by Robert Maynard
One argument that is almost never heard in the “Gay Rights” debate is the quesion of whether the movement is arguing their case on exactly to opposite premise that earlier “Gay Rights” activists did. At least one activist for individual rights, who happens to be gay, thinks so. Pro-liberty activist Justin Raimondo makes his case in this article posted on the “Freedom of Expression” blog:
The gay activists of yesteryear asked government to leave them alone. Their political program centered on decriminalizing homosexual relations between consenting adults. But today, as tolerance of homosexuality grows, gay activists are increasingly turning to government to impose their agenda on society. Though state power has been used as a bludgeon against gay people since at least the Middle Ages, suddenly today’s gay leaders seem to be picking up the club themselves, saying, “Now it’s our turn.” This is a great irony—and a potential cause of trouble for homosexuals and turmoil for America.
Justin is not so keen on the notion of “Gay Rights” as opposed to individual rights:
As long as homosexual acts between consenting adults are illegal in some states, I believe organizations dedicated to their repeal have a legitimate place in the constellation of human rights causes. Beyond this strictly limited goal, however, a political movement based on sexual orientation is a grotesque aberration. The fact that the gay rights movement has taken on an increasingly authoritarian style is the inevitable result of basing political allegiances on clan loyalties instead of philosophical principles.
In a free society there are no gay rights, only individual rights. For homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, these rights boil down to a single principle: the right to be let alone. Politically, the gay rights movement must return to its early libertarian roots. This would begin the vital process of depoliticizing homosexuality and defusing a dangerous culture war the gay minority can never win.
Even the state “neutrality” that gay “centrists” like Andrew Sullivan advocate would force government treatment of homosexuality as on a par with heterosexuality, as seen in Sullivan’s demands for gay pseudo-“marriage” and open gays in the military. True neutrality, however, would involve not recognition but indifference, inattention, inaction. A neutral state would neither penalize nor reward homosexual behavior. It would neither forbid nor would it grant legal status to homosexual marriage. In a military setting, a neutral state would subject all sexuality to the same rigorous regulation.
He fears a coming backlash against gays because of the overreaching on the part of the gay rights movement:
The leadership of the gay movement is playing with fire. The great tragedy is that they will not be the only ones burned. The volatility of the issues they are raising—which involve religion, family, and the most basic assumptions of what it is to be human—risks a social explosion for which they must be held accountable. The boldness of the attempt to introduce a “gay positive” curriculum into the public schools, the militant victim stance that brooks no questioning, the blunt intolerance once they gain power in urban ghettos like San Francisco–all this, combined with the fact that the gay rights paradigm itself represents an intolerable invasion of liberty, is bound to produce a reaction from the majority.
It’s time to challenge the fiction that the “gay rights” movement speaks for all or even most gay people. It does not. Gay rights legislation violates the principles of authentic liberalism, and homosexuals should speak out against it—to distance themselves from the excesses of a militantly destructive movement, to help avert societal damage, and to right some grave wrongs. Those wrongs are the political assault being waged on the heterosexual family by the theoreticians of the gay rights revolution; the endless ridicule of religion that suffuses the gay press; and the limitless contempt for all tradition and “bourgeois values” that permeates the homosexual subculture.
It is his prediction that this agenda will end up provoking a reaction by overreaching that came to my mind when I heard of this latest initiative. That is pushing for mandatory health insurance for “gay infertility”. Traditionally, infertility is matter of some condition that prevents someone from having children when their basic biology would otherwise orient them toward producing children. Gay infertility is an oxymoron because their inability to bear children is not a condition that opposes their basic biological orientation. It is their basic biological orientation that dictates that same sex couples will not produce children. The problem is that, some see the issue of marriage equality to mean equal right to be the beneficiary of producing children. It looks like, in the name of equality, the redefinition of marriage is spreading to the redefinition of such concepts as infertility. This article in FrontPage Magazine
But now that we’ve decided that gay marriage is a real thing, biology be damned. Gay infertility must also be a real thing. And you must also pay for it.
Should health insurers be legally required to offer infertility treatment for gay couples? Yes, according to a bill (AB 460) filed in the California legislature by assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco). In fact, refusing to do so should be a crime.
Current California law requires group health plans to offer coverage for infertility treatments with the exception of in vitro fertilization (IVF). If such coverage is purchased, benefits must be paid whenever “a demonstrated condition recognized by a licensed physician and surgeon as a cause for infertility” has been diagnosed—or upon “the inability to conceive a pregnancy or to carry a pregnancy to a live birth after a year of regular sexual relations without contraception.” Thus, under current law, diagnosis of a physical reason for the inability to conceive or sire a child is not required. It is enough that a couple tried to get pregnant for a year and failed.
Here is the exact wording in the bill: “Coverage for the treatment of infertility shall be offered and provided without discrimination on the basis of age, ancestry, color, disability, domestic partner status, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.”