by Lady Liberty
08/31/2003

Recently I wrote an essay that basically tried to make the point that, in a truly free state, what somebody else believes or says or does is none of my business as long as it doesn't infringe on my own rights. Accordingly, I took to task a certain group of homosexuals who engaged in singularly inappropriate behavior in front of children during "Gay Days" at Disney World. It was my contention that such behavior - normally not my business - became my business by virtue of such an intrusively public display. Further, I implied that the infringement of rights occurred when such actions harmed the innocence of those children who bore witness.

In response to the essay in question, I received an e-mail from a self-proclaimed Christian man who castigated me for suggesting that homosexuality could be anything less than evil under any circumstance. Because I understand that freedom of religion applies even to those with whom we disagree, I merely pointed out to him that not everyone - even other Christians - goes along with his definititions. I added that he certainly had every right to believe as he does and to live accordingly. He was quick to respond that there are moral absolutes and that homosexuality is a "choice" to exercise an "evil perversion".

By definition, religions codify a code of morality for followers. Within those codes, there are, indeed, absolutes. The problem is that absolutes can differ from faith to faith. Where sexuality is concerned, Playboy magazine did a fine job of comparing the major religions and their viewpoint on certain aspects of sexual behavior in its June, 2003 issue. In the case of homosexuality, it's interesting to note some significant differences between religions. For example, Buddhists aren't as stuck on the topic as are some other religions, but there's controversy as to whether or not Buddha would have permitted gay followers, and the Dalai Lama said in a visit to San Francisco that gay sex is "generally considered sexual misconduct". Hindus, on the other hand, generally accept homosexuality and call gay men "the third sex". A section of the Kama Sutra actually focuses on homosexual activity and includes helpful advice to lesbians concerning which vegetables make the best sex "toys". Pagans don't judge sexual orientation one way or the other, believing that "as ye harm none" all is acceptable.

Christians and Jews typically consider homosexuality to be Biblically prohibited. There are, however, exceptions (most recently and publicly the Episcopalian church). And a 1997 pastoral letter written by US Catholic bishops says that "homosexual orientation is epxerienced as a given, not as something freely chosen. By itself, therefore, a homosexual orientation cannot be considered sinful, for morality presumes the freedom to choose." Actually acting on that orientation by engaging in homosexual sex, however, is still officially considered sinful by Catholics.

My erstwhile correspondant, however, didn't want to hear any of that. Homosexuality is Biblically condemned, he said, and he proceded to quote any number of Bible verses to prove his point. He told me that if I thought there was any possibility that homosexuality was a natural phenomenon, I was uneducated (he doubtless considers the US Catholic bishops to be singularly ignorant as well, and probably not proper Christians, either, seeing as how they disagree with him). I actually have a fairly broad and coherent knowledge of biology, and I am aware that homosexuality is a well known natural phenomenon which occurs readily in many species, including man. But my e-mail discussion wasn't one of biology. It wasn't even one of morality. It was, rather, one of liberty.

As religions codify morality for followers, so was the Constitution and Bill of Rights intended to codify liberty in the United States. The documents are relatively short and easily understood, even in the archaic language of the times (certainly they're easier to understand and interpret than are the various holy books of religions, but, to be fair, they address fewer specific matters). Religion was singled out for protection in the First Amendment, which states in part that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

What that, in a nutshell, means in the context of the topic at hand is this: Exercise your own beliefs as you see fit, but don't expect anybody to make any laws to force other people to conform to your beliefs. And if somebody tries, those laws will be struck down as being unconstitutional. Implied as well is the notion of equality under the law for those of all religious persuasions. The government is prohibited from favoring one religion over another, and that ensures that those of all faiths - or no faith - shall be treated equally when laws are made and enforced.

Although there are people out there with whom I disagree - and certainly the man with whom this particular e-mail exchange took place is one of them - it never occurred to me before, during, or after a discussion that laws should be changed to force him in any way to depart from his beliefs. That's why I was at such a loss when he made clear that everyone should have to live according to his own morality, a morality he considered to be the only acceptable one. In our final exchange, he told me in no uncertain terms that I was condemned to hell, and that by claiming other moral codes were equally acceptable, was leading others astray as well.

I should point out that never once did I tell him my own moral viewpoint on homosexuality or any other topic. We never discussed my own religious beliefs. I merely insisted that others adhered to different religious belief systems than he did and that those beliefs deserved the same respect he expected for his own. In fact, the only stance on which I remained adamant was that freedom isn't truly freedom unless it applies to those with whom you disagree. For that, I was told I was "irresponsible" and "wicked beyond understanding".

After considering our conversation over the course of the last two weeks, I've reached the conclusion that I do have at least one moral absolute of my own, and that is this: anyone who professes to love liberty but would deny it to others who have harmed no one is neither an advocate for freedom nor a particularly kind human being. While I wouldn't deny anyone the right to feel one way or another, or to believe one way or another, I find it reprehensible that someone would be perfectly happy to deny me, or anyone else who didn't toe their own narrow line, our own inalienable and "endowed by the Creator" rights.

I discussed the conversation and my conclusions with a good friend of mine before I wrote this column. He happens to practice the Wiccan religion. I don't agree with him, either. But he is both loving enough in his faith and strong enough in his stand for freedom to not give a damn. And that's all any truly free man - or woman - could want.

Lady Liberty