Classifying Homophobia

By Broadside Opinion Contributor Michael Gryboski

According to Webster’s Unabridged, ‘homophobia’ is “the unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals or homosexuality.”

An example from last year would be that of the murder of Lawrence King. King was a middle school student from Oxnard, California who was killed by a classmate.

Prosecutors are charging the shooter with committing a hate crime, for King had come out to his classmates, including his killer. If that is the case, then the killing of King would be an example of homophobia for the classmate held an unreasoned fear and or antipathy of homosexuals.

Yet what of those who oppose homosexuality or certain positions critical of the homosexual advocacy movement?

Can they be accurately classified as homophobic? I believe the answer is no, for there can be reasoned opposition against homosexuality. There are plenty of people who object to certain aspects of the gay rights movement that hold no irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals.

Same-sex marriage would be an excellent place to start. As several successful ballot initiatives in states like Virginia, Mississippi, California and Washington show, the majority of Americans define marriage as between one man and one woman.
When advocates lost the will of the people, they turned to the courts and proceeded to lose there as well.

Washington’s Supreme Court upheld their ban because, in the words of Justice Barbara Madsen’s majority opinion, “The Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by children's biological parents."

Maryland, a socially liberal state, had a 4-3 decision that upheld the marriage law. Justice Glenn T. Harrell Jr., author of the majority opinion, stated that the General Assembly should be the venue for overturning the marriage law, not the judicial branch. These and other cases lost by gay marriage advocates were decided by people who based their decision not on fear or antipathy, but reasoned jurisprudence.

Anti-discrimination laws serve as another example. Although hate crimes legislation has been constantly pushed by national homosexual advocacy groups like the Human Rights Campaign, other more localized GLBT groups have oftentimes opposed them. The Audre Lorde Project, which focuses efforts on helping homosexuals who are ethnic minorities, opposed the HRC’s hate crimes legislation under the belief that it would lead to further police and legal brutality against people of color.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a specific piece of HRC-backed legislation, was opposed by numerous GLBT organizations. Many opposed it because ENDA does not provide protection from gender identity discrimination.

Others do not like how it expands federal government power. A New York-based advocacy group interestingly named the Radical Homosexual Agenda vehemently opposes the HRC’s endeavors. RHA accuses the HRC of “banking on the repression of some people to promote the rights of others,” an allegation usually made by conservative groups.

Other examples exist, including psychologists who admit that the American Psychiatric Association’s 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM-IV list of disorders was politically driven, genetic researchers who will admit that the ever-elusive “gay gene” does not exist, and liberal politicians who take issue with television shows in which homosexual characters are prominent.

Because there are far too many people in far too many powerful positions in this world who do not realize this. Because there is Sweden, where sermons are monitored for “hate speech” against homosexuals and at least one minister has had charges put against him. Because there is Canada, where non-religious criticism of homosexuality is criminally prosecuted simply because it is labeled “homophobia.”

Not every action against homosexuality is going to be along the vein of Lawrence King, who was a genuine victim of homophobia. Until this is realized, our public sphere of intellectual discourse is threatened by a mixture of well-intended people and political dogmatism.