Sodomy laws past their time

In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that states can make private sexual behavior illegal. This case, Bowers v. Hardwick, has been held over the heads of homosexual couples since that time by those who consider homosexuality deviant and immoral.\nThe Supreme Court came to its senses June 27. The Court ruled, in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, that the government can not criminalize private sexual behavior (for either homosexuals or heterosexuals). \nThis is a landmark decision, but an equally important issue arises when we look at the response of many to the Court's ruling. Many conservatives have stated that this decision should be feared because it could, some day, lead to the Supreme Court forcing states to recognize gay marriages. Defenders of the Court have said it does no such thing.\nBut, what if it did? What if this decision opened the door to gay marriage in the United States in the near future? Though American society might not be ready for gay "marriage" yet, I fail to see why eventually recognizing it is such a bad thing. If society is to say that we cannot discriminate based on race, gender or national origin, shouldn't we then say that we should not discriminate against homosexuals by not allowing them to marry?\nThis belief is based upon the premise that it is not the government's right to legislate morality. Why? My morals are likely different than yours, but neither of us has any right to say the morals of one are better than the morals of another. We can certainly base law upon morals in circumstances where the behavior we are restricting is harmful (like murder), but, as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion for this case, "The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice." \nThis wording certainly is very broad, but it is unlikely it would be used, at least in the near future, to require recognition of gay marriage. Many states -- Indiana included -- have not taken even the step of protecting homosexuals from discrimination in the workplace.\nA push was made for such legislation in this year's session of the Indiana General Assembly. As an intern in the legislature, I watched several Democrats and all of the Republicans in the House of Representatives vote against a bill to give workplace protections to homosexuals. But, what was even tougher was hearing the derogatory comments some legislators made about homosexuals and feeling the pain of my homosexual co-workers who had been, essentially, called second-class citizens by their state.\nWhile we might not be on the cusp of allowing gay marriage, now is the time for gay people and straight people to unite for equal human rights for all, just as blacks and whites joined hands in Selma and all across the nation during the middle of the last century. This is our generation's civil rights battle.\nWere I in the same position 50 years ago, I have no doubt I would not write this column. Fear would have overcome me. Even today, I still feel compelled to make it obvious somewhere in this column that I am not gay; that is my own ignorance. And it is a sign of the work to be done. We must start by recognizing that this is not an issue of gay or straight; it's an issue of human rights.