The New Century of Civil Rights

The “century of civil rights” began when women gained the right to vote with the 19^th Amendment and continued on through the African American, Native American, and Latino civil rights movements. In the 1970s and 1980s, the gay community peeked out of the closet and saw hope. Rational, logical, and impeccably-well dressed, they challenged in the courts the oppressive legal restrictions placed upon them by conservative legislators.

In 1982, a Georgia police officer entered the house of Michael Hardwick to serve an arrest warrant. Hardwick had missed a court date for a contrived public drunkenness ticket; the same officer had given Hardwick the wrong date. The policeman found Hardwick receiving oral sex, and arrested him for violating Georgia’s state sodomy laws.

In 1986, the United States Supreme Court heard the case Bowers v. Hardwick. By a 5-4 margin, the Court upheld the sodomy laws, legitimizing laws that were clearly discriminatory and violated the civil rights of homosexual individuals. [For those wishing to dig a little deeper, Associate Justice Harry Blackmun filed a spectacular dissenting opinion in Hardwick. Justice Lewis F. Powell, who filed the deciding vote in favor of the sodomy law, admitted that after reading the dissent, he was ashamed of his decision.]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2011, the U.S. military’s discriminatory Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy was ended by the Pentagon. DADT was a policy in the military that allowed gay and bi men and women to serve in the armed forces, as long as they hid who they were. 13,000 qualified military personnel were discharged as a result of this policy.

For the 18 years that it has been in effect, LGBT activists have attempted to repeal DADT. While they have made strides in attaining their civil rights in other venues, such as the courts, they have encountered heavy resistance from legislatures.

During the Clinton administration in the 90s, two major laws were passed, both of which oppressed homosexual individuals. First, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy was enacted. President Clinton had attempted to fully integrate homosexuals into the military, but when the Pentagon resisted, he settled for the DADT policy. The second piece of legislation was the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prohibited the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. Marriage was legally defined as a union between a man and a woman.

In 2003, another opportunity to uphold LGBT civil rights came before the Supreme Court. The case was Lawrence v. Texas, and the circumstances surrounding the case were remarkably similar to those of the Bowers case. This time, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for state law to restrict consensual sexual activity, thus reversing the Bowers decision. Lawrence was a triumph for LGBT activists in their long uphill battle for civil rights.

Currently, six states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriages. Some states also recognize same-sex civil unions; however, these civil unions lack the standing and benefits given to married couples. Many more states have statutes or constitutional amendments that deprive gays and lesbians of their rights.

Many Americans support the oppression of homosexuals, failing to see the similarities between the LGBT movement and the civil rights movements of the 20^th century. As tolerance once again works its way into American culture, same-sex marriages and gay servicemen will no longer be viewed as uncommon or morally wrong.

In the meantime, the government can further aid the LGBT movement in the acquisition of civil rights. Repealing DOMA would be a good start; the narrow-minded definition of marriage provided by the law has no place in a tolerant United States.

The gay rights movement is on it. One case that has the potential to go before the Supreme Court and lead to the ruling of DOMA as being unconstitutional is Windsor v. United States. The case involves the $363,000 estate tax paid by a woman when her partner died, which would not have been paid had their union been recognized as a marriage. Though money seems like a minor issue compared to the lofty ideals of the gay rights movement, the issue falls under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which mandates that “no state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Legal discrimination based on sexual orientation is, as such, unconstitutional, and DOMA ought to be overturned. Still, if there’s one thing conservatives hate more than the estate tax, it’s gay marriage, and it is unclear what the courts will decide.

Pursuing government action will only take the LGBT movement so far; the root of the problem lies with the American people. The people of the United States need to open their minds and accept that not everyone should live the same lifestyle they live. Homosexuals, after all, deserve the same human rights as everyone else.