorney James Hays says he was instructed to do whatever was necessary to close down the clubs, especially the most elegant, Club Chameleon.

In 2002, a federal court ruled "there is no First Amendment protection for the physical s.e.xual conduct."

By 2005, the owners and staffs of six different clubs had been arrested and booked on charges ranging from facilitating live s.e.x acts to "moral turpitude"

(yes, really). They were told to expect serious jail time and large, punitive fines.

Chute co-owner Donnel McDonnel was threatened with having to register as a s.e.x offender for life. To lighten their sentences, most owners agreed to close their clubs (forfeiting their right to make a living). The very few that remained open were reduced to a desultory, cheap motel blandness, nothing like the vi-brant joyfulness once enjoyed by so many. The sophisticated, nonviolent, non-problematic Phoenix swing scene and bathhouse scene was destroyed.

And now, eight years after the ordinance's enactment? Couples still swing, and gay men still cruise. Except both groups do it in settings far less safe, less controlled, less healthy, and less dignified than they used to. "Some of the s.e.x has moved to public parks," says McDonnel bitterly, "probably with fewer condoms used. The Vice Squad says they're going after that next-having chased it there, from when it was safely behind our closed doors." "People are not going to stop what they are doing because there is no Club Chameleon,"

agrees former club owner Milo Fencl. "They'll find other ways to do what they want, even if they feel less comfortable with it."20 166.

Legitimate business owners like the Fencls have learned that religious big-otry, not due process or ethical government, runs Phoenix. Current city council members who helped push the discriminatory ordinance, like Peggy Bilstein, refuse to discuss the matter today.

It's not just a bunch of gathering places that Bilstein, police Lieutenant Larry Jacobs, and others shut down. An established community-with safety norms, etiquette, education, and mutual support, where people know and care for each other-was deliberately destroyed. "It was a place where women felt absolutely safe-they knew they were surrounded by people who would be respectful," la-ments Nancy Fencl, co-owner of the now-closed Club Chameleon.21 Phoenix didn't wipe out swinging. It just made swinging less safe, less predictable, less sober, less contained. Al the things those in city government and the Community Defense Council sanctimoniously claimed they were worried about.

"The Phoenix ordinance is the first of its kind in this country," reported the Phoenix New Times Phoenix New Times in 1999, "and appears primed to spark a monumental battle in the legal war over the business of s.e.x in America." How prescient. in 1999, "and appears primed to spark a monumental battle in the legal war over the business of s.e.x in America." How prescient.

Cities that criminalized swing clubs for consenting adults since 2004 include Philadelphia, Indianapolis, and St. Paul. The Community Defense Counsel (which is what the National Family Legal Foundation became) predicts many more cities will be cleansed.22 Says Mayor Bart Peterson of Indianapolis, "Our zoning laws exist for a reason: to protect families and children from being exposed to the negative effects that adult businesses can have on a community. Illegal adult establishments like Reel One are a detriment to strong, healthy neighborhoods and simply will not be tolerated in Indianapolis."23 It isn't only swinger's gatherings that are attacked. S/M conventions have been hara.s.sed and disrupted by authorities around the country. Just a sample from the last five years: * After "Nawlins in November" met in New Orleans annually without incident, police inform the host hotel that if it hosts the event this year, they'll get busted.

* When hotels in Maryland and Virginia notify police they'll be hosting S/M events, alcohol control authorities threaten to suspend the hotels' licenses, even though no alcohol will be served there.

* San Diego, Baltimore, Washington, DC, and Attleboro, Ma.s.sachusetts selectively enforce zoning and public indecency laws against local S/M communities.

* From February to May 2002, S/M conventions are blocked by Concerned Women for America, American Family a.s.sociation, and the American Decency a.s.sociation. The coordinated media and civic attacks take place in Chicago, Michigan, Oklahoma, and St. Louis.24 Battleground: s.e.xual Privacy and s.e.xual Minorities 167 s.e.xual Privacy and s.e.xual Minorities 167 CASE STUDY: S/M.

According to national surveys, 12 percent of American adults have engaged in consensual sadomasochism, erotic power play, or bondage-and-discipline games (S/M).25 These s.e.xual activities may or may not involve toys, equipment, and role-playing. They often involve physical stimulation that produces pain ranging from mild to intense. These games are always consensual, always negotiated ahead of time, and are always accompanied by good communication skills and the ability to change or stop what's happening whenever desired.

Pract.i.tioners of alternative s.e.xual lifestyles have not fared well in child custody hearings. Because America's family court system is often biased against s.e.xual minorities, parties in divorce proceedings sometimes try to gain legal advantage by exposing a former partner's s.e.xual history. Parental fitness has been questioned, for example, because one spouse has committed adultery, been "promiscuous," is gay, or partic.i.p.ates in "unusual" s.e.xual activity. Courts often agree, typically without evidence, that a child would be endangered because a parent engages in non-approved s.e.xual behavior.

Over the years, I have been professionally involved in many custody proceedings that involved s.e.xual issues. One of these was recently described in a peer-reviewed journal.26 The article convincingly demonstrates how family courts can be prejudiced against s.e.xual variations. It is noteworthy that this case took place in California, often considered the most s.e.xually liberal and s.e.xually educated state in the country.

When Mr. Smith and Ms. Smith divorced in the late 90s, they shared custody of their son, Ed. The boy lived with his father; his mother had liberal visitation rights and alimony. Mr. Jones eventual y became the mother's live-in boyfriend, whom everyone agreed soon had an excel ent stepparenting relationship with Ed.

During an investigation about the boy's health (which was soon completed) when he was 11, Ms. Smith volunteered that she and Mr. Jones had an intense S/M relationship. This triggered an investigation about the fitness of the mother and the possible danger posed by the live-in boyfriend. The investigation (by court-appointed Dr. Blair) confirmed that: * no child abuse had occurred; * the child was unaware of the mother's s.e.xual interests; * the child never saw any incidents or suggestions of inappropriate s.e.xual activity; * the child was doing well emotionally and in school.

Nevertheless, Dr. Blair was concerned that the couple's interest in S/M would lead to dangerous or illegal activities. He attempted to show that Mr. Jones had a s.e.xual interest in children, but admitted that there was no evidence to support this belief. Despite this, he said Mr. Jones could pose a risk 168 168 to Ed in the future. Dr. Blair admitted there was no evidence that the couple were ignorant or careless, but he worried about "the effects on the child if Ms. Smith were to die or become impaired during s.e.xual activity."27 Worse stil , Dr. Blair decided that the couple's consensual s.e.xual activities const.i.tuted domestic violence. And while noting that "the child has not observed it," Dr. Blair wildly speculated that "he is exposed to the after-effects,"

even though "I don't have enough information to understand what the effects on the child might be."28 As a result of Dr. Blair's alarm and recommendations, the court severely limited the mother's visitation and custody rights, ended her alimony, and required her to attend psychotherapy for almost a year-specifically focusing on domestic violence. The court ended Ed's relationship with Mr. Jones, even though all parties agreed Ed had a better relationship with him than with his biological father. All of this, despite Dr. Blair's opinion that the boy was well-adjusted and healthy.

It is heartbreakingly ironic that, although victims of domestic violence rarely have their children taken from them, the court's insistence on treating Ms. Smith as a victim of domestic violence provided the rationale for limiting her contact with her own child.

According to the National Coalition for s.e.xual Freedom, there are hundreds of tragic cases like this every year. Says national forensic expert Dr. Charles Moser, "We know of no cases where the parent admitting to S/M interests obtained or retained custody of the minor."29 America's family courts are directed to act in the best interests of the children they see. Ignorance about s.e.xual behavior, whether S/M, bis.e.xuality, nonmonogamy, or anything else, can make it impossible for courts to fulfill this mandate.

Compa.s.sionate Americans look back in shame at the distorted rulings that historically mar our otherwise proud legal system. Decisions involving runaway slave Dred Scott, the j.a.panese internment camps, and the denial of women's right to vote fill us with wonder: "What were those judges thinking?"

The time will come when our descendents look back on the routine denial of child custody to capable, caring parents who happen to make love the "wrong"

way or to the "wrong" gender, and they will wonder the same thing about us.

GAY AMERICANS.

According to every study of American s.e.xual behavior, some 30 or 40 million heteros.e.xual men and women have same-gender s.e.x one or more times in their lives. Of course, they remain straight. They're straight.

About 10 million Americans have s.e.x with people of the same gender throughout their adult lives. Like everyone else, most of these Americans fall in love at some point. Like everyone else, they want to be left alone to go to work, raise their kids, pay their bills, and watch TV. They're not looking for approval, just the chance to live a decent life. And they want their basic Battleground: s.e.xual Privacy and s.e.xual Minorities 169 s.e.xual Privacy and s.e.xual Minorities 169 rights-visiting their partner in the hospital, handling their kids' school stuff, keeping their job even though their boss hates "f.a.gs."

That's it. That's the whole gay thing.

But some people are obsessed with h.o.m.os.e.xuality, seeing it as a poison that must be stopped. They talk about protecting themselves and their loved ones from the evil Gay Agenda. Here, for example, is the guiding principle behind the American Family a.s.sociation's (AFA) opposition to this Gay Agenda: We oppose the efforts of the gay movement to force its agenda in education, government, business and the workplace through law, public policy and the media . . . We oppose the effort to convince our culture that because individuals partic.i.p.ate in h.o.m.os.e.xual behavior, they have earned the right to be protected like racial and other minority groups.30 But the AFA has it wrong. It isn't having gay s.e.x that earns you protection in America. It's being American. That's why blacks and Mormons and the handicapped are "protected"-because they're American. That's all that gays want-the normal protections of all Americans.

So besides wanting "protection," what is this Gay Agenda?

"Middle America better take note. Last night Hollywood exposed its own corrupt agenda. [It] is no doubt on a mission to h.o.m.os.e.xualise America,"

said Stephen Bennett of Straight Talk Radio, after the 2006 Golden Globe Awards honored films like Brokeback Mountain Brokeback Mountain and and Capote Capote.31 What does that even mean? If Bennett thinks gays are lined up around the block to have s.e.x with him, he's flattering himself. Are gays determined to seduce straights? Of course not. Do they want to destroy marriage? No, they cherish it so much, they want to join it! But not because they want the cake, the dress, or the flowers. They want the civil rights. Yes, every state is in the marriage business, and it awards financial, legal, and parenting rights to married people. That's what gay Americans want-the "special rights" the government gives the people it marries.

How would this affect anyone else's marriage? In Ma.s.sachusetts, the only state that allows same-s.e.x marriage, the heteros.e.xual divorce rate has gone gone down down. Some would chide that gay marriage helps protect protect "traditional" marriage. "traditional" marriage.

No one's marriage is threatened by same-s.e.x marriage any more than your friendships are threatened by mine.

But 29 U.S. senators took time out from fighting global terrorism, our declining education system, and skyrocketing health care costs this summer to sponsor an amendment to our sacred Const.i.tution. It would prevent any state from allowing same-gender marriage "or the legal incidents thereof " (those "special rights" gay people want).32 The Republican Party would soil our beautiful Const.i.tution by pandering to some of its const.i.tuents' worst fears. "When America's values are under attack, we need to act," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN). Yes, we must 170 170 maintain the American value of discrimination, enshrining it in our beloved Const.i.tution.

This legal discrimination already exists in a range of parenting arenas, such as child custody (gays lose it) and adoption (difficult or against the law).33 Referring to the fact that some states al ow same-s.e.x couples to adopt children, radio host Janet Parshal told Larry King, "[I] think what you have in many respects is state-sanctioned child abuse."34 Would Larry King have sat there quietly if she had said this about adoption by black or Jewish parents?

Not that it will change any minds, but there are dozens of published psychological and sociological studies showing that children of gay parents do just as well as children of heteros.e.xual parents.35 Christian conservatives say that h.o.m.os.e.xuality offends G.o.d (They mean, of course, their their G.o.d). I am perfectly willing to believe that-but so what? Lots of what we do in the United States offends their G.o.d: working on the Sabbath, heteros.e.xual adultery, drinking alcohol, blasphemy. None of these is illegal in the United States, because "offending G.o.d" isn't a crime. G.o.d). I am perfectly willing to believe that-but so what? Lots of what we do in the United States offends their G.o.d: working on the Sabbath, heteros.e.xual adultery, drinking alcohol, blasphemy. None of these is illegal in the United States, because "offending G.o.d" isn't a crime.

So why should h.o.m.os.e.xuality be legally disadvantaged, just because some people don't like who they have s.e.x with? The fundamental agreement in America is that just doing something that offends others' beliefs will never be illegal. That's rule number one in America, remember? "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The Family Research Council (FRC) says that once people are allowed to marry someone of the same gender, they will want the right to marry animals.

Yes, they really said that. They can't really believe that, but it's part of the systematic lies and distortions of the Religious Right. Along with Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, and other groups, FRC's goal is to scare people.36 The real story is that the Republican Party has decided to mobilize Christian believers. Since communism is dead, and terrorism apparently doesn't scare people enough, h.o.m.os.e.xuality is the most frightening thing they can think of. Karl Rove predicted that putting an antigay measure on the 2004 Ohio ballot would bring millions of new evangelical voters to the polls, and it worked perfectly, reelecting George Bush. Blaming liberal, urban, young, s.e.x-crazed h.o.m.os.e.xuals for the fear, alienation, depression, and powerlessness that average Americans feel (as the result of the President's policies) is bad karma, but very smart politics. Having persuaded conservative Christians that gays want to steal their country, Republicans are promising to protect them from this insidious threat.

And since the government and Religious Right are already waging a War on s.e.x, the civil rights of gays and other s.e.xual minorities can be just one more front, one more casualty-strewn battleground.

This is one way in which the War on s.e.x is part of something bigger and far more sinister.

Battleground: s.e.xual Privacy and s.e.xual Minorities 171 s.e.xual Privacy and s.e.xual Minorities 171 s.e.xUAL RIGHTS AS HUMAN RIGHTS.

Communities throughout the United States feel free-no, feel compelled- to discriminate against s.e.xual minorities. Cities, counties, and states are zoning their clubs out of existence, disrupting their erotic activities, destroying their families, and undermining their health. This process is weakening respect for the law, disenfranchising millions of citizens, and building anger and shame in them.

Since no one actively thanks government for leaving them alone, the only time government hears from a const.i.tuency about s.e.xuality is when they complain. There is no organized const.i.tuency of s.e.xual people (who have learned to remain as invisible to the authorities as possible), so there's no effective way to repudiate unfair accusations or challenge the resulting laws. s.e.xual minorities are essentially sitting ducks for whatever opposition to their activities gathers steam.

For better or worse, the American government is famous for its human rights agendas. Between 2002 and 2005, for example, the Bush Administration urged that: * China let people pursue any religious belief they want; * Russia let people read what they want; * Iran stop executing gay people; * North Korea let people access the Internet; * Afghanistan let women and men mingle socially; * Pakistan and Nigeria prevent the torture and execution of women who engage in non-approved s.e.xual conduct.

These are fine ideas. And we should start implementing them in America.

Chapter Fifteen.

Revolutionizing American Government- Bad News for Democracy If adult entertainment has so many customers, why is there so little outcry when these businesses are hara.s.sed, chased out of town, or closed? Why don't customers hold elected city councils, state a.s.semblies, and local judges accountable? Why don't they challenge uninformed local churches, hostile civic groups, and biased media?

Adult entertainment is a textbook example of the limits of democracy, and the tyranny of the loud. Since local inst.i.tutions do typically respond to pressure, a vocal minority can shut down what a majority won't speak up about.

That's why it's so crucial that everyone agree on the basic rules of fair governance, an agreement that does not not exist in America when it comes to s.e.xuality. exist in America when it comes to s.e.xuality.

Certain rights are so fundamental that they must not not be put up for a vote. be put up for a vote.

A majority should not have the right to strip the minority of its rights, a danger that both Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill foresaw almost two centuries ago.

You May Also Like