Gay Rights“Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”  That was not said by a ‘religious head’ or a ‘religious fundamentalist’ but by a well-respected legal luminary and an honorable judge of the highest court of a secular democratic nation, writes Jerry Thomas.

Most of the English liberal media has been supporting and advancing the homosexual agenda in India. In fact, they have not only argued for the homosexual agenda but also have viciously attacked anyone who opposed homosexuality. According to them the only objection can be from the viewpoint of ‘religious fundamentalists,’ ‘religious heads,’ ‘moral obscurantists’ etc. They in fact wrote with a moral indignation against the ‘religious fundamentalists’ from the liberal fundamentalist pulpit.  

The Hindu wrote: “Having promised to review this provision, the government must not give in to the pressure of religious fundamentalists, moral obscurantists, and others who argue that Indian society is not ready to accept such change. Especially on non-negotiable social issues, governments must lead public opinion — not tail its least enlightened strands or go for the lowest common denominator.” (The Hindu Editorial titled “Don’t dither on Section 377” on July 1, 2009) 

The Times of India wrote: “However, critics of homosexuality – some religious heads as well as self-appointed advocates of 'Indian culture' – kicked up a fuss. Their arguments – that homosexuality is unnatural, against Indian tradition, and that legalizing it would lead to a spurt in HIV/AIDS cases – are neither scientific nor logical. If they wish they can exhort their followers to adopt certain sexual preferences, but they cannot argue that alternative preferences be outlawed by the IPC.” (The Times of India Editorial titled “Victory for Choice” on July 3, 2009) 

The Indian Express wrote: “By placing their judgment on the pivot of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights, the judges have righted the debate on Section 377 to its legal core. Can a modern democracy intrude upon the private domain of consenting adults on the grounds of “moral indignation”?” (The Indian Express Editorial titled 377 steps on July 3, 2009) 

Even if one were to overlook the highly charged moral indignation of media against the religious heads and moral teachings and concede that moral laws and religious teachings should be limited to ecclesiastical laws and not legislative laws, the question is – what about the arguments from sociology and other disciplines? For example, heterosexual family is the basic unit of a society and sexuality is one of the key defining principles of that basic unit – family. Is it not the duty of the legislative law to protect, nurture and promote such key concepts of the basic unit especially in a welfare state? What about the social activists who have reached a different conclusion from the homosexual activists?

 In fact, name calling by the media is a crude ploy and plot to evade from answering such relevant and serious questions.  In this article, I restrict myself to legal luminaries who have differed from the verdicts such as of Delhi High Court based on their understanding of the law and its function.

I will also confine myself to three key arguments set forth by the liberal media in arguing for the homosexuality namely that (a) criminalization of homosexuality is an anarchistic Law affecting life and liberty, (b) moral law is not a guiding force for the legal law, and (c) consensual sexual acts of adults in private should not be under the purview of law.   

My intention is to show that mere name calling of the media (and other liberal ‘scholars’ and homosexual activist’) is a tactic to poison the mind of people from objectively looking at the issue and arriving at a conclusion of their own.  I will be giving the quote from following Judgments of the Court to cite the reasons for and against homosexuality by the very words of legal authorities and not religious authorities.

 

 

 
1) Is it An Anarchistic Law Affecting Life and Liberty?

Argument for Homosexuality by Honorable High Court of Delhi, 2009:  

“In our view, Indian Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the LGBTs are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is anti- thesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual.”

No one will disagree with the Honorable Court that discrimination is the anti- thesis of the equality. But to ask a question by paraphrasing the words of Martin Luther King – Is it wrong to judge a person by the conduct of his/her character irrespective of the color of the skin and gender of that person?

In fact, let us now read the dissenting note by Justice Scalia in the US Supreme Court judgment decriminalizing homosexuality.

Argument against Homosexuality by Honorable Justice Scalia of US Supreme Court, 2003:

“JUSTICE O'CONNOR argues that the discrimination in this law which must be justified is not its discrimination with regard to the sex of the partner but its discrimination with regard to the sexual proclivity of the principal actor.”While it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances, Texas' sodomy law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class." Ante, at 583.

Honorable Justice Scalia argues: “Of course the same could be said of any law. A law against public nudity targets "the conduct that is closely correlated with being a nudist," and hence "is targeted at more than conduct"; it is "directed toward nudists as a class." But be that as it may. Even if the Texas law does deny equal protection to "homosexuals as a class," that denial still does not need to be justified by anything more than a rational basis, which our cases show is satisfied by the enforcement of traditional notions of sexual morality.”

 2) Argument that the Moral Law is Insufficient:

Argument for Homosexuality by the Petitioner in Honorable Delhi High Court, 2009:

“According to the petitioner, Section 377 IPC  is  based upon traditional Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards, which conceive of sex in purely functional terms, i.e., for  the purpose  of  procreation  only. Any non-procreative sexual activity is thus viewed as being “against the order of nature”.  The submission is that the legislation criminalizing consensual oral and anal sex is outdated and has no place in modern society.”

 Argument against Homosexuality by Honorable US Supreme Court, 1986: 

“Even if the conduct at issue here is not a fundamental right, respondent asserts that there must be a rational basis for the law, and that there is none in this case other than the presumed belief of a majority of the electorate in Georgia that homosexual sodomy is immoral and unacceptable. This is said to be an inadequate rationale to support the law. The law, however, is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.”

 Argument against Homosexuality by Honorable Justice Scalia of US Supreme Court, 2003:

“State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by to day's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 572 (noting "an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex". The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional "morals" offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge.” 

3) Are the Consensual Sexual Acts of Adults in Private Not Under the Preview of Law?

Argument for Homosexuality by Honorable Delhi Court, 2009:

“We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar it   criminalizes consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution.” 

Argument against Homosexuality by Honorable US Supreme Court, 1986:  

“Moreover, any claim that these cases nevertheless stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable.” Further, the Honorable US Supreme Court argued: “And if respondent's submission is limited to the voluntary sexual conduct between consenting adults, it would be difficult, except by fiat, to limit the claimed right to homosexual conduct while leaving exposed to prosecution adultery, incest, and other sexual crimes even though they are committed in the home. We are unwilling to start down that road.” 

Argument against Homosexuality by Honorable Justice Scalia of US Supreme Court, 2003:

“The key qualifier here is "acting in private"-since the Court admits that sodomy laws were enforced against consenting adults (although the Court contends that prosecutions were "infrequen[t]," ibid.). I do not know what "acting in private" means; surely consensual sodomy, like heterosexual intercourse, is rarely performed on stage. If all the Court means by "acting in private" is "on private premises, with the doors closed and windows covered," it is entirely unsurprising that evidence of enforcement would be hard to come by.”  

Further the Honorable Judge wrote:  “Realizing that fact, the Court instead says: "[WJe think that our laws and traditions in the past half century are of most relevance here. These references show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex." Ante, at 571-572 (emphasis added). Apart from the fact that such an "emerging awareness" does not establish a "fundamental right," the statement is factually false. States continue to prosecute all sorts of crimes by adults "in matters pertaining to sex": prostitution, adult incest, adultery, obscenity, and child pornography.”

Conclusion:

It is obvious from the above quotes that there are different perspectives and differences of opinion among the legal luminaries themselves. Also, not all would dismiss the religious perspectives as lightly as the liberal media.  I have only considered some of the key arguments by the media. Moreover, as I said at the beginning, there are dissenting voices against homosexuality from other disciplines like sociology and even science.    

If so, why is the media trying to build caricatures? Is it to stifle an informed debate on this subject as they are afraid that the large section of the people may be persuaded by the arguments of the opponents of homosexuals?  

The arguments against homosexuality do not arise out of intolerance or fundamentalism or ignorance but out of detailed analysis of different disciplines. Any caricatures of the media must be opposed and exposed.  

Before I conclude, let me quote Honorable Justice Scalia of US Supreme Court:

“Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.” 

 That was not said by a ‘religious head’ or a ‘religious fundamentalist’ but by a well-respected legal luminary and an honorable judge of the highest court of a secular democratic nation.  

For Further Reading:

1) The Funny Gene  
2) Myth of 'Gay Rights': Part 1- The Non Existing of Scientific Evidence
3) Myth of Gay “Rights”: Part 2- Why Should It Matter to You 
4) Myth of Gay “Rights”: Why Should We Have Only Monogamous Heterosexual Marriages

{moscomment}