There is a need for federal legislation protecting the civil rights of Gay Americans. Analysis of several arguments for and against such laws demonstrates that anti-rights arguments degenerate into personal prejudice, not unlike the prejudices against which other minorities have been protected. Pro-rights arguments, on the other hand, demonstrate clearly that without such legislation Gay Americans are denied fundamental rights solely on the basis of the prejudices of others.
The arguments considered here address various aspects of the controversy. Michael Levin, who is opposed to Gay rights, and Jonathan Alter, who favors them, argue (among other points) that opposition to homosexuality is not the equivalent of racism. Levin, however, argues that civil rights for Gay people infringe on other Americans' freedom of conscience and Alter holds that such rights can be granted while those who are opposed to homosexuality can reserve their right to disapprove. Peter Gomes addresses the question of biblical support for opposition to homosexuality and finds that such interpretations of the bible are not supported by the texts. His argument undermines the claims of Christians who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and demonstrates the degree to which they operate out of personal prejudice -- a prejudice that both Levin and Alter accept as a respectable way of feeling about homosexuality. Jonathan Rauch argues that even though such prejudice exists, Gay activism should avoid the political approach, which entails seeing Gays as an oppressed minority. Rauch believes that he can demonstrate that Gays are not oppressed, but his arguments raise many points that demonstrate the opposite. Finally, Richard Mohr's argument demonstrates the effect that a lack of guaranteed civil rights has on Gay people. A brief examination of each article shows how, as a group, they demonstrate the need for federal legislation protecting the civil rights ...