Bryan Fischer
Yes, we should keep sodomy laws on the books
By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
I received an email interview request from the Huffington Post regarding sodomy laws. The email request is below, followed by my response.
From: Meredith Bennett-Smith
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 7:09 PM
To: Bryan Fischer
Subject: Interview for HuffPost, re: Anti-Sodomy Laws in the U.S.
Hello Mr. Fischer,
I am writing about states that still have anti-sodomy laws on the books, and was hoping you could lend your opinion to the issue.
I know that you have said in the past that states should bring these laws back. I was hoping you could tell me a little more about that?
Also, your home state of Idaho is one of the states that still has such a law. Have you worked to make sure it remains on the books? Do people in Idaho support keeping it, even though it is technically invalid?
Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks so much,
Meredith
Here is my reply:
With regard to Idaho, I moved from there in 2009 and have only stayed loosely in touch. I do know that the legislature has continued to reject efforts, including in this very year, to add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to its non-discrimination statutes, for which legislators are to be commended. I was pretty actively involved in resisting the gay lobby on this issue when I was still in Idaho. Adding the words would not only be problematical from a moral standpoint, because it would represent a tacit endorsement of homosexual behavior by the state, it also would expose every values-driven businessman to a potentially crippling lawsuit every time he made a values-based decision regarding personnel. That's one of the reasons we in the pro-family community vigorously oppose ENDA.
As they say, the law is a teacher, and it's wise to keep an anti-sodomy law on the books, even if unenforceable due to judicial tyranny, to express the state's official disapproval of that kind of conduct. The fact that it is against the law provides an additional reason not to give it special legal protections in discrimination law. It's schizophrenic to give special legal protections to behavior in one part of your code that is illegal according to another.
As Antonin Scalia correctly pointed out in his dissent on Lawrence v. Texas, sodomy was always contrary to public policy everywhere in the United States, going back to the very beginning. It was a felony offense in every state of the union until 1962, and still a felony offense in the other 49 states until 1972, when the sexual revolution started causing the moral pillars to crumble. Sodomy is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy and should remain contrary to public policy.
From a public health standpoint alone, societies should resist the normalization of sodomy. Whether you think the human body was designed by evolution or by the Creator, the body was clearly not designed for the uses to which homosexuals put it. The elevated risk of HIV/AIDS is reason enough all by itself to reject the normalization and legalization of homosexual conduct.
In terms of actual public policy, I have two suggestions. One, adopt the policy that Los Angeles County adopted, which makes it an offense to have homosexual sex without a condom in the production of porn. (There's a similar fine for heterosexual sex without a condom, but our topic here is homosexuality.) Why should people who get paid to have gay sex be the only ones whose health we protect? Shouldn't we provide the same protections for people who have homosexual sex for free? The reason given by supporters for this ordinance is not moraI but rather public health, to slow the spread of HIV/AIDS. I would support such a policy for moral reasons as well, but I also believe concern for public health is a completely valid justification.
The CDC indicates clearly that homosexual behavior is as risky to human health as injection drug use. So my second suggestion is that we take whatever public policies we have adopted with regard to IV drug abuse and use those same policies with regard to homosexual behavior. Again, one does not need moral reasons to support this; valid concerns for public health would be sufficient. We have the same interest as a society in protecting our citizens from the health consequences of homosexual conduct as we do in protecting them from the ravages of drug abuse.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
August 10, 2013
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
I received an email interview request from the Huffington Post regarding sodomy laws. The email request is below, followed by my response.
From: Meredith Bennett-Smith
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 7:09 PM
To: Bryan Fischer
Subject: Interview for HuffPost, re: Anti-Sodomy Laws in the U.S.
Hello Mr. Fischer,
I am writing about states that still have anti-sodomy laws on the books, and was hoping you could lend your opinion to the issue.
I know that you have said in the past that states should bring these laws back. I was hoping you could tell me a little more about that?
Also, your home state of Idaho is one of the states that still has such a law. Have you worked to make sure it remains on the books? Do people in Idaho support keeping it, even though it is technically invalid?
Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks so much,
Meredith
Here is my reply:
With regard to Idaho, I moved from there in 2009 and have only stayed loosely in touch. I do know that the legislature has continued to reject efforts, including in this very year, to add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to its non-discrimination statutes, for which legislators are to be commended. I was pretty actively involved in resisting the gay lobby on this issue when I was still in Idaho. Adding the words would not only be problematical from a moral standpoint, because it would represent a tacit endorsement of homosexual behavior by the state, it also would expose every values-driven businessman to a potentially crippling lawsuit every time he made a values-based decision regarding personnel. That's one of the reasons we in the pro-family community vigorously oppose ENDA.
As they say, the law is a teacher, and it's wise to keep an anti-sodomy law on the books, even if unenforceable due to judicial tyranny, to express the state's official disapproval of that kind of conduct. The fact that it is against the law provides an additional reason not to give it special legal protections in discrimination law. It's schizophrenic to give special legal protections to behavior in one part of your code that is illegal according to another.
As Antonin Scalia correctly pointed out in his dissent on Lawrence v. Texas, sodomy was always contrary to public policy everywhere in the United States, going back to the very beginning. It was a felony offense in every state of the union until 1962, and still a felony offense in the other 49 states until 1972, when the sexual revolution started causing the moral pillars to crumble. Sodomy is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy and should remain contrary to public policy.
From a public health standpoint alone, societies should resist the normalization of sodomy. Whether you think the human body was designed by evolution or by the Creator, the body was clearly not designed for the uses to which homosexuals put it. The elevated risk of HIV/AIDS is reason enough all by itself to reject the normalization and legalization of homosexual conduct.
In terms of actual public policy, I have two suggestions. One, adopt the policy that Los Angeles County adopted, which makes it an offense to have homosexual sex without a condom in the production of porn. (There's a similar fine for heterosexual sex without a condom, but our topic here is homosexuality.) Why should people who get paid to have gay sex be the only ones whose health we protect? Shouldn't we provide the same protections for people who have homosexual sex for free? The reason given by supporters for this ordinance is not moraI but rather public health, to slow the spread of HIV/AIDS. I would support such a policy for moral reasons as well, but I also believe concern for public health is a completely valid justification.
The CDC indicates clearly that homosexual behavior is as risky to human health as injection drug use. So my second suggestion is that we take whatever public policies we have adopted with regard to IV drug abuse and use those same policies with regard to homosexual behavior. Again, one does not need moral reasons to support this; valid concerns for public health would be sufficient. We have the same interest as a society in protecting our citizens from the health consequences of homosexual conduct as we do in protecting them from the ravages of drug abuse.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
