Subject: KSU COLLEGIAN EDITORIAL: CIVIL RIGHTS ACT SHOULD EXCLUDE GAYS

From: Kevyn Jacobs <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 15:07:21 -0600 (CST)

FROM THE KANSAS STATE COLLEGIAN / KANSAS STATE UNIVERISTY
EDITORIAL PAGE / MARCH 30, 1995
=========================================================

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT SHOULD NOT INCLUDE HOMOSEXUALS

By John Hart
Collegian

Gay rights is shaping up to be the civil-rights issue of the decade.
Today, homosexuals view themselves as carrying the same torch of justice
and equality blacks carried in the great civil-rights crusades of the
1960s.

In reality, homosexuals are on a bizarre civil-rights tangent that seeks
to gain special rights for a select group who choose a particular
lifestyle.

According to gay-rights advocates, homosexuals are being denied jobs and
housing for no other reason than being gay. They hope to bring justice to
this situation by making it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of
sexual orientation.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, in part, prohibits employers from
discriminating because of race, color, sex, religion or national origin.
Gay-rights advocates want to add sexual orientation to the list, yet doing
so would set a disastrous precedent.

Sexual orientation is a complex issue. Human beings are not rabbits -- we
have the option to exercise self-control in our sexual behavior.

The human distinctions outlined in the Civil Rights Act are involuntary
and amoral except for religion, which only entails belief, not practice.
The state does have the right to prohibit certain religious practices that
violate other laws, such as Satanic rituals that include animal mutilation
and human sacrifice. Sexual orientation is the oddball of the batch.

Would it be OK if homosexuality were involuntary?

Homosexuals already have their rights. What they are seeking, then, are
special rights.

The U.S. Constitution already guarantees homosexuals equal rights. The
14th Amendment provides all citizens, gay and straight, equal protection
under the law and due process of law.

If the Civil Rights Act were extended, it should include all groups. The
best choice is to not extend it any further.

Including sexual orientation in the Civil Rights Act would put a civil
stamp of approval on the homosexual lifestyle.

The phrase sexual orientation is far too broad. Sexual orientation could
include any sexual orientation from bestiality to sadomasochism to
pedophilism to heterosexuality to homosexuality. If gay-rights advocates
only want special protection to be allotted to homosexuals, on what
grounds do they exclude persons of varying sexual orientations from
enjoying the same privileges? Why choose one lifestyle among many and
attach it to the end to the most important piece of civil-rights
legislation of the century?

It is ironic that homosexuals are so committed to achieving equal rights
when they are one of the most affluent and successful of people in our
nation. However, material parity with the rest of America is not the true
aim of gay-rights advocates. What they really want is society to endorse
the gay lifestyle as morally acceptable or at least ignore it.

Galvanized by AIDS.

John Hart is a senior in political science.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1995, Student Publications Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided it is
distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot
be reprinted without the express written permission of Student
Publications Inc., Kansas State University.