By Luiz Sérgio Solimeo
Homosexual acts are a moral aberration, yet the drive to have them accepted as normal by society continues full steam ahead.
Egregious recent examples can be found in two bills under consideration in Congress which would grant special privilege to those embracing the homosexual lifestyle, and intimidate and punish those citizens whose values and principles are opposed to the moral revolution advocated by the homosexual movement.
The first bill is H.R. 2015, known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007; the second is H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.
“Sexual Orientation,” a Set of Norms Linked to a Worldview
Let us first examine the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007.
This bill, introduced April 24, 2007 by openly homosexual Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), applies to everyone who employs 15 or more individuals. For these employers, the bill would make it illegal to refuse to hire, or to fire someone, “because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation,gender or identity.”1
For purposes of H.R. 2015, “sexual orientation” “means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.”
Difficulty with the bill starts with this definition. Since law should only deal with external, verifiable acts, not merely inner proclivities, the bill should not legislate on “sexual orientation,” “perceived…gender,” or “perceived… identity,” but simply “actual gender” or, alternatively, sexual “practice” or “behavior.”
However, since the bill does legislate on “sexual orientation,” we do well to analyze what this is likely to include.2
The noun, “orientation”—qualified in our case here by the adjective “sexual”—is used to indicate a choice one makes,a direction one follows. It implies a set of norms, for, given our rational nature, our choice of direction is inevitably based on a set of values, as well as philosophical, ethic and religious concepts (even when we don’t make this explicit to ourselves, and even when we formulate them negatively, as with “atheism”). These values and concepts form a general outlook on life and the world around us – a worldview.
An anti-Christian Worldview Imposed by Law
What is the essence of the worldview behind H.R. 2015? It is one that clearly places homosexuality and bisexuality on the same footing with heterosexuality. This is tantamount to presenting that which stems from nature (heterosexuality) as equal to that which opposes it (homo- and bi-sexuality) and to attach the same moral value to both, thus showing a complete philosophical and moral relativism.
The bill therefore aims to impose on the nation a relativistic, amoral and necessarily anti-Christian worldview, opposed not only to Revelation but also to natural law as perceived by human reason. This anti-Christian worldview is ideological and provides the philosophical rationale for the homosexual movement and its liberal allies.
Homosexual activist Paul Varnell gives us an insight into what this worldview intends to accomplish:
The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality.
Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crime laws and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal.
On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves.
So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people’s view of homosexuality.
Employers Will be Forced to Hire Libertines and Cross-dresser
And H.R. 2015 is a big step in this direction. Moving on from the relativistic equalizing of homo- and bisexuality with heterosexuality, the bill provides for the punishment of those citizens who do not share the philosophical or religious convictions of the homosexual anti-Christian worldview. This punishment includes the full panoply of enforcement and compliance procedures currently authorized to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commision and the Attorney General under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.).
Likewise, H.R. 2015 would punish an employer who refuses to hire or tries to fire a notorious libertine, an adulterer, or a womanizer, even if his wife, sisters, and daughters are among his employees, for such action would be deemed discriminatory, albeit against a heterosexual “sexual orientation.”
Besides avowed homosexuals or libertines, the employer will also have to employ transvestites, for H.R. 2015 bars an employer from refusing to hire, and forbids his firing an employee based on the latter’s “perceived… gender or identity.”
“Perceived gender” or “identity” does not refer to the person’s actual gender but the sexual “identity” the person fantasizes he or she has. Having adopted the philosophical principle that the “sexual orientation” a person chooses is an absolute and supreme value to which society must conform, H.R. 2015 draws the logical consequences. If one is justified in practicing homosexuality or bisexuality, why not also in choosing to live as a member of the opposite sex? From the absurd, any conclusion is possible. One thing alone is not tolerated by the proponents of the homosexual revolution, namely, to follow the norms of sound reason and morals based on natural law.
H.R. 2015 dictates how employers must handle transvestites and transgendered individuals who demand access to common showers and locker rooms where nudity might occur. And, almost cynically, it stipulates that employers will have the right to demand that the transvestite or transgendered individual “adhere to reasonable dress or grooming standards” of the sex he or she is fantasizing about.
There is an exception for religious organizations whose primary goal is to teach or practice a religion, or for organizations not completely designated as religious, but whose primary duty is to teach or propagate religious doctrines, or to participate in and/or supervise religious rites.
It would seem that the purpose of this exemption is simply to divide the opposition, for the sad truth is that many religious organizations who are duty bound to oppose H.R. 2015 will not do so, or will do so weakly, since they are not immediately concerned. No religious organization should be fooled into neutrality. If H.R. 2015 becomes law, this exemption will be eliminated a few years from now.
This religious exemption is one more proof of the bill’s bad faith. For in half-recognizing the violence it perpetrates against religion, it nevertheless tramples underfoot the religious beliefs, regardless of how sincerely held, of employers who are not structured as a “religious organization.” This means every Ten Commandments American who employs 15 or more people.
H.R. 1592 – the Federal “Hate-Crimes” Bill
Looking now at H.R. 1592, the so-called “Hate Crimes” bill, one finds it intends “to provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.”
This bill does not define “sexual orientation,” simply listing it among the protected categories. These can be broken down into two groups, those where one has no choice, such as “race, color… national origin, gender… or disability” and those where one does, “religion, sexual orientation, gender identity.” Thus, “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are given the same protected, privileged status as “religion.”
Perceiving “Gender Identity”
H.R. 1592 does define “gender identity,” stating that “the term ‘gender identity’ for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.”
Just what are these “perceived gender-related characteristics?” It is such a vague and generic concept that one can understand it as one wishes. It is not clear who must perceive these characteristics. Is it the individual claiming “gender identity?” Is it the government? A parent? A neighbor? A classmate? How clear must these characteristics be?
The bill establishes fines and imprisonment for anyone who, “whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person….”
Obviously, except in legitimate self-defense, law enforcement or just war, to wound, or, worse yet, to kill someone, is a crime contrary to the natural moral law.
When hatred is the motivating factor for a crime, the latter becomes even more detestable and this hatred is usually taken into account, as a particularly aggravating circumstance, when the judge hands down the sentence. This judicial prerogative to hand out stiffer or more lenient sentences based on the circumstances is our unquestioned tradition. Why then does H.R. 1592 wish to add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to existing laws, placing them on the same footing with religion, gender, national origin and disability?
H.R. 1592’s sole purpose seems to be giving the homosexual movement a psychological victory, while intimidating those who are opposed to its agenda. It is one more example of the judicial and legislative offensive that is imposing on the nation by decree, the principles and ways of being of an anti-natural ideology.
The “New Class”: Those Who Embrace the Homosexual Revolution
Both H.R. 2015 and H.R. 1592 will have a tremendous chilling effect on the expression of faith and morality in the public square, while granting special status and privilege to homosexuals.
It is hard not to see here the legislative creation of a “new class.” Actually, a book was written during the Cold War by Yugoslav author Milovan Djilas, with this very title. He denounced the emergence of communist rulers as a new privileged social class.
H.R. 2015 and H.R. 1592 suggest that the lastest new privileged class consists of those who embrace the homosexual moral revolution.
___________________________