The Last Minority: Fighting For The Equal Protection Of Homosexuals

The United States of America was founded on the principle "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"(Declaration of Independence, 1776). Throughout the history of the United States, there have been groups of people who fought to end their longtime denial of these rights. African-Americans were granted freedom from slavery in the 1800s, and eventually equal rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Women fought to gain equality between the sexes and ended suffrage nineteen-twenty. The latest group of individuals to garner constitutional protection is the handicapped. The last minority in our society that is not equally protected by our laws and constitution is homosexuals. Due to the inalienable rights granted by the documents that the United States were founded upon, homosexuals should have the same rights, privileges, and freedoms as every other citizen of our society.

Some state governments in America, in order to make homosexuality seem morally wrong, are denying homosexual couples the basic right of intimate contact. As of 2003, there are twenty-two states that have enforceable "sodomy" laws on the books. Sodomy is defined as a consensual sexual act involving the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another. These laws forbid these acts and are punishable, in some states, up to 20 years in prison (Myers, par. 1). Although many states have repealed these laws, gay rights groups across the country still fight to legalize homosexual intercourse in the remaining twenty-two states.

In a major setback to the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) that sodomy laws are not unconstitutional and states have the right to regulate what goes on in the bedrooms of its citizens. Having these laws upheld by our highest court sends a harsh message to our country. It basically states that the homosexual lifestyle is not a civil right protected by our constitution.

The government, however, has no business in the personal lives of its citizens. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home should not concern those that it does not affect. It harms no one if two gay men or women act upon their love for another, and should not be a felony offense.

Sodomy laws are very rarely enforced and therefore not a huge concern to homosexuals. However, the fact they still exist makes nearly every gay man and lesbian a criminal in the eyes of our judicial system. This allows opponents of gay rights to make the claim that gays, due to their criminal status, should not receive equal treatment under the law (Newton 14).

More of an unease to activists than sodomy laws is employment discrimination. It is of large concern because, currently, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, gays are not specified as a group federally protected from discrimination. In fact, only thirteen states have anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation (Myers, par 2). In the remaining thirty-seven states, employers can fire or deny a job to someone solely because they are possess an alternate sexual preference. The only employer that, by law, cannot discriminate against homosexuals is the federal government (Cusick, Kranz 95-97). If an employer cannot fire someone for being African-American or being a female, why can they discriminate against homosexuality? A gay man can work just as hard and perform a task just as well as a straight man. Sex has no business in the workplace. Bigotry concerning sexual orientation does not belong as well.

Another issue dealing with employment discrimination is when benefits, including medical coverage, family leave and health club memberships, are not being offered to partners of gay employees. All employers should operate under the idea of "equal work, equal pay". However, when a company does not provide the same benefits to a gay couple as it would to a married couple, a gay man must spend his own funds to purchase these amenities for his partner.

Currently, homosexual marriage is illegal in the United States. Therefore, queer couples don't have the right to many of these benefits that are offered. It would not cost anymore to extend these benefits to gay partners as it would to a spouse of a heterosexual employee. In fact, it would probably be less expensive since gays generally have much fewer children to insure than heterosexual couples. Many companies do extend benefits to gay partnerships, but there are still thousands upon thousands that still legally discriminate against their homosexual employees.

The entire employee benefits issue would be resolved if marriage between people of the same sex were legal in this country. Legal marriage would solve many other issues concerning gays today. For example, if two lesbians decided to give birth to and raise a child together, problems may arise if they split up. What would happen if the biological mother did not want to grant visitation rights to her ex-lover? Even though she raised and cared for the child, she has no rights to see the child since she is not technically the child's mother. If the two were married, the non-biological mother would be able to appeal for custody rights in court. (Cusick 64-68)

Not only would it solve legal problems, marriage would also provide validity and completeness to some homosexual relationships. The entire idea of marriage is based upon the thought that it creates a stronger relationship. It would fortify a monogamous ideology in a group of people known for being promiscuous. Marriage is also about more than just bearing children. It is about love and companionship. The government does not differentiate between heterosexual couples who intend to have children, and those who do not, whether they are infertile or childless by choice. Marriage is a divine institution that should be available to all.

Gays are not the only people in history to fight for the right to wed. Before the landmark Loving v. Virginia case in 1967, inter-racial marriages were illegal in some states. The Supreme court ruled that "the freedom to marry has long been recognized a one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men...To deny this fundamental freedom...[on the basis of race]...is surely