By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at “Focal Point”
I received an email interview request from the Huffington
Post regarding sodomy laws. The email request is below, followed by my
August 07, 2013 7:09 PM
for HuffPost, re: Anti-Sodomy Laws in the U.S.
Hello Mr. Fischer,
I am writing about states that still have anti-sodomy laws on the
books, and was hoping you could lend your opinion to the issue.
I know that you have said in the past that states should bring these
laws back. I was hoping you could tell me a little more about that?
Also, your home state of Idaho is one of the states that still has such
a law. Have you worked to make sure it remains on the books? Do people in Idaho
support keeping it, even though it is technically invalid?
Any help would be
greatly appreciated! Thanks so much,
Here is my reply:
With regard to Idaho, I moved from there in 2009 and have
only stayed loosely in touch. I do know that the legislature has continued to
reject efforts, including in this very year, to add “sexual orientation” and
“gender identity” to its non-discrimination statutes, for which legislators are
to be commended. I was pretty actively involved in resisting the gay lobby on
this issue when I was still in Idaho. Adding the words would not only be
problematical from a moral standpoint, because it would represent a tacit
endorsement of homosexual behavior by the state, it also would expose every
values-driven businessman to a potentially crippling lawsuit every time he made
a values-based decision regarding personnel. That’s one of the reasons we in
the pro-family community vigorously oppose ENDA.
As they say, the law is a teacher, and it’s wise to keep an
anti-sodomy law on the books, even if unenforceable due to judicial tyranny, to
express the state’s official disapproval of that kind of conduct. The fact that
it is against the law provides an additional reason not to give it special
legal protections in discrimination law. It’s schizophrenic to give special
legal protections to behavior in one part of your code that is illegal
according to another.
As Antonin Scalia correctly pointed out in his dissent on
Lawrence v. Texas, sodomy was always contrary to public policy everywhere in
the United States, going back to the very beginning. It was a felony offense in
every state of the union until 1962, and still a felony offense in the other 49
states until 1972, when the sexual revolution started causing the moral pillars
to crumble. Sodomy is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy and should remain
contrary to public policy.
From a public health standpoint alone, societies should
resist the normalization of sodomy. Whether you think the human body was
designed by evolution or by the Creator, the body was clearly not designed for
the uses to which homosexuals put it. The elevated risk of HIV/AIDS is reason
enough all by itself to reject the normalization and legalization of homosexual
In terms of actual public policy, I have two suggestions.
One, adopt the policy that Los Angeles County adopted, which makes it an
offense to have homosexual sex without a condom in the production of porn.
(There’s a similar fine for heterosexual sex without a condom, but our topic
here is homosexuality.) Why should people who get paid to have gay sex be the
only ones whose health we protect? Shouldn’t we provide the same protections
for people who have homosexual sex for free? The reason given by supporters for
this ordinance is not moraI but rather public health, to slow the spread of
HIV/AIDS. I would support such a policy for moral reasons as well, but I also
believe concern for public health is a completely valid justification.
The CDC indicates clearly that homosexual behavior is as
risky to human health as injection drug use. So my second suggestion is that we
take whatever public policies we have adopted with regard to IV drug abuse and
use those same policies with regard to homosexual behavior. Again, one does not
need moral reasons to support this; valid concerns for public health would be
sufficient. We have the same interest as a society in protecting our citizens
from the health consequences of homosexual conduct as we do in protecting them
from the ravages of drug abuse.
noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect
the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)