Same-Sex "Marriage": Should America Allow "Gay Rights" Activists to Cross The Last Cultural Frontier?

Anton N. Marco

Copyright 1996-2006, Christian Leadership Ministries

 


PART III:
Presupposition 1

Same-Sex "Marriage" Under the Microscope: Presupposition One

If achieving "minority"/suspect status for "sexual orientation" looms as the "fulcrum" gay activists need most to leverage the rest of their "gay rights" platforms into place, the presupposition that gays do constitute an "oppressed minority" is the first we must scrutinize.

That gay activists have labored assiduously to implant this presupposition in the public consciousness there can be no doubt. In fact, some years ago, in a lengthy book and several magazine articles, self-avowedly gay marketing experts outlined the kind of "propaganda" campaign now most often employed to support that presumption. In summary, they recommend...

Portray[ing] gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers. In any campaign to win over the public [to "gay rights"], gays need to be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex action to assume the role of protector.... Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims. Mr. and Mrs. public must be given no extra excuses to say "they are not like us".... Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, but should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme.{64}

As we've observed, securing suspect/minority status in one form or another would allow gay activists, through taxpayer-funded lawsuits, to silence or punish their critics and coerce businesses and society at large to grant benefits to their "spouses" or domestic partners.

Though they have tried, gay activists have never managed to persuade America's highest courts -- including the U.S. Supreme Court in the recent Evans vs. Romer/Colorado Amendment 2 decision -- that "sexual orientation" should be recognized as a suspect class on established Civil Rights grounds. To explain gay activists' failure here requires further explanation of the history of Civil Rights in America.

Shortly after passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the U.S. Supreme Court began to issue (and reaffirm) a series of Civil Rights decisions which soon added limitations (to counterbalance the incentives) to the process of seeking suspect class status.

In essence, the High Court put a "fence" around suspect class status, in the interest of ensuring that the status remain open only to disadvantaged, politically powerless classes that truly needed government protection. The High Court did so by establishing three criteria{65} by which prospective suspect classes might be evaluated -- and by which some failing to meet the qualifications might be fenced out if necessary:

Criterion #1: Prospective suspect classes should have experienced a history of severe societal oppression, evidenced by an entire "class-averaged" lack of ability to obtain economic mean income, adequate education, or cultural opportunity.

Criterion #2: Prospective suspect classes should, "averaged" as entire classes, clearly demonstrate political powerlessness.

Criterion #3: Prospective suspect classes should exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics, like race, color, gender or national origin, that define them as discrete groups.

Several inferences may immediately be drawn from the High Court's actions. First, these criteria are, by their very nature, exclusionary. Second, in determining status they deal, not with individuals, but with the averages of entire classes of people.

Obviously, the High Court was conscious (and approved) of the fact that certain classes would meet these criteria and others would not; thus, some classes would gain suspect class recognition and others would not. The Court reasoned that, if societal oppression of a particular class as an averaged whole was truly severe, this fact would surely be evidenced by severe material, educational and cultural deprivation, together with an inability other population segments possess to influence the political process.

Also, the Court reasoned that the disadvantagement and powerlessness in question should have sprung as a direct result of those very obvious, immutable or distinguishing characteristics that clearly identify the group as a class.

In almost any large, identifiable class of people, one may find isolated individuals who are affluent and politically powerful despite their possessing distinguishing characteristics which are obstacles for others in their class. Also in any predominantly affluent racial group, one may find isolated individuals who are disadvantaged. But averaged as entire population segments, only certain classes can be demonstrated to exhibit "profiles" that meet the High Court's criteria. These are recognized as suspect classes; others are not.

Therefore, the number of identifiable groups that meet suspect class criteria is necessarily limited; if so, that was the High Court's design. In that sense, suspect classes are, by their very nature, special, singled-out classes. Everyone in American society cannot be a member of a suspect class.

African Americans constitute one prominent suspect class. Obviously in American society, some highly affluent African American individuals thrive. But averaged as an entire class, African Americans fall well below the general American population in terms of income, education and other measures of disadvantagement, as also relative political weakness, precipitated by dark skin color. Therefore, African Americans enjoy recognition and benefits as a suspect class, including the right to sue for discrimination at government expense, with government attorneys acting as their advocates.

On the other hand, as John Franklin, a two-time Colorado Civil Rights Commission Chair and outspoken opponent of "gay rights," has pointed out, "A white, Anglo-Saxon male under the age of 40 in perfect health has no specific [special] Civil Rights protection enunciated by the Congress of the United States."{66}

In other words, Caucasian, non-disabled males under age 40 enjoy no suspect class recognition or benefits. Nor can they at this point in time "claim discrimination" based on their youth, "whiteness" or "maleness," or sue others with taxpayers� money. Our point at issue is: Do gays (chief beneficiaries of awarding suspect class recognition to "sexual orientation"), averaged as an entire class, fit the required suspect class profile? This question is utterly crucial to this debate, as we will now see.

Hawaii Supreme Court Would Rend the Very Fabric of Suspect Class Protections

The foregoing history and analysis become critically important when we consider their application to Baehr vs. Lewin, the "Hawaii Six" case. As earlier stated, the Hawaii Supreme Court in Baehr vs. Lewin declared gender to be a suspect classification, therefore legally equivalent to race and skin color in every way.

Then the court declared that "sexual orientation" should be placed under the suspect "gender umbrella." Then the court declared that because gays were part of a suspect classification, they could be considered deprived of equal protection in having been denied marriage licenses.

As public policy analyst Caia Mockatis and we have observed, "In the eyes of the Hawaii Supreme Court, prohibiting same-sex marriage amounts to `sex discrimination' and is no different from banning interracial marriage."{67}

However, we find the court's reasoning not only faulty, but absurd, given the history of suspect status, and dangerous to those very classes suspect status has been designed to protect. We further believe that recognizing gender as a suspect class would rend the very fabric of the skein of suspect status protections the U.S. Supreme Court has been careful to weave.

Our reasoning? Logically, suspect status cannot remain exclusionary and protective if gender is added as a component. Every American alive has a gender; therefore, every American, if gender is a suspect class, would become a suspect class member.

In one sweeping stroke, all criteria such as disadvantagement, such as obvious and immutable qualities resulting in societal oppression and political powerlessness would be wiped out. Suddenly a status reserved for the poorest of America's poor would be torn open to admit anyone rich or poor, whether ever truly oppressed or not!

Obviously, the Hawaii Court's arbitrary decision flies in the face of a quarter-century's High Court precedent -- not to mention the Hawaii Court's decision creating a travesty of Civil Rights law and a threat to the long-established protections afforded the truly disadvantaged.

The notion of gender as a suspect status has, in fact, scant precedent in court decisions or Civil Rights practice. Rather, it seems to have originated with political suggestions designed to facilitate the entry of women into previously all-male military organizations and activities.{68}

Perhaps the Hawaii Court's decision was the only way it could imagine to grant "sexualorientation"suspect class-equivalent recognition and benefits. For gays, lesbians and bisexuals have never been able to earn that status by meeting the established criteria...

Gay Activists Strike Out Vs. All Three Established Criteria

Criterion 1: Disadvantagement

For decades homosexual activists have fostered the impression that gays are as a class economically, educationally and culturally disadvantaged. Yet recent marketing studies, done by gay-run marketing agencies and boasting scientific accuracy above 99%, roundly refute those claims.{69}

As one might expect, gay activists wishing to leave the public with the impression that gays/lesbians are "an oppressed class" dispute some of the above findings. However, the findings of agencies like Overlooked Opinions (Chicago, IL) can scarcely be gainsaid, chiefly because of the enormous sizes of the survey samples involved. Overlooked Opinions boasts that its surveys (as large as 40,000 individuals) have been drawn from every conceivable venue of gay/lesbian experience and that sheer sample size "guarantees" 99%+ scientific accuracy � less than +/-1% margin of error.

It should be noted that major advertising and marketing decisions are frequently made by major corporations and media outlets (cf. T.V. ratings) based on sample sizes less than 1,500. The Washington Post reported: "...`[T]he margin of sampling error for a random survey of 1,000 is plus or minus 3 percentage points. What that plus or minus 3 percentage points means is that if the same survey were conducted under the same condition 100 times, about 95 of the 100 resulting proportions should be within 3 percentage points of the one you now have,� said Clyde Tucker, former standards chair of the American Association for Public Opinion Research."

Though as Tucker says, "Sampling error is only one of many sources of error in public opinion polls," it is highly doubtful that all the marketing studies cited here are "off the mark"; simply too much corroborating evidence of gay/lesbian "class averaged" affluence exists to allow gay activists to persuasively "cry poverty" in the public arena. (Cf. "HOW TO FIGURE A POLL�S MARGIN OF SAMPLING ERROR," sidebar under op-ed "The World�s Smartest Person Slips Up," The Washington Post, June 14, 1998, p. C5.)

Editor and Publisher magazine estimates that there are more than 125 homosexual-audienced newspapers in the United States with a combined circulation of more than one million readers. More than a dozen high-gloss gay "slick" magazines circulate nationwide.

"America's gay and lesbian community is emerging as one of the nation's most educated and affluent, and Madison Avenue is beginning to explore the potential for a market that may be worth hundreds of billions of dollars... It's a market that screams opportunity," said Eric Miller, editor of Research Alert, a New York-based consumer research newsletter.

"Direct" magazine, a leading publication to "direct response" marketing leaders, reported: "WinMark�s [a gay-staffed market research agency] Direct Male program, for example, has a database identifying 55,000 gay males. Isen [a WinMark executive] likes to point out that since each man had to ask to be put on the mailing list, it is the only [totally] self-identified gay male list in the country. The audience�s average age is 36 and the average household income is $70,000�. Jeffrey Greene, director of consumer outlets for Alluvial Entertainment, says the catalog�s [gay/lesbian] customers for the most part are male, gay, between 35 and 45 years old, earn $45,000 a year and are �heavy credit card users� ("Outing the Market," November 1996, p. 102, emphasis added).

Nevertheless, in the very same article, one "David Dow, president of Tzabaco, a Sonoma County, CA-based merchandise cataloguer serving gay and lesbian consumers" claims, "�Lesbians and gay men don�t have higher incomes, they have more disposable income" (Ibid, p. 97).

Perhaps embarrassed by having been caught allowing publication of such blatant contradictions to their claims of "oppression," gay activists have later sponsored surveys purporting to "find" that gay men and lesbians earn less than comparable "straight" men and women.{72} None of these "studies" claim large or truly random sampling -- or the scientific accuracy of others published before gay activists were caught with their affluence showing. None dare to claim that gays earn as little as truly disadvantaged "minorities."

About gay affluence or "poverty," sometimes one wonders which gay activist to believe and when. Robert Bray, a spokesman for the "gay rights"-promoting National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, often pouts publicly about the "oppression" he says gays/lesbians suffer. But Bray also brags publicly about the gay community's affluence, as he did, quoted in a 1991 article in The Rocky Mountain News:

"Gay greenbacks are very powerful and the gay and lesbian community is a virtual motherload of untapped sales."{73}

In an article entitled "Financial Planning for Retirement," lesbian activist S. Lisa Hayes reports that, according to a national survey of 2,000 self-identified lesbians, 69% had been to college and/or had undergraduate or advanced degrees.{74} Similarly, other lesbian activist surveyers report:

Unlike women their age in the general population, among whom 45% were not in the labor force, almost all [of these lesbian] respondents were employed.

Occupational choices of lesbians were also quite different from those of all American women. Within the general population of working women (55% of women 40-60 years old), twelve percent reported reported professional or technical occupations, sixteen percent managerial or administrative occupations and 29% clerical. Mid-life lesbians were four times as likely to be employed in professional or technical roles (56%), considerably more likely to work as managers or administrators (22%), and much less likely to occupy clerical positions. Other occupational groups represented in the sample were craftswomen, service workers, skilled and unskilled laborers.

Consistent with their vocations most respondents were highly educated. Forty-eight percent had completed a graduate or professional degree and 24% had graduated from college or completed some graduate work. Only fifteen percent had been to no college at all.{75}

According to Michael's (et al.) landmark survey Sex In America (whose findings we will examine in greater detail later), self-identified gays and lesbians tend to be far better educated than the general population. Twice as many college men identify themselves as gay as do non-college men, and with lesbians, there's an even greater contrast. Women with college educations are eight times more likely than high school educated women to identify themselves as lesbians.{76}

Perhaps an at least partial explanation of the phenomenon of gay affluence may be found in surveys such as that conducted by lesbian activist Kath Weston, who found that a very large percentage of the gay population appears to have been born and raised in managerial or professional (i.e., more "upscale" and better educated) families and environs than the general population.

The same survey reports that far more than half of gays are at least partly college-educated, that the vast majority are under age 40 and that they have achieved their affluence earlier in life than most Americans.{77}

Certainly no credible evidence exists to prove that gays en masse have suddenly become impoverished in recent years. Fodor's, the publisher thought by many travel experts to be the most "establishment" and conservative of travel guide producers, has recently announced its newest guide: Fodor's Gay Guide to the USA: The Most Comprehensive Guide for Gay and Lesbian Travelers. Travel writer Robin Pogrebin commented:

One might expect Fodor's to want to quietly ease its guide into public consciousness for fear of alienating a conservative clientele. But Fodor's has been promoting the book to beat the band, running advertisements in such publications as Vanity Fair featuring well-known gay men and lesbians, and sponsoring "circuit parties" around the country expected to draw thousands of homosexuals.

"It is the single title we've spent more money on than any other," said David Roth, associate publisher at Fodor's.{78}

In "sidebar" article, USA Today reporter Gene Sloan wrote:

"[Gays are] an underserved market and we are going to aggressively pursue it," says Certified [one of America's largest vacation "packagers"] spokesman Carl Zablotny.

Zablotny says recent research has shown gay travelers are more affluent and take more trips than the average traveler, which makes it a promising market. He says Certified expects to sell 5,000 packages its first year.{79}

Also contradicting the "severe oppression" complaints of gay activists, avowedly gay writer Ed Mickens, employment and business commentator for The Advocate, has admitted that gay people don't suffer greatly in the workplace: "Today, it's rare that anyone gets fired just for being gay."{80}

In publicly-released comments, Past Colorado Civil Rights Commission Chair Ignacio Rodriguez summarized his opinion that gays constitute a pseudo-"oppressed class" as follows:

For all practical purposes, as a group [gays] are in the advantaged category -- economically, socially, the whole gamut. So I would not anticipate that anyone would identify this group in those arenas with other ethnic minorities. It is not reasonable to expect anyone to do so. There are certain criteria, as pointed out by John [Franklin, a two-time Colorado Civil Rights Commission Chair], that the [U.S.] Supreme Court has looked at over the years traditionally -- for good reason. They would really have to deviate from that in a major way in order to accomplish what the [gay activists] want. For them to indicate that at any time they as a group have suffered the consequences [of societal oppression] that ethnic minorities have suffered is ludicrous.{81}

Overwhelmed by the weight of such evidence, self-identified gay activists and journalists like Jonathan Rauch have as much as conceded that, by virtue of their failure to meet Criterion 1 alone, gay activists should abandon their "minority" claim:

The standard political model sees homosexuals as an oppressed minority who must fight for their liberation through political action. But that model's usefulness is drawing to a close. It is ceasing to serve the interests of ordinary gay people, who ought to begin disengaging from it, even drop it. Otherwise, they will misread their position and lose their way, as too many minority groups have done already...

Denial of education... is... resoundingly not met. Overlooked Opinions, Inc., a Chicago market-research company, has built a diverse national base of 35,000 gay men and lesbians, two-thirds of whom are either not out of the closet or only marginally out, and has randomly sampled them in surveys. It found that homosexuals had an average of 15.7 years of education, as against 12.7 years for the population as a whole. Obviously the findings may be skewed if college-educated gay people are likelier to take part in surveys (though Overlooked Opinions said that results didn't follow degree of closetedness). Still, any claim that gay people are denied education appears ludicrous.

...[R]elative impoverishment -- is also not met. In Overlooked Opinions' sample, gay men had an average household income of $51,624 and lesbians $42,755, compared with the national average of $36,800. Again, yuppie homosexuals may be more likely to answer surveys than blue-collar ones. But again, to call homosexuals an impoverished class would be silly.

..."I'm a gay person, so I don't live in a free country," one highly successful gay writer said recently, "and I don't think most straight people really sit down and realize that for gay people this is basically a totalitarian society in which we're barely tolerated." The reason straight people don't realize this is because it obviously isn't true. As more and more homosexuals come out of hiding, the reality of gay economic and political and educational achievement becomes more evident. And as that happens, gay people who insist they are oppressed will increasingly, and not always unfairly, come off as yuppie whiners, "victims" with $50,000 incomes and vacations in Europe. They may feel they are oppressed, but they will have a harder and harder time convincing the public.{82}

Aforementioned gay activist/journalist Andrew Sullivan commented in an accompanying article:

Unlike blacks three decades ago, gay men and lesbians suffer no discernable communal economic deprivation and already operate at the highest levels of society: in boardrooms, governments, the media, the military, the law and industry. They may have advanced so far because they have not disclosed their sexuality, but their sexuality as such has not been an immediate cause for their discharge. In many cases, their sexuality is known, but it is disclosed at such a carefully calibrated level that it never actually works against them.{83}

(Both Rauch and Sullivan agree that gay activists' next move should be to try securing recognition of same-sex "marriages.")

Syndicated columnist Mike Royko, generally regarded as liberal in political philosophy, agrees that gays scarcely seem "oppressed":

[Gays'] difficulties look pretty meager compared to those of the poor, the uneducated and the unemployed. It may be a politically incorrect risk to disagree with those hundreds of thousands of homosexual demonstrators who gathered in Washington, but, no, this decade will not be "The Gay '90s." That's because there are so many people in this country who have far worse problems than do homosexual men and lesbians.

Consider the issues that were raised at the Washington rally: the right to serve in the military; repealing state sodomy laws; allowing gay marriages; specific civil rights laws for sexual orientation and more money for AIDS research. Nothing about education. That's because the majority of gays are well-educated. Little said about jobs and economics. That's because gays can be found in all professions and occupations. In some, they appear to dominate.

And nothing about poverty. That's because studies have shown that gays earn considerably more than the average middle-class American... Housing? In Chicago [where Royko lives] and other major cities, the largest gay concentrations are in some of the most expensive parts of town... Federal civil rights laws based on sexual orientation? The lawyers can fight that one out, and I would think some of the arguments might be rather bizarre. And the remaining sodomy laws are about as sternly enforced as laws forbidding married couples the bedroom acrobatics of their choice.{84}

There seems little question that gay activists cannot make a case for suspect status for "sexual orientation" based on Criterion 1.

Criterion 2: Political Powerlessness

Far from being politically powerless, allegedly gay activists have in recent years demonstrated enormous political "clout" relative to their numbers. Combining economic and educational advantage with high-pressure lobbying tactics, gay activists have ridden waves of tolerance emanating from the sexual revolution, plus the presumption that "sexual orientation" is some kind of "minority," to a position of almost irresistible influence in today's America. They have:

In 1989, gay "AIDS activists" invaded a Roman Catholic mass at New York City's St. Patrick's Cathedral, shouting obscenities and defiling Communion elements. A few participants in this blatant desecration incurred slight legal penalties.

No arrests were made and no charges were filed at San Francisco's 1990 and 1991 Gay and Lesbian Pride Parades, or the 1994 New York St. Patrick's Day Parade (in which gays marched illegally). Videotapes of these and other parades depict public nudity, both male and female; lewd and lascivious acts, including public fondling of genitalia and several acts of what appears to be public anal sex between males.

In Madison, Wisconsin, on Sunday, September 8, 1991 homosexual activists defaced the state Capitol and threatened the Governor. The Capitol Times gave this report:

About 100 ACT UP protestors charged the Capitol today, defacing the hallway leading to the governor's office with food and stickers and staging a "die-in" in the rotunda. They were protesting what they call "criminal" state policies against prison inmates with AIDS...

The protesters were met by Capitol police and security officers, who closed the governor's office and blocked the group's entry. The protesters then tossed sandwiches and towels toward the door, and left numerous ACT Up stickers on the walls that portray [Wisconsin's governor Tommy] Thompson as a public health menace...other protesters used some type of black marker to write on the marble floor.

No arrests were reported in this incident. Obviously, that gay extremists can indulge in this kind of activity with impunity, while ordinary rules of law are suspended, reflects considerable political power -- power gay militants themselves boast openly of having achieved.

As long ago as 1987, a report issued by the Federal Elections Commission stated that "The Human Rights Campaign Fund" [HRCF], the national gay activist political action committee (PAC), was at that time the "16th largest independent political action committee (PAC) in the nation" and "the 39th largest PAC overall." Considering that more than 4,500 PACs had registered with the FEC at the time, this represents enormous political power.

Robert Basile, HRCF's executive director, commented on this news: "We have clearly become a big-league PAC, which means the gay and lesbian community has increasing power in American politics... This means we have recognizable clout in the election and in the legislative process of this country... For better or for worse, politics in this country responds to money, and politicians now know they had better respond to our community."{85}

During the 1986 elections, HRCF raised more than $1.4 million. This put it in the top 1% of PACs nationwide. HRCF funded candidates in 112 political races -- "an incredible political achievement," according to political experts.

By fiscal year 1991-1992, the HRCF's budget had grown to nearly $4 million. It is a matter of public record that gay militants funded President Bill Clinton's election campaign to the tune of some $3.5 million.

The HRCF announced a 1992-1993 projected budget of over $5 million.{86} Gay activists have now established a Washington, D.C.-based "Victory Fund" to empower local, openly homosexual candidates, with a current operating budget of between $650,000 and $1 million.

As previously mentioned, the Washington, D.C., Convention and Visitors Association (CVA) estimates that gay participants in 1993's March On Washington spent more than an incredible $177 million during that brief event -- more, according to CVA, than any other single event they've ever tracked. That $177 million nearly tripled CVA estimates of spending on all Clinton Presidential inaugural ceremonies and festivities combined.{87}

In 1995 alone, gay activists were estimated to have spent at least $2.5 million in the small State of Maine alone, to defeat grass roots, citizen-led opposition to "gay rights" � opposition unsupported by "religious rightists" that spent only about $50,000. (Following this success � achieved in part through widespread voter fraud, according to some voters � gay activists spent millions more in (unsuccessful) attempts to cripple Maine�s citizen initiative process, so as to prevent further like citizen actions.)

Giving to the top 12 national "gay rights"-promoting PACs now ranges in the top tenth of one percent of all PAC giving in the United States. (Yet gay activists at the Colorado trials of Amendment 2 glibly tried to argue that they were politically powerless -- because they had lost the statewide initiative vote, though, counting legal expenses, they outspent Amendment proponents at least five to one!) 1997 PAC giving figures show that the Human Right Campaign (formerly the Human Rights Campaign Fund) alone dispensed in excess of $12,000,000 in PAC revenues toward chosen candidates and political issue advocacy.

Political powerlessness all this obviously is not. Gay activists clearly strike out against Criterion 2.

Criterion 3: Innate or Immutable Characteristics

Attempting to satisfy this criterion, many gay militants claim that "gayness" is genetically determined and immutable. Frankly, this is an issue Americans for Reason and Justice chooses not to debate � a rancorous issue best left, we believe, to scientists and theologians, the Gay Left and the Big Religious Right, who seem to both think it�s the, "Big, Deciding Issue" in the "gay rights" debate. We disagree: Again, the U.S. Supreme Court�s ruling criteria for bestowing protected minority class status involve, not just "innateness" questions, but whether the group in question as an entire, "averaged" class, is disadvantaged and politically powerless. And for good reason:

Some healthy Caucasian male millionaires under 40 were "born that way"; the fact of the circumstances of their birth and/or their having always lived affluent "lifestyles" obviously in no way qualifies them for "poverty class status" recognition under minority civil rights law. They�re far too rich to enjoy that status, and so are gays as an entire "averaged" class. They�re not "ethnic" or handicapped enough for minority status, and neither is "sexual orientation."

While we won�t engage in the "innateness" debate, we do wish, however, to report the fact that it�s evidently an issue of some controversy among gay activists themselves, who seem to some political audiences insistant on "sexual orientation�s" being "innate," and to other audiences, equally as insistant on its being "changeable and fluid over the course of a lifetime." What�s even more perplexing is hearing both insistances issuing from the same mouths on different occasions. As with the issue of gay affluence vs. gay "poverty and oppression," considerable "cognitive dissonance" seems to plague gay activist propaganda (more such dissonances will be sounded farther along in this paper), to the point where one is tempted to question anything gay activists claim, at any time, about any issue. Consider:

Gary Remafedi, a self-avowedly gay researcher, found, surveying nearly 35,000 youth, that students' confusion (if any) about their sexual orientation decreased with age. Remafedi found that older students were less likely to identify themselves as gay or bisexual than younger students: "The percentage of students reporting a predominantly (`mostly' or `100%') heterosexual orientation increased slightly with age from 98.4% at age 12 to 99.2% at 18 years of age, with a corresponding decline in the percentage who adopted the bisexual label."{88} Findings like these indicate that a sizeable percentage of people experiment with gay behavior during their youth, but go on to lead heterosexual lives in adulthood.

In a study documenting fluid change from homosexual/bisexual involvement to heterosexuality, Australian AIDS/homosexuality researcher Dr. Michael Ross reported:

Married men with homosexual experience were, predictably, significantly more personally concerned about AIDS and more scared of the disease. They were more likely to know homosexual people, and less likely to think that sex should be limited to marriage. In terms of sexual behavior, those with homosexual experience were also significantly less likely to have had sex with a woman in the past 12 months, and more likely to have used intravenous drugs.

On the Kinsey Scale, predictably, they were more likely to consider themselves bisexual (although 63 percent now rated themselves as completely heterosexual; category 0). This last piece of data suggests that a substantial proportion of men who have had previous homosexual experience may now think of themselves currently as completely heterosexual, and that sexual behavior is, as Kinsey et al. (1948) found, reasonably fluid across the lifespan.{89}

One wonders how an "immutable" orientation can be "reasonably fluid across the lifespan." Next, consider the following examples disputing gayness' "innateness/immutability," all derived from gay activist sources. We'll begin with "Queer Nation" pioneer Jonathan Ned Katz:

On the one hand... gay and lesbian activists have emphatically affirmed the idea of a world divided between homosexual and heterosexual persons. On the other hand, one of the least expected outgrowths of gay and lesbian organizing has been to foster intellectual work that radically questions the necessity of hetero and homo identities, and even the hetero and homo categories themselves.{90}

In one sense, the right is right. Religious fundamentalists and ultraconservatives are correct to accuse the gay and lesbian rights movement of a threatening homogenization [of sexuality]. Homosexuals' political assertion of equality may be conceived by gay and straight liberals as a strategy for equalizing the civil status of heteros and homos. That equalizing may even be understood as fortifying the hetero/homo difference. But whatever their conscious goals, if gay and lesbian liberationists ever achieve full equality, they will do away with the social need for the hetero/homo division.{91}

Biological determinism [of homosexuality] is misconceived intellectually, as well as politically loathsome. For it places our problem in our bodies, not in our society. We now commonly think, "Well, of course, biology and society together determine our destinies." But that simply reinstates the old bio fatalism within a "sociobiological" framework.

Only the supreme arrogance of the heterosexualizing gaze allows us to view the hetero/homo division of modern Western society as rooted in biology, nature, or evolution, and other ages' different categories, sexes, and pleasures as superficial constructions. That biology has determined our historically particular heterosexuality and homosexuality is a vain, difference-denying conceit.{92}

Contrary to today's bio-belief, the heterosexual/homosexual binary is not in nature, but is socially constructed, therefore deconstructable.

In other words, human beings make their own different arrangements of reproduction and production, of sex differences and eroticism, their own history of pleasure and happiness.{93}

In an "Afterword" to Katz' book, lesbian activist Lisa Duggan frankly explores the primary reasons why some gay activists make so-called "innateness" arguments: They are politically expedient...

...Katz will... be challenged by lesbian and gay "essentialists" who believe that sexual identity is fixed, perhaps inborn. Understandably, these advocates of equality believe that their kind of argument works better against the conservatives who would banish them from the earth. If lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals are born, not made, then the wish to ban or punish them is itself against nature and thus wrong as well as mean.

But such arguments are short-sighted as well as a-historical. All they can win is tolerance for a supposedly fixed minority called "lesbian" and "gay." What they can't do is change the notion that "heterosexuality" is "normal" for the vast majority of people, and shift social, cultural, and political practices based on that assumption. Nor can they destabilize the rigid notions of gender that underlie sexual identity categories.{94}

Lesbian activists Sue O'Sullivan and Pratibha Parmar comment on the raging debate among lesbians about who is a "real lesbian":

We may not be in any real danger through our sexual practices, but we do more with our time than have sex! Lesbians are not all women who have never had sex with men, or never will; who have never injected drugs, or never will; who have never been raped, or never will be; who had no blood transfusions before 1985 (when blood and blood products started to be screened for HIV); who had never self-inseminated with sperm from an untested donor. There is no single, pure definition of what a real lesbian is, let alone what real lesbian sex is.{95}

Safer sex is a skill we can all know about and then choose to use or not as the situation demands. Identities can be multiple and changing. The woman who [sleeps with] only women today may be the one who falls for a man tomorrow. Safer sex in these circumstances takes on a very different meaning and priority. Having a lesbian identity does not protect you from HIV and other circumstances. Lesbianism in itself is not a condom!{96}

Similarly,

That a woman can spend half her adult life seeing herself as a heterosexual, marrying and bearing children, and then, in mid-life, become a lesbian puzzles most observers and quite often the woman herself. Yet from rural Idaho to Metropolitan New York, women are redefining their sexuality and becoming lesbians in mid-life.

What are the social dynamics involved in this process of change? We will discuss this question in light of a survey of over 30 American women who had recently changed their sexual identity. Their experiences challenge the common assumption that sexuality is "set" at an early stage of the life cycle. They also illuminate the social context which was supportive to the redefinition of the lesbian stereotype and their own sexuality.

From the same article: "Several women followed what we might call a `feminist path' to lesbianism, a pattern for `coming out' that has been known since the early days of the women's movement. For these women, becoming a lesbian was a direct and conscious outgrowth of their commitment to feminism. For them, lesbianism was a deliberate choice, the logical last step in the process of political analysis."{97}

(Interestingly, Andrew Sullivan [op. cit., Virtually Normal] presumes throughout his argumentation that homosexual orientation cannot be changed under any circumstances, though the psychological literature says otherwise. Yet in one passage Sullivan sets up an "anti-gay" group of people he calls Prohibitionists, who, he says, essentially want to see homosexuality absolutely wiped out. Then he sophistically tries to reverse course by stating that in his opinion opposing homosexuality in such a manner will actually cause more of it! But how can any action create more or less of an "identity" that is in fact innate, as he claims?)

A recently published survey also calls the "innateness" of lesbianism into question:

There's a big controversy now: Is lesbianism hereditary? People are trying to find a genetic predisposition to being gay. I think part of this is positive in that researchers are trying to tell the establishment, "Don't try to cure homosexuality. They were born this way. A certain percent of the population is going to be this way, no matter what you do."

But even if they're right, what about those for whom it's not hereditary? Many women say it's a choice. They have chosen lesbianism because of positive experiences with women... Why are we so afraid to say we chose it? It's so scary to take that chance and say, "I am choosing it. It's really what I want to do. It's not because my DNA is making me. DNA be d[---]ed, I think I'll be a lesbian."{98}

A sizeable majority of lesbians are similar to bisexuals in that they are sexually attracted to men, according to a survey by lesbian sociology professor Dr. Paula Rust of Hamilton College in New York.

Two-thirds of the self-identified lesbians surveyed by Rust said they were attracted to men, she writes in her just-released book Bisexuality and the Challenge to Lesbian Politics: Sex, Loyalty and Revolution, as reported in the homosexual magazine Frontiers.

"[W]omen who identify as lesbians and those who identify as bisexuals really aren't all that different in terms of their experiences or in their feelings," writes Rust, who herself experimented with a "two-month affair" with a man which she hid from her lesbian friends.

Rust's findings are consistent with other studies of lesbians that show many to have had sex with men while identifying as lesbians....

Frontiers concludes its article on "The New Renaissance of Bisexuality" by stating that "coming to terms with bisexuality" may ultimately require "the acceptance of the idea that our sexual identities are in a state of constant flux, with age, with geography, with partner, with opportunity and with mood.{99}

Jonathan Ned Katz on this theme again, this time from his Gay/Lesbian Almanac, a selection of historical documents about homosexuality from the early American colonies until modern America, circa 1950:

A thoroughgoing historical relativism indicates that "lesbian," "gay," "homosexual," and "heterosexual" have no universal, unchanging, historical meaning or reference. And even a cursory survey of current lesbian and feminist writings, and other psychological theorizing, suggests that there is no one, simple, unambiguous contemporary definition of those words.{100}

On page 11, Katz says that his concept of gay and lesbian is defined as an essential eroticism, again, another vague definition, if we're expected to base a new status of Civil Rights protection on it. Katz and other gay activists infer that heterosexuality is a rather recent human invention because history doesn't mention it. But that's more easily explained by the fact that heterosexuality was accepted as such a "given" that it didn't need much talking about.

(On pp. 45ff., Katz goes to some pains to show that in Puritan America sodomy was not thought of as a unique sin. Homosexuality's being normal or abnormal was simply not a part of Puritan thinking in those days; it was merely one sin among many, not an identity. In so saying, of course, Katz himself comes down on the side of homosexuality's not being so much an identity as being a thought-and-behavior pattern, in essence agreeing with, of all people, the early Puritans -- and with orthodox Christian theology!)

To the extent that homosexual and heterosexual represent a limiting imposition on humanity, a labelling created for the purpose, and functioning in the interest of social control, we should consider how to transcend that polarity in theory and practice. To the extent that "lesbian" and "gay" represent, simply, reverse affirmations of the old homosexuality, thereby reproducing it, we need to ask how we might transcend any categorization of the human referring to the erotic and to sex biology. I wish to be clear. I do not advocate "bisexuality" or "androgyny." I do not want us to claim: "We are human beings, not lesbian, not gay." There exists today a pressing political need for more of us to name ourselves publicly as "gay" and "lesbian" (the names by which we have been and are denied). There exists a pressing personal need for us to reclaim that which is life-enhancing and lovely within the "lesbian" and "gay." Yet we have, I think, a simultaneous need to dive down deep, to risk, to question, to continually challenge the old terms, assumptions, and institutions, to radically remake the meaning of our lives and restructure the social organization of our bodies.{101}

If naming the homosexual and heterosexual was one epochal invention achieved under the reign of capital, 1880-1950, the most advanced, radical, and humane sexual politic I know of now envisions an erotic and affectionate utopia in which those two sexualities would not be named. This far-reaching ideal envisions, not the liberal reform of masculinity and femininity, heterosexuality and homosexuality, but the revolutionary dissolution of sex-biology and particular feelings and acts. There would then no longer be emotions or work inappropriate to either females or males. This sexual revolution would, in effect, abolish female and male as we now know them.

Providing the conditions for the complete separation of the procreative and erotic, and demystifying both as matters, not of God, nature, biology, or medicine, but of choice, taste, esthetics, morality, and values -- of politics and power -- the present economy of sex allows us to perceive more clearly than ever before the social and human structuring of desire -- freeing both heterosexuals and homosexuals to begin to cast off those confining names, to rethink, remake, rename and unname themselves along radically new lines.{102}

Lesbian activist Donna Minkowitz would also seem to affirm a "non-innateness" perspective, in an Advocate magazine article, entitled "Recruit, recruit, recruit!":

Remember that most of the line about homosex[uality] being one's nature, not a choice, was articulated as a response to brutal repression. "It's not our fault!" gay activists began to declaim a century ago, when queers first began to organize in Germany and England. "We didn't choose this, so don't punish us for it!" One hundred years later, it's time for us to abandon this defensive posture and walk upright on the earth. Maybe you didn't choose to be gay -- that's fine. But I did.{103}

Do gay activists really believe in the "innateness and immutability" of homosexuality? Or are they deliberately speaking out of both sides of their mouths, claiming "innateness" in the political arena to deceive the public -- and claiming "orientational fluidity" among themselves, so they can continue to "maximize their personal autonomy?" Public policy author and American University professor Jerry Z. Muller observes, of gay activist "sexual politics":

In political arguments toward the non-homosexual public, the ["gay rights"] movement has tended toward a deterministic portrait of homosexuality as grounded in irrevocable biological or social-psychological circumstance. Yet among homosexual theorists in the academy, the propensity is toward the defense of homosexuality as a voluntarily affirmed "self-fashioning."

The confluence of feminism and homosexual ideology has now led to a new stage, in which the politics of stable but multicultural and multisexual identities is being challenged by those who regard all permanent and fixed identity as a coercive restriction of autonomy, which is thought to include self-definition and redefinition.{104}

Since many gay activists don't seem truly to believe that homosexuality is innate or even seem to know what it means to be "really gay," we at Americans for Reason and Justice feel we have no choice but to conclude that their "firm public stand" in favor of "innateness" is largely expedient political posturing.

As further indication that this is the case, we cite a remarkably frank article entitled "The Sexual Blur," from the June 24, 1997, issue of The Advocate: The National Gay & Lesbian Newsmagazine (pp. 28-39), questioning the validity of the "born gay" and "once gay, always gay" theses. The article�s lead-in itself sets the stage for the controversy: "With straights falling for gays, lesbians dating men, and gay men in love with women, is anybody anything anymore? Just how important is sexual identity?"

Perhaps not coincidentally, the article�s publication follows the "reverse comings-out" of numerous high-profile gay activists, Hollywood performers, "queer theorists" and arts-world figures who�ve recently abandoned homosexuality and "gone public" about their sexual relationships with members of the opposite gender.

Most perplexing to many both inside and outside the gay world, says the article�s author, Ted Gideonse, is what he calls "fluid sexuality. This is changing sexuality, the sexuality that doesn�t fit in a box, the sexuality that might reject labels, the sexuality that causes all sorts of political problems in a gay movement in which some spokespeople have for years been insisting, `We�re born this way, we can�t change, and � d�n it! -- if we could, don�t you think we would have?�

"The fact is that," Gideonse continues, "many people do change � or to be exact, they don�t stay the same. `Gay,� `lesbian,� `bisexual,� and `straight� are just labels..." Further argumentation advances Gideonse�s "fluidity" proposition:

[F]ew disagree that human sexuality manifests itself in very different ways and that it can even change at various points in a person�s life. Ron Fox, a psychotherapist and researcher in San Francisco, says, "Some people have the same orientation all their life with the same kind of sexual fantasies, and other people don�t."

[Psychologist Adria] Schwartz says that many of her clients, most of whom are lesbians, report sexual dreams and fantasies about both men and women.... "There�s a false premise [Schwartz says] that if you are something, then that�s all you are."

[Gideonse continues] What you call yourself has all sorts of meanings, both political and cultural, and once you call yourself something � "lesbian," for example � you�re expected to act a certain way. Few places is this a more contentious issue than in some (but not all) lesbian communities when a member of that group enters a relationship with a man.

Filmmaker Elaine Holliman likens it to being treated like Marilyn Munster, the Marilyn Monroe look-alike on the TV show The Munsters who looked nothing like her more beastly relatives. "They were so disappointed by her," Holliman says, laughing.

While Holliman seems to be amused by the reactions to her [own recent] bisexual behavior, JoAnn Loulan [supra] isn�t. When Loulan, a longtime lesbian activist and the author of Lesbian Sex, became involved with a man and decided to talk about it, she subsequently received a great deal of criticism from other lesbians. (On Oprah she jokingly called her relationship "deviant behavior.")

The truth can be hard. Lesbians who have come out about being involved with a man have to deal with possible rejection from gays as well as questions about their cultural and political identity. "We all had that sinking-ship feeling when we came out [the first time, publicly identifying themselves as gay]," Holliman says. Maria Maggenti, the director of The Incredibly True Adventure of Two Girls in Love, echoed that sentiment in an interview with The Advocate in 1995: "It�s pretty strange that 12 years [after I came out as a lesbian] I would fall in love with a man, be totally traumatized, and have to come out again."

Sociologist Paula Rust [op. cit.] has found that up to 90% of women who identify themselves as lesbians have had sex with men and that nearly 65% say that they�re at least somewhat attracted to men.

Rust looks to the origins of the gay [rights] movement for explanations. In the early days of gay liberation and feminism, the goal was to break down the distinctions between the genders as well as between gay and straight. However, during the 1970s as the movement solidified, it also "ethnicized," Rust says. It took on the political methods of the civil rights movement, which had been successful by exposing the ways people of different races were treated. In other words, homosexuality was treated as an ethnicity. In order to use ethnic politics, they had to pretend as if there was a clear boundary between gay and straight," she says. (emphasis added)

Deeply ingrained in this mode of political argument is the "Biology is destiny" mantra, the idea of having no choice. The political inclusion of bisexuals as well as transgendered people in the larger gay and lesbian [rights] movement complicates this explanation. It�s not that bisexuality isn�t also a result of some biological process [?] but rather that it becomes difficult to say "We had no choice" when, to a certain extent, bisexuals do.

Some feel that on its face the biology-and-genetics argument is useless, if not offensive. "I don�t need to think I was born that way to accept my gay feelings. I�m just fine about those feelings," says Jonathan Ned Katz [supra], author of The Invention of Heterosexuality. "A lot of people have adopted the idea that it�s all right to be gay if you�re born that way. If you say your experience is different, it upsets those people who have justified their feelings with that type of explanation, and it upsets straight people that the line between straight and gay isn�t so clear."

Amy Agigian, who teaches "queer theory" at Brandeis University, agrees. "I�ve never found the `I can�t help it� argument very persuasive or very helpful in the politics of sexuality," she says. "As a feminist, for me it�s about being able to follow your heart and being able to love who you love and desire who you desire."

"Why is everybody freaking out about [homosexuality] being a choice? It�s a great choice," Loulan says. "I don�t know why the genetics argument is going to help us. It didn�t help blacks. I think it�s a pathetic argument to say `I can�t help it.� I don�t think it exists for everybody, and I don�t think it matters."

Katz, along with Loulan, was a guest on the "origins of homosexuality" Oprah show. After they finished taping the show, Katz says that the discussion continued for about 40 minutes, during which "Oprah said that she had a revelation that, `Oh, it�s OK to be gay even if you�re not born that way.�"

Identities are fragile and constructed, according to [performance artist and "transgender activist" Kate] Bornstein. "There are no pure identities," she says. "In any system of identity politics, someone is going to be left out because their identity isn�t `pure enough....�"

What�s the problem then? As a movement are [gay activists] more concerned about genes � or about truth?

Perhaps not coincidentally, results of a concurrent survey of Advocate readers, published on the magazine�s Internet website, indicate that some 53%-54% of the magazine�s readership surveyed feel that "sexual orientation" is "fluid" rather than fixed in nature.

One can�t help but wonder whether most gay activists, at least when they address the general public, are truly concerned about genes or truth. Gay activists typically regard any questioning by "gay rights" opponents of the "born that way/once gay-always gay" theses as a form of "hate crime." Yet in an act of colossal political duplicity and hypocrisy, during the very time frame in which the above-cited article was published (thus The Advocate itself must be guilty of "hate crime," if we apply consistent "logic"), 350 gay activists vehemently picketed a national conference in Washington, D.C., of scientific researchers and psychologists who do not believe homosexuality is either innate or immutable. The gay activist picketers� fervent cry: "This entire conference constitutes a `hate crime!�"

Curiously, while Ellen Degeneris, star of the "Ellen" T.V. sitcom, has "come out" as a lesbian both as a sitcom character and a "real-life" person (with her "life partner," film star Anne Heche), the show itself has begun at the beginning of the �97-�98 broadcast season to gently question the "hard innateness" theory. T.V. Guide previews "Ellen�s" September 24, 1997 "Guys and Dolls" episode as follows: "Ellen�s ex-boyfriend, Dan, returns on the sparkling fourth-season opener. After marveling that Ellen is `exactly the same,� Dan learns that she�s gay. `I hope this doesn�t have anything to do with me,� he says. Her response: `Not unless you played Catwoman on Batman.� And so the two renew their friendship, and it�s clear that the ever-insecure Ellen is, in fact, pretty much the same as always. Specifically, she begins to second-guess her sexual orientation after Dan�s friendly goodnight kiss turns passionate � a smooch that prompts Spence to ask, `What the hell kind of lesbian are you?�" ("Editor�s Choice" [inset], Sept. 20-26, 1997, pg. 204).

In a possible case of life imitating art, The Washington Post "Parade" magazine reported on April 19, 1998 ("Personality Parade," p. 2): "Q You wrote that Ellen DeGeneres [sic?] and Anne Heche were as cozy as ever. But I read elsewhere that Heche has developed an attraction for a male actor. Who is right? -- L. Williams, New Haven, Conn. A Perhaps both of us. Heche, 28, may be having second (or is it third?) thoughts about her sexual orientation. Our source on the set of her latest film, Force Majeure, says sparks flew between Heche and her 6-foot-4 co-star, Vince Vaughn, 27. We�re told she also flirted with other actors except when DeGeneres, 40, came to visit. Her agent says Anne and Vince are �just good friends.�"

Finally, still another prominent segment of gay activists has attempted to disparage the "innateness/immutability" theses. These activists� reasoning is curious indeed: They fear that if "gayness" can be proved to be genetically determined, it will therefore also be considered "surgically correctable, or alterable by genetic engineering." They fear "fascists" and/or "homophobes" may then try

to round up gay people and "correct" their sexual orientation "under the knife" or "in the test tube" -- even kill infants determined genetically to be homosexual.

In any event, though Americans for Reason and Justice take no public policy stand on whether or not "gayness" is "innate and immutable," we feel it our obligation to observe that if gay activists themselves, strongest advocates (at least to some audiences) of the "innateness and immutability" of homosexuality, can't agree on this question, it would be ludicrous, foolhardy and dangerous to make sweeping public policy decisions based on the unproven presumption that gays are "born that way" and can't change their "sexual orientation."

But there is another aspect of Criterion 3 we do wish to discuss at some length: the obvious, distinguishing characteristics that should define a true suspect class...

As Gay Activists Define Homosexual "Orientation," Establishing Firm Identity is Impossible

Most opponents of "gay rights" (including opponents of same-sex "marriage") believe that gay activists are asking for suspect status and same-sex "marriage" recognition based on gays' identity as evidenced by gays' SEXUAL BEHAVIOR.

Most anti-"gay rights" public policy analyses one reads presume that homosexuality is a "lifestyle defined by behavior." But this is one of the most dangerous misapprehensions now floating around in the "gay rights" debate. In truth, the manner in which gay activists have framed the issue legally makes any "gay activists want protection for gay behavior" analysis totally inaccurate.

In truth, gay activists are asking for minority status protection for "sexual orientation" based solely on how self-avowedly "gay" people SAY, not how they HAVE, but merely how they THINK about sex. They insist that what they say about what they claim to fantasize sexually about should be enough all by itself to absolutely and permanently establish their "minority" identity for Civil Rights purposes.

This, as we shall see, would be an unprecedented allowance in Civil Rights law -- a way of establishing identity granted to no other groups -- even religious groups -- in American history. On what basis do we make this little-known-of observation? Consider the following definitions of "sexual orientation," used by gay activists in two of the nation's most important "gay rights" court cases:

Generally, psychologists define sexual orientation as one or more of the following:

Notice that, to establish a person's "sexual orientation," these definitions (which are generally considered "official" throughout the "gay rights" movement) don�t even even require one to claim having had sexual intimacy with or, in all but one case, even sexual desire for anyone of any gender, the same or opposite! (Is it any wonder that, while gay activists speak of wanting to embrace the "commitments" of marriage, they never speak of physical commitment or sexual fidelity!)

A man who claims ever having felt affection for his father could claim "homosexual orientation" according to these definitions. A woman who claims ever having "liked" a blood sister could claim "lesbian orientation."

To establish their self-alleged "sexual orientations," gay and lesbian activists are willing to offer no objective proof whatsoever, to employers, government officials or anyone else. Do gay militants plan to "prove" that sheer self-alleged sexual fantasy is no different, essentially, from obvious, truly immutable qualities like skin color? That is a question they have left unanswered to date.

In what way is this gay activist "take only my word for it � I�m gay!") claim unprecedented. Lesbian activist Robin Miller and others have likened "gay rights" opponents' objections to gay suspect status on the grounds of gay affluence as "akin to the prejudice of Nazis against rich Jews." Not so. Jewish identity affords most Jews racial as well as religious claims to suspect status. Legal precedent has long established that Jews and/or any other religious groups claiming discrimination must demonstrate sincerity of religious belief by behavior consistent with staunchly held convictions, not by mere verbal expressions of religious "orientation."

Second, the free exercise of religion is a fundamental right guaranteed under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Even were homosexual "orientation" based on the practice of same-gender sexual acts, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (in Bowers vs. Hardwick, 1986) that no "fundamental right" exists under our Constitution to engage in gay sexual behavior. In fact, the High Court has ruled that States may criminalize gay sexual behavior if they so desire.

Third, as a religious and ethnic group, Jews have never attempted to use the fact of persecution Jews have experienced historically to achieve added "suspect status" benefits at the expense of truly disadvantaged Americans. On the contrary, Jews have nobly turned the tragedy of their maltreatment into an impetus to compassionate championship of Civil Rights protections and benefits for the truly disadvantaged. Until gay activists' suspect class claims were threatened by the facts revealed in this and other similar analyses, gay activists showed little beyond token interest in advancing anyone's status but their own.

In truth, to equate gays with any true ethnic or religious group would be a travesty of logic, a false comparison. "Gayness" as gay activists now define it, can only be compared accurately with other self-alleged sexual proclivities, such as self-alleged sado-masochism, foot or underwear fetishism, addiction to pornography or the like. Why homosexual "orientation" should deserve a special status under Civil Rights law, equal to that of ethnic, religious and disabled "minorities'," rather than some of the "legal but deviant orientations" just mentioned is another question gay activists have never been able to answer with logic.

"Sexual orientation's" lack of identifiability, given the vague definitions of it gay activists insist that America accept, has profound public policy implications, which we will discuss at length for a few moments.

One question arises immediately: How would it be possible for Civil Rights authorities, whose task it is to determine the validity or fraudulence of discrimination and mistreatement claims, possibly "positively identify" gays as individuals, or "sexual orientation" as a class, based on these nebulous definitions? Two-time Colorado Civil Rights Commission Chair John N. Franklin has observed in this regard...

In my field [Civil Rights], we have over time developed particular categories of specially protected social classes, who have demonstrated through empirical studies a need for special class protection, against such things as race discrimination, gender discrimination, handicapped discrimination, etc. Several factors play highly significant roles in the designation of these special classes.

First, means must be found to effectively define such a class. Second, such a class must be limited so that it can be effectively protected under the laws. Third, there must be a rational basis for designation of special class protection. If the intent of Civil Rights authorities is to specially protect a class, that class must be (1) objectively discernible enough to be obviously recognizable as a distinct class; (2) that class must be able to justify its need for protection, by proving discrimination through economic disadvantage. Any class that cannot demonstrate as an entire [averaged] class that it has been denied promotion, educational and cultural opportunities etc., in such a way as to have experienced severe negative impact, does not have a legitimate claim to protected class status, even though individual members may have suffered deprivation in some degree. These distinctions are critically important, because if a group is simply awarded special protected class status apart from discernable qualifications and demonstrated need, attention will inevitably be taken away from the legitimate claims of those who have demonstrated true need and discernable qualifications. Therefore, let us consider this issue of discernable qualities as relates to homosexuality.

Obviously, if a person is a woman or aged above 40, or physically challenged, it is possible to demonstrate that gender or age, or physical challenge, by universally accepted means. Handicapped protected status, for instance, is an entitlement for those who are obviously handicapped and perceived by their employers to be so. But homosexuality would be a very subjective classification indeed to establish. How would eligibility for classification as a homosexual, bisexual or lesbian be established? Strictly on the basis of personal allegation? Would protected class coverage begin when an individual began practicing homosexuality? If not, when? After a homosexual performed homosexual acts before a panel of Civil Rights authorities? The first time someone engaged in sex with a member of the same gender -- even accidentally, as in a drunken or drugged encounter? After someone became exclusively homosexual? For how long?

Unless actual sexual response is clearly demonstrated by homosexuals, how will one know if a job applicant is truly homosexual? What might happen to an applicant who is not homosexual, but perceived by an employer to be so?

Once gayness was confirmed (whatever the confirmation process) would protected class status and all accompanying entitlements then become retroactive to birth? In light of the extreme affluence of homosexuals relative to the general population, what would prevent opportunistic individuals from becoming closet heterosexuals, claiming homosexual status in order to secure benefits only available to legitimate minorities?

How would classification be decided for a bisexual? To what extent is someone bisexual? If a person had one experimental homosexual experience in youth, would that make him or her eligible for protected class status? How would it be possible to tell if a person who claims to be homosexual on January 1, 1992, has always been homosexual since birth?

For that matter, would Caucasian, non-disabled Americans under age 40 who had once claimed homosexual "orientation" lose "gay rights" protections if they abandoned gay lifestyles and/or claimed to no longer experience gay sexual fantasies? Franklin continues:

These kinds of considerations simply do not lend themselves to careful, prompt adjudication. I conclude that attempting to define these sexual orientations in terms of the categories needed for protected class status is not rational, but rooted in non-sequitur.

Second, we must deal with the question of demonstrated need. My opinion is, while there has been much discussion by gay groups about their need for protection, I do not perceive there to be enough evidence, scientific, empirical or otherwise, to demonstrate that gays have been victims of discrimination to the magnitude that would warrant the intrusion of government protection of their interests as a class.

Frankly, until gays can establish through impartial scientific means that there are verifiable differences between themselves and other people -- differences which are obviously discernible to public perception -- and until gays can demonstrate that gays as an entire [averaged] class have suffered discrimination resulting in severe economic, educational and cultural deprivation, it is my opinion that they should not be regarded as a specially protected class. Absent such evidence, I fear that giving gays special, protected status as a vaguely-defined "quasi-class," would, in effect, "muddy the waters," diluting the principles of Civil Rights that have been proven through the years. It is my opinion that all specially protected classes would then suffer for the marginable, questionable gains that would be enjoyed by this vocal few.

I foresee several possible negative consequences of granting protected class status to gays. Would this precedent not encourage others of different sexual orientations, even an entire "commune," to say, "Aren't we a `family,' too? We're all `domestic partners.' Why shouldn't we get `domestic partnership' benefits?" Or, what would prevent heterosexual housemates who aren't married from benefiting from their "domestic partnership" under "sexual orientation" laws?

[Ironically, in 1993, under a municipal Hawaiian "domestic partnership" ordinance, two avowedly heterosexual male housemates actually did apply for such recognition -- to the chagrin of gay activists who complained "that's not what this legislation is supposed to be for!"]

Under laws granting protected class status to gays, it is possible that people who aren't gay might well pretend to be gay, to form "shell" corporations attempting to take advantage of minority contract laws. If gays were made a specially protected class, it could be argued that they be given a certain percentage of such contracts, to make up for past wrongs. I fear that those who are already economically advantaged would thus be given leverage to achieve even greater economic advantage, at the expense of those who are truly disadvantaged.

The resources America now has to bestow on disadvantaged people are well directed toward the protection of currently established classes. And I think granting gays special protected status would do a disservice to all those people who are presently being discriminated against or mistreated by diluting the significance of Civil Rights protection. I see no need to elevate to the status of a specially protected class the mere fact that gays' lifestyle or how they [claim to think about] sex is not generally approved by society. And I would hate to see resources taken away from those who are truly in need of special protection, to benefit others who are not.

Finally, gays now have established recourse against discrimination. They have the right to pursue civil litigation if they have been defamed or held up to ridicule. They are protected against verbal abuse by harassment laws. They are entitled under current laws to protection of their own property and persons. They are entitled to protection by all the criminal laws of this State. The basic Civil Rights laws of this country protect all people for basic due process. While gays are not currently elevated to the status of a specially protected class, they do have the same protections as all Americans. And I do not believe that either current special class protections or basic Civil Rights protections enjoyed by all Americans would be threatened if gays are not granted special protected class status in the foreseeable future.{107}

As Franklin and others have pointed out elsewhere, accept gay militants' definitions of "sexual orientation" into suspect class law, and prospective employers will simply have to take the word of anyone merely claiming to be gay -- or face the threat of a lawsuit if the employer denies the "gay" person a job.

(In Lewiston, Maine, which in 1993 had "gay rights" legislation [since repealed] in place, six employees whose jobs were threatened by a corporate cutback -- including a married father of four who claimed to be "a lesbian trapped in a male body" -- suddenly claimed to be "gay" in an attempt to stay employed.)

Since gay "orientation" as gay activists define it can't be objectively proved, if an employer determined that an allegedly gay employee wasn't thinking about sex at some time during working hours, could the employer fire the employee on the spot -- on the grounds that the employee wasn't "sexually oriented" at the moment?

Scenarios like these threaten to open up a bottomless "Pandora's box"-ful of Civil Rights fraud cases. ("Sexual orientation�s" "non-identifiability" also has deep repercussions, which we will explore shortly, for the issue of same-sex "marriage.")

Why Gay Activists Have Made "Sexual Orientation" Unidentifiable

Why have gay activists redefined "sexual orientation" so as not to include gay sexual behavior? One obvious answer: Nearly two dozen states still have laws in force criminalizing gay sexual behavior. If "sexual orientation" were to include gay sexual behavior, gay activists could not possibly hope to get "gay rights" laws passed in states having sodomy statutes on the books.

If gay activists said, "Give �sexual orientation� suspect status based on our behavior" in states that still had sodomy laws in force, they'd be asking legislators to endorse the breach of criminal law. But if they say, "Give us suspect status based on our `orientation,' not our behavior," they can get "gay rights" legislation passed without first having to see sodomy laws repealed.

For years, most "gay rights" opponents' line of attack reasoning has been: "If gay behavior can be criminalized, how can it be affirmed with special class status protections?" But if behavior is taken out of the equation, this argument no longer applies. Separating gay "orientation"/"identity" from gay behavior may sound absurd to some, but it is a legal distinction many courts have accepted in recent years. No wonder "gay rights" historian and activist Dennis Altman has boasted:

The greatest single victory of the gay movement over the past decade has been the shift of debate from behavior to identity thus forcing opponents into a position where they can be seen as attacking the civil rights of homosexual citizens rather than attacking specific and (as they see it) antisocial behavior.{108}

In fact, one higher court ruling on the question of gays in the military expressed outrage that, to paraphrase its opinion, anyone should presume that people with homosexual "orientation" will automatically express that "orientation" by engaging in gay sexual behavior.

And even the United States military has accepted this distinction: its current "don't ask, don't tell, don't investigate" policy regarding gays in the military is based on this very "orientation does not include behavior" distinction.

Offically, homosexual behavior still constitutes criminal action prosecutable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But the "don't ask, don't tell" policy says homosexual "orientation" can't be presumed to imply that someone with that "orientation" will inevitably engage in homosexual behavior. So the military's current position is this: As long as a "gay" person remains celibate and silent about his or her homosexual "orientation," the military won't expel that person.

In those States (and Washington, D.C.) where homosexual behavior is legal, it's impossible to use U.S. Supreme Court opinion (Bowers vs. Hardwick, 1986) allowing for the criminalization of gay sexual behavior, to stop the enactment of "gay rights" laws. Neither the public's moral disapproval of, visceral disgust with, or ability to prosecute homosexual behavior can prevent suspect status recognition of self-alleged gay "sexual orientation" in such States and locales.

Nor, gay activists argue, should such disapproval prevent self-alleged gays from being married, in States with or without sodomy laws in force. And herein lie the profound potential repercussions of allowing same-sex "marriage" on gay activists' terms...

If society endorses same-sex "marriage" based on the presumption that gay, lesbian and bisexual (or even heterosexual, for that matter) "orientations" represent fixed, minority-equivalent "identities;" and if those "orientations" are solely defined by self-alleged sexual fantasy ideation; gay activists will have accomplished far more than merely to secure marriage recognition for (self-alleged) same-sex relationships. They will have facilitated the legal shift of the very basis of marriage, from its "traditional" foundations in relational and sexual fidelity commitment and personal responsibility, to the evanescent, virtually intangible and utterly unverifiable quality of self-alleged particular sexual desires alone.

If we are not inclined to perceive "sexual orientation," with all its variants, as a reliable basis on which to establish a sense of fixed and immutable identity for minority civil rights purposes (and nor do all self-avowed gay activists perceive "gayness" as a fixed and permanent quality), how should we perceive it? Certainly not as suspect class-equivalent "minority" material to be treated as such under specially protective Civil Rights laws?

Homosexuality and its variants may be more accurately perceived simply as particular, among many observable and mutable, ways in which human beings may think, fantasize and/or engage in sex.

It is highly likely that any person displaying whips and chains, underwear, photos of bare feet, (or in the case of, say, an autoeroticist, a photo of a person's own genitals), or other such "objects of affection" at his or her place of business would be subject to measures of ridicule. Should such ridicule entitle people who self-allegedly share such proclivities to be awarded "minority" status and marriage recognition solely based on their alleged "sexual orientations"? Take this reasoning to its ultimate destination: Should self-alleged confirmed autoeroticists be allowed to marry themselves?

[Note: Since I wrote the previous paragraph in Spring 1996, my last-stated reductio ad absurdum apparently threatens to become reality. On Thursday, June 18, 1998, Reuters reported the following, under the headline "Woman finds perfect person to wed � herself": "OMAHA, Neb. (Reuters) � Janet Downes of Bellevue, Neb., is sparing no effort for her June 27 wedding. There will be a choir, a wedding gown, the usual wedding cake and flowers � but no groom. ...Miss Downes is getting married to herself. "Miss Downes, who turns 40 that day, decided on the mock wedding as a way of celebrating the fact that she is �happy with herself.� She�ll exchange vows by reciting in front of a mirror, �I, Janet Downes, take myself with all my strengths and faults....� The music program will include the song, �My Way� and a ditty Miss Downes penned herself: �We�ve got to kiss a lot of frogs/ Just to find that prince/ You know what girls?/ I�m not convinced.� "More than 200 friends and relatives... are expected to attend, but there will be no priest" (The Washington Times, June 18, 1998, p. A-12). Accept gay activists� marriage-base "paradigm shift" and why indeed deny the ability to marry oneself?]

In any event, the implications of an "alleged sexual orientation-only" shift in marriage's foundation are vast in number. If that form of self-alleged sexual ideation known as "sexual orientation" becomes the sole basis for marriage recognition, then why shouldn't mere self-alleged desire for consensual sado-masochism, self-alleged longing for consensual bondage fetishism, self-alleged desire to engage in underwear or foot fetishism, self-alleged shared lust for pornography, or any number of other legal self-alleged "sexual orientations" consenting adults wish they might engage in also afford bases for marriage recognition?

Some of the gay activist writings we have reviewed lead us to strongly suspect that a goodly number of these writers would argue that any and all of the above, and any other merely self-alleged "sexual orientations should be recognized as bases for marriage -- not only for couples, but for any number, any genders and any ages of people who might desire to join in a single "marriage unit."

Remember, 200 gay activists agreed on the 1972 Gay Rights Platform, and even more formulated the 1993 Great Gay March on Washington Platform. The "families we choose" scenarios we've examined lend credence to the suspicion that more than a few gay activists would welcome this kind of expansion of the concept of marriage. Michelangelo Signorile would almost certainly be among them. He advocates...

...fight[ing] for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefin[ing] the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution that as it now stands keeps us down. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake -- and one that would perhaps benefit all of society -- is to transform the notion of "family" entirely.{109}

Activist Steve Warren would almost doubtlessly concur. He wrote, in a 1987 manifesto addressed to the general American public:

          1. Henceforth homosexuality will be spoken of in your churches and synagogues as an "honorable estate".
          2. You can either let us marry people of the same sex or better yet abolish marriage altogether, since [that] will give the lie to everything you have said and done in the past about sexuality.
          3. You will also be expected to offer ceremonies that bless our sexual arrangements, whether or not you retain marriage as something to be celebrated in your churches. You will also instruct your young people in homosexual as well as heterosexual behavior, and you will go out of your way to make certain that homosexual youths are allowed to date, attend religious functions together, openly display affection, and enjoy each other's sexuality without embarrassment or guilt.{110}

Activist Tom Stoddard asserts that...

...[E]nlarging the concept [of marriage] to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new.... Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past.{111}

Lest anyone imagine Mr. Signorile has changed his mind since 1994, he has written more recently:

...[G]ay leaders and pundits must stop watering the issue down -- "this is simply about equality for gay couples" -- and offer same-sex marriage for what it is: an opportunity to reconstruct a traditionally homophobic institution by bringing to it a more equitable queer value system. Sure, marriage would ensure us inheritance rights, child-rearing rights, visitation rights, and a slew of financial benefits that mere "domestic partnership" arrangements have so far failed to deliver. But it is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It's the tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools and, in short, to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.

...Law professor William Eskridge Jr., in his informative and otherwise intelligent new book, The Case for Same-Sex Marriage, argues that gay marriage would have the effect of "civilizing gays" and suggests it may be a preventive measure against AIDS, bringing monogamy to gay men.

Not only does such condescension make a lot of gay men wince, it's rather simplistic. Rather than being transformed by the institution of marriage, gay men -- some of whom have raised the concept of the "open relationship" to an art form -- could simply transform the institution itself, making it more sexually open, even influencing their heterosexual counterparts. And who's to say that broadening the terms of the marriage contract wouldn't strengthen the two individuals' commitment to it?{112}

Why do gay activists feel compelled to re-establish the basis of marriage and reshape its nature and structure? The answer should become evident as we explore gay activists second presupposition undergirding their arguments in support of same-sex "marriage": that homosexuality is "normal and healthy," and that homosexuals are "just like everyone else, except for choice of sexual partners."

With this presupposition backing them, gay activists are making two demands loudly and clearly: (1) Society should take all steps to legitimize gay "marriages" and "families"; and (2) in order to do so, society should radically alter its definitions of "marriage" and "family."

But is America ready to swallow whole the proposition that marriage should be solely designed to be based on, to facilitate engagement in, and to subsidize, any and all forms of merely self-alleged sexual ideation and/or expression?

And should America accept this proposition, merely to accommodate gay activists � who represent one small, highly affluent, highly vocal and virtually non-identifiable group � gays � which constitutes, most probably (more on this point later) only a fraction of 3%-4% of our population?

If "sexual orientation" is not (and nothing should be more clear from all the available evidence) a true "minority" classification, what are gay activists? Perhaps John N. Franklin has best highlighted the real profile that lies behind gay activists' "minority" masquerade:

Basically, I do not see the [suspect class] criteria that have been established under law being met in any fashion [by gay activists]. As pointed out, there is no evidence or little evidence of any economic disadvantage. And again, I believe you don't see, as pointed out, gay ghettos. The kinds of problems that have been faced, the challenges that have been faced by handicapped individuals and so forth, you don't see. And in fact [in gay activists] you see an articulate group that, on their own, without the years of controversy and problems and the proving, so to speak, you see them accomplishing ordinances and statutes [favoring them] in the United States. Because [gay activists] are so articulate, they are economically advantaged, and they have a tremendous lobby, I think it is more a special interest group than a class that should be specially protected.{113}

If gay activists are an affluent, powerful, avaricious special interest, "sexual orientation" should no more be awarded suspect class recognition than should all self-avowed members of labor unions, or any other well-heeled, powerful special interests. When all is said and done, denying "gay rights," including same-sex "marriage," may merely mean this:

Neither gay activists, nor any other wealthy, powerful special interest, should be allowed twist our government's arm to gain special status and advantages (including the ability to sue others at taxpayer expense) that they don't qualify for in the first place.

Without "gay rights" or sodomy laws, gay people as Americans will still have every right to freely associate, run businesses, say what they like, live free from harm to their persons and property, sue for wrongful termination if they're unjustly fired and more. They'll even be perfectly free to employ the political process to try and get the public to repeal legislation opposing "gay rights."

But the rich, special interest power brokers known as gay activists won't have the license to seize or buy status and benefits reserved for the poor and powerless -- as indeed no wealthy special interest should. Interestingly, avowedly gay author/activist Andrew Sullivan himself has argued against the need for "gay rights" laws:

The most remarkable feature of ["gay rights"] antidiscrimination laws -- the proposal of today's Western gay rights movement -- is that where they are already enforced, they are almost never used. On average some one to two percent of antidiscrimination lawsuits have to do with sexual orientation; in Wisconsin, which has had such a law in force for more than a decade, and is the largest case study, the figure is 1.1 percent. In the most comprehensive study of gay civil rights ordinances, researchers from the University of Florida in 1993 found that in 39% of the communities with such ordinances in a previous year, no complaints were made of anti-homosexual discrimination at all; in a further 21%, there were five or fewer. Moreover, the communities which pass such ordinances were overwhelmingly in large cities where gay populations in high socioeconomic areas were able to find a critical mass among other elite groups in order to pass such laws. In those parts of the United States where protections for homosexuals might be seen as most necessary -- rural and small-town America -- the ordinances don't exist. In other words, where gay civil rights ordinances are most likely to be found, they are least likely to be needed; and where they are most likely to be enforced, they are extremely unlikely to be used.{114}

Sullivan goes on to proclaim "gay rights" laws an actual betrayal of liberalism and some of its tenets:

Why? Because the subject of homosexuality, like the subject of abortion, is simply too deep, too emotional, too visceral to be resolved by the calm voice of legal liberalism. It cannot be addressed in the language of procedure, of common rights, of legal process. No amount of reason, neutral argument, will effectively answer the passion of the feverish opposition to the sexual other (just as no amount of judicial argument can stop the passionate arguments of those who believe abortion is murder). When the subject of homosexuality emerges, it is always subject to emotive passion, and affects matters of religious conscience. These are the areas liberalism was invented to avoid; when it re-enters this arena, it not only betrays itself, it fails to win the argument.{115}

You can see the pattern everywhere. Liberals base their arguments on generic rights for specific groups and for toleration of specific minorities. Those minorities support liberalism in return, entirely out of group interest. Meanwhile, Prohibitionist groups paint those measures as ways to appease special interests -- and in almost every case, of course, they're right. The argument then swiftly deteriorates into an issue of whether you are "pro-gay" or "anti-gay." The emotions are such that it is virtually impossible to push the argument onto neutral ground. And liberalism ends up as an internally conflicted loser.{116}

To conclude Part III, we must observe that the primary assumption on which the case for same-sex "marriage" rests -- Harry Hay's 45-year-old "oppressed minority" thesis -- now stands on shaky foundations indeed. Activist Dennis Altman's "gay `orientation/identity' equals self-alleged sexual fantasy alone, not sexual behavior" formula also remains unconvincing. It certainly does not represent the victory Altman assumed it would be.

Most "gay rights" legislation now in force was enacted before the above "three-criterion" arguments were developed by "gay rights" opponents. If these arguments are valid (and even many "gay rights" activists concede they are), "gay rights" apparently represents a fraudulent usurpation of "minority" Civil Rights law. Where not yet enacted, prospective "gay rights" legislation should be carefully scrutinized in light of this new evidence, and where enacted, citizens might well consider repealing such laws.

Contrary to some propaganda of both gay activists and "religious rightists," the political repeal and/or defeat of such laws has not been disallowed by the U.S. Supreme Court, even in its recent Evans vs. Romer decision, overturning Colorado's anti-"gay rights" Amendment 2. In truth, the High Court's decision neither (1) declared gays a suspect class, nor (2) reversed Bowers vs. Hardwick, the 1986 High Court decision allowing States to retain criminal "sodomy" statutes against homosexual behavior.

What the High Court said, in effect, was this: It would not permit citizen initiatives to single out gays in particular as one group never to be allowed to try to gain suspect status. This ruling does not prevent citizens from politically opposing "gay rights" or same-sex "marriage" through appropriately-framed legislative and initiative action that does not specifically mention gays, lesbians, bisexuals or "sexual orientation."

Given the invalidity of gay activism's most important foundational presupposition, how well or roundly will the rest of gay activists' presumptions and arguments favoring same-sex "marriage" stand or fall? The answers will soon become clear as we move on to scrutinize gay activists' second and third major supporting presuppositions.

Endnotes

{64}"The Overhauling of Straight America," by M. Kirk and E. Pill, Guide (a gay-edited magazine), November 1987, emphasis Kirk's and Pill's; cf. also Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball (New York: Doubleday, 1989).

{65}Cf. San Antonio Independent School District vs. Rodriguez, 1973; Massachusetts Board of Retirement vs. Murgia, 1976; Plyler vs. Doe, 1982; City of Cleburne vs. Cleburne Living Center, 1985; reaffirmed in Jantz vs. Muci, 1991, denied cert., U.S. S.Ct.; cf. also Frontiero vs. Richardson, 1973.

{66}John Franklin, Esq. F. Thomas Duran, Ignacio Rodriguez, "Colorado Civil Rights Leaders Discuss `Gay Rights'" (transcript of panel discussion with three noted Civil Rights leaders, held May 2, 1992).

{67}"Legal attack on all-male academy poses wide-ranging perils," Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, February 1, 1996, p. B-5.

{68}Cf. "Legal attack on all-male academy poses wide-ranging perils," Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, February 1, 1996, p. B-5.

{69}See the following articles, among many: "Overcoming a Deep Rooted Reluctance, More Firms Advertise to Gay Community," The Wall Street Journal, July 18, 1991; "The Gay Nineties," The Marketer, September 1990 (reporting findings by the Simmons Market Research Bureau and the U.S. Census Bureau). Other market research, produced by Overlooked Opinions, a Chicago firm (boasting 99%+ accuracy), are reported in: "Gay Market a Potential Gold Mine," The San Francisco Chronicle, August 27, 1991; "For Gays, Ship Charters Are a Boon, Say Two Travel Companies," Travel Weekly August 5, 1991; and "Where the Money Is: Travel Industry Eying Gay/Lesbian Tourism," The Bay Area Reporter (a gay/lesbian newspaper), September 19, 1991.

{70}Source: The Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1990.

{71}Op. cit., Overlooked Opinions survey.

{72}See "Labor Letter, A Special News Report on People and Their Jobs in Offices, Fields and Factories," The Wall Street Journal, August 16, 1994.

{73}"Corporate America comes out: Companies trying to win share of lucrative gay market," The Rocky Mountain News, November 30, 1991.

{74}Op. cit., Sang, Warshow and Smith, p. 161.

{75}Ibid. p. 148.

{76}Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon, Edward O. Laumann and Gina Kolata, Sex In America (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1994), cf. p. 182.

{77}Op. cit., Weston, pp. 201 ff.

{78}"Fodor's breaks new ground with gay-travel guide," Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, June 9, 1996, p. F-4.

{79}"Mainstream tourism targets gays," Gazette Telegraph, June 9, 1996, p. F-4, emphasis added.

{80}"Can I come out at work and be secure?" The Advocate, March 22, 1994, p. 20.

{81}Op. cit., Franklin, Duran and Rodriguez.

{82}"Beyond Oppression," The New Republic, May 10, 1993, pp. 18 ff.

{83}Ibid. pp. 34-35.

{84}"Gays' problems not all that bad," Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, April 30, 1993.

{85}The Dallas Voice, June 19, 1987.

{86}"activists from around the country descend on the Hill," The Washington Blade, May 8, 1992.

{87}"Capital Gains," Out magazine, Fall 1993, p. 91.

{88}Cf. "Demographics of sexual orientation in adolescents," Pediatrics, 1992:89, 714-721.

{89}Marriage and Family Review, 14, no. 3/4, 1989, pp. 35-37, excerpt p. 40.

{90}Op. cit. Katz, The Invention of Heterosexuality, p. 106.

{91}Ibid. p. 188.

{92}Ibid. p. 189.

{93}Ibid. p. 190.

{94}Ibid. p. 195, emphasis Duggan's.

{95}Sue O'Sullivan and Pratibha Parmar, Lesbians Talk (Safer) Sex (London: Scarlet Press, 1992), p. 11.

{96}Ibid. p. 40.

{97}Op. cit., Lesbians at Midlife, "Redefining Sexuality: Women Becoming Lesbians in Mid-Life," Charbonneau and Lander, p. 35.

{98}Op. cit. Lesbian Passion, p. 35.

{99}"Survey: Most Lesbians Attracted to Men," Lambda Report on Homosexuality, October '95 - January '96, p. 13.

{100}Katz, The Gay/Lesbian Almanac (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), p. 10, General Introduction.

{101}Ibid. p. 173.

{102}Ibid. pp. 173-174.

{103}Cf. The Advocate, December 29, 1992.

{104}"Coming Out Ahead: The Homosexual Movement in the Academy," First Things, August-September 1993, p. 20, emphasis added.

{105}Source: Civil Rights, Democracy, & Amendment 2, pamphlet produced by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation-Denver, in consultation with the American Civil Liberties Union, the Bar Association of Colorado and other legal authorities; p. F, emphasis added.

{106}Source: Testimony of gay activist plaintiffs in an appeal of a successful Cincinnati anti-"gay rights" referendum, emphasis added.

{107}Source: Published statement by John N. Franklin, Esq., on Special Class Protection or Status for "Gay Sexual Orientations", March 4, 1992.

{108}Dennis Altman, The Homosexualization of America (Beacon Press, 1982), p. 9, quoted in Military Necessity & Homosexuality, op. cit., p. 120-121.

{109}Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," Out magazine, December/January 1994, p. 1-D.

{110}Source: The Advocate, September 1, 1987.

{111}As quoted in "Homosexual `marriage,'" by Robert H. Knight, AFA Journal, April 1996, p. 16.

{112}Signorile, "I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do," Out, May 1996, pp. 30, 34.

{113}Op. cit., Franklin, et al., Colorado Civil Rights Leaders Discuss "Gay Rights", panel discussion, May 2, 1992, emphasis added.

{114}Op. cit., Sullivan, p. 157.

{115}Ibid. p. 159.

{116}Ibid. pp. 159,160.

[ Previous | Table of Contents | Next ]