|
from Political News
Legislator Urges Gag Rule Against
'Anti-Gay' Speech
April 14, 2005 -
California Assemblyman Leland Yee has proposed expanding a non-discrimination
pledge signed by political candidates that will add homosexuality or sexual
orientation to the subjects covered.
The legislation, AB 866 was passed by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April
5.
According to Assemblyman Yee, any criticism of homosexual "rights" is inherently
"divisive," "potentially dangerous," and contributes to an "atmosphere of fear,
intimidation, and instances of violence."
According to Alliance Defense Fund president Alan Sears, there is no provision
for a candidate to opt out of any section of this non-discrimination pledge.
Sears noted, "In effect, this so-called addition to the 'pledge' amounts to a
gag rule on anyone who fails to adequately, and vocally, endorse the homosexual
agenda. In other words, their new 'tolerance,' is their opposition's silence."
Sears continues: "Does unfettered discussion of the morals, goals, and social
activism of those who engage in homosexual behavior indeed breed fear and
intimidation? Perhaps in a limited number of extreme cases. But then so does
wielding the law like a two-by-four on anyone who questions your politics.
He asks a legitimate question: "Is the First Amendment, with all its safeguards
for religious liberty and free speech, expendable now if it interferes with the
homosexual agenda?"
NARTH leader Sander J. Breiner observes that the premise of AB 866 is irrational
on two points: "Homosexuality is a human behavior that is almost invariably an
expression of some psychological/social problem; and therefore needs to be
openly discussed. It is part of the psychological sciences and the sociological
sciences purview. And, the right to talk about any subject is free speech and
does not express or incite hatred."
Arthur Goldberg, executive secretary of NARTH and co-director of JONAH (Jews
Offering New Alternatives To Homosexuality) noted of AB 866:
As one who fought vigorously for civil liberties throughout his
career, including being an organizing member of the Law Students Civil Rights
Research Council and working as a volunteer cooperating attorney for the NAACP
Legal Defense Fund more than a generation ago, I am appalled at the way in which
an attempt has been made to stifle legitimate dialogue about controversial
subjects under the banner of so-called political correctness.
Our First Amendment is sacrosanct. It has consistently protected those with
unpopular views. As the leading liberals on the Court during their era, Justices
Douglas and Black vigorously argued for a reading of that amendment which
allowed unbridled freedom of speech. They believed that a democracy can only
survive when a free discussion exists within the marketplace of ideas. Further,
that such interchange is critical to the determination of truth. Truth will
prevail only when and if an idea can withstand critical examination. It cannot
prevail by silencing those in disagreement. The activists who seek to silence
discussion about the origins or healing strategies of homosexuality are more
than undemocratic. Their goal--which must be resisted--is to establish a new form
of totalitarianism, one which seeks to transform the social values of American
democracy.
Alan Sears' commentary on AB 866, "The gag reflex" was published by
WorldNetDaily on April 8.
Updated: 8 February 2008
|
