Hypocrisy of the Bush

The issue of gay rights has always been a point of immensecontention and dispute in American politics as certain groups havestruggled to achieve and maintain certain rights.

Others have struggled to, by either definition, diminish suchrights by arguing that gay rights run counter to the preservationof traditional family and moral values.

The definition of gay/lesbian rights has been approached indifferent manners: some people believe it means equal status in theeyes of the law with other non-gay citizens, while others insteadthink of the phrase “gay rights” to mean giving extrarights to gays and lesbians.

Recently the Supreme Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas,declaring it to be unconstitutional and in violation of the equalprotection clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

“… no state shall make or enforce any law which shallabridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the UnitedStates; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, orproperty, without due process of law; nor deny to any person withinits jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The previous decision of Bowers v. Hardwick that was overturnedby the Supreme Court this summer upheld the state’s right toenforce anti-sodomy laws against homosexual men. The former opinionof the Court cited the failure of the Constitution to “confera fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy,” asreason for upholding the state’s right to enforce thediscriminatory law.

The judges who wrote the opinion for Bowers v. Hardwick statedthat they weren’t really deciding whether sodomy laws werenecessary, but rather that homosexuals did not have the right toengage in sexual relations.

Of course that decision and opinion of the court is now struckdown under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Such a decision has come at a crucial time in our history.Sodomy laws essentially invalidated and made criminal same-sexrelationships; moreover, sodomy laws were specifically targeted athomosexual males.  Sodomy is specifically defined asillegitimate sexual relations outside of marriage, and includedboth oral and anal sex committed by heterosexual unmarried men andwomen.  Laws against sodomy were originally created to preventsexual acts outside of marriage and those acts that were notspecifically intended for procreation, but eventually evolved toprevent sexual acts between men. 

Throughout the ‘70s and ‘80s, anti-sodomy laws wereused almost solely against homosexual males, though in many statesthe anti-sodomy laws were written to apply to both heterosexual andhomosexual couples.  Clearly, the laws were being used todiscriminate against and to target gays.

No matter what some people say, and no matter what peoplebelieve, the Constitution defends people’s rights to engagein their choice of sexual conduct (provided that such conduct doesnot involve minors or force).

Laws designed to curtail the most intimate experience of sexoversteps the boundaries of the law and denies equal protectionunder the law to gays and lesbians.

Clearly, President Bush was not thinking of equal protectionwhen he stated this summer that he was looking into ways of banninghomosexual couples from marriage. 

Hmm … I’m not too sure how Bush’s or theadministration’s collective minds work, but I do recall himrunning in 2000 as the “compassionate” conservative… or was he really just sitting the on the fence in order toappease his right-wing conservative cronies while wooing his wayinto winning the votes of a few million unwitting Americans whothought that perhaps this compassionately moderate president wasdedicated to equality?

In a speech not long after the Supreme Court decisionoverturning Bowers v. Hardwick, Bush was asked about his opinion onhomosexual relations.

Bush stated that he was “aware that we are allsinners,” and that he would caution people not to “takethe speck out of the neighbor’s eye when they’ve got alog in their own.” He then stated the importance of welcomingeveryone into the community, but then went on to say that he wouldnot compromise the “sanctity” of marriage and waslooking into ways of restricting marriage to only heterosexualcouples.

The absurdity of such a speech is beyond belief. First Bushimposes an opinion based on the religious belief of original sin onthe American public. Thanks Bush, I’m really glad you thinkthat the general public and I are inherently sinful. 

Then, by cautioning people against condemning otherpeople’s sins when they commit their own sins, Bush appearsto be diplomatic and sympathetic towards gays, but then he impliesthat gay and lesbian couples are inherently wrong in theirlifestyle.

With his blanket statement that “we are allsinners,” Bush attempted to obscure his own personalcondemnation of certain lifestyle choices.

Whatever. The president can have his opinion on this issue. Heis definitely allowed to, as are you and I.

We won’t get into a debate here on whether he should havestated it or not.  However, Bush is not entitled to turn hisopinion into policy, as he is clearly trying to do by banning gaysand lesbians from marriage. Denying same-sex marriage is similar tothe anti-sodomy laws in that they deny equal protection of the lawto same-sex couples.  

Marriage does not necessarily have to be heterosexual underneaththe law, as it does under the “sanctity” of religion;by banning the possibility of same-sex unions, the state will beenforcing laws that abridge and violate a person’s life andliberty.

Everyone is entitled to be married, whether they are gay or not,and barring gays and lesbians from marriage is in effectdiscriminating against their relationships, to which they also havea right to engage in under the law.

This is just another example of the hypocrisy and disparity ofBush’s actions and words.  While he says that gays andlesbians are welcomed in the community, he is denying them certainrights that everyone else has.

If in effect you are making illegal certain experiences forthem, how accepting are you of your fellow citizen?

As the president, Bush can think whatever he wants of people,but it is his duty and obligation to protect and treat equally eachand every one of his citizens.