Being Gay is not My Personal Life
Or so says a commenter I encountered over at Sed Contra. After saying that gays should not get any kind of employment protection, and saying that it was perfectly moral for people to deny gays employment, even if they do not discuss their sexuality at work at all, I decided to step in and offer my view of things. I said that my being gay has nothing to do with my work, and if it somehow affected my work, then my boss would have something to say. But since it doesn't, it shouldn't.He proceeded to tell me that it was a dubious claim to say that my "sexual behavior" was part of my personal/private life. You know, I always wondered what the opponents of the Lawrence v. Texas ruling were thinking. Now I know- gays do not have any right to privacy at all, according to this line of thinking.
Let's be clear here- the Lawrence case never said that sodomy is a protected right in the constitution. What it said was that there was a right to privacy in the constitution and there was a right to due process in the constitution, and invading gay people's homes to see if they are having sex (while letting straight people have a pass- this was admitted by the state) was violating both issues.
According to Victor, the commenter, though, gays have no right to private/personal lives. How much more part of one's personal/private life can their families be? As much as many conservatives would like people to believe otherwise, this really is about taking away people's rights.
**Update on this one. Gay Like a Fox is having a little bit of debate on this issue too. He has some good takes, especially a response he made to Victor. Since Victor said I was jumping to conclusions by saying he said it would be moral to deny a gay person employment, I'm still waiting for him to say clearly whether or not it is moral to deny a gay person employment. What do you think, Victor?
posted by Brady @ 6:25 AM
4 Comments:
Victor-
Regarding your first comment. Yes, of course a black or Catholic gay person would be protected. But, they are protected for reasons other than their sexual orientation. Throwing this in there is absurd becuase it just distracts the issue.
Further, you never clarified your viewpoint as a legal one. You never said "should not under the law." Or said that you think they should, but the law does not. Why would I believe you were not talking about your own personal position when you never said that?
On your next point about the morality of association of gay people. You do say that it would be a moral decision for someone to hire a gay person i.e. someone would have to take a moral stance in their own mind, and if they find it to be immoral, they should not have to hire that person. Taking that logic further, by saying that it would be moral to deny employment, is not a huge leap, especially since you didn't clearly state the opposite.
As for my sexuality being part of my private life, I did not misquote you there. You said, "But categorizing one's sexual behavior as "my personal/private life" is dubious and certainly a moral claim even if true."
In that statement, you made no reference to sexual behaviors. You are only now trying to qualify what you said.
Before Lawrence V. Texas, very few cases of sodomy were charged, yes, but there were some. And the men in Lawrence were charged as sex offenders and registered in the sex offender database. And, as much as you hate a right to privacy legally, the law did not invade your right to privacy, only the right to privacy of gays.
I trust you will be lobbying the state of Texas and other states or the Supreme Court to allow laws to regulate the sexual practices of all citizens and allow them to go into a house for this reason alone.
Victor,
Thanks for commenting. Despite calling me ignorant and severely misunderstood, I do appreciate your comments.
You have made your points on sexuality and morality and employment abundantly clear. I may have jumped the gun in saying you absolutely thought it was moral to fire a gay person, but saying it was a "moral decision" and then refusing to say here, after being asked, to state your own opinion on the matter, makes your views pretty clear.
As to the other stuff, we are running in circles here. While you accuse me of not understanding the circumstances surrounding the Lawrence case (and especially the state's case that they SHOULD have the right to dictate morality, even if it involves going into someone's home on occasion), I'm not so sure you realize what they were.
As for equal protection- that is exactly one of the findings of the court in the Lawrence case. They didn't enact a new law to cover both gays and straights because the courts new that was absurd.
If you don't believe in a right to privacy, fine. All I can say is that I am glad the courts (even some of the more conservative justices disagree with you) and most of this nation disagree with you.
As for sexual behaviors, my apologies, you did say sexual behavior, but you brought in sexual behaviors apart from orientation only later. Referring orientation to a sexual behavior is a good way to demonize gays, and I suspect that is why you worded it that way. I know what you are elluding to when you bring up other sexual behaviors, and I am surely not going to get into a ridiculous comparison of two consenting adults and what two non-consenting or not able to consent adults do or the repercussions that might arrive for other types of illegal behaviors.
I'll end this discussion now since there seems to be no headway.
One last thing to add here. Victor, in David's blog I was very obviously arguing about the rightness of including homosexuality as part of the ENDA. My questions were all directed at the idea of, "should someone be able to." Yours were directed at, "under current law, are they able to." You never answered my questions and inferences to "should they be able to "except to repeat that the law says they are able to (deny someone employment because they are gay" even though many states already protect employees based on sexual orientation.
So, why you accuse me of misunderstanding your argument, I did understand it clearly, and your opinion of the matter wasn't all that hidden.
I am looking forward to your posts.
Post a Comment
<< Home