Understanding the 'Gay Rights' Referenda

In her editorial "Ballot Box Bigotry" (November 17), Rachel E. Cohen '94 discusses three state referenda on discrimination against gays.

In Oregon, voters rejected a referendum which would have required the state to declare that homosexuality was "wrong, unnatural and perverse," and to have this view taught in the public schools.

Meanwhile, in Colorado and Florida, the people voted to overturn laws prohibiting discrimination in private transactions.

She says that these results made "two radically different statements about the country's stance on gay rights." This view is wrong.

There was only one statement on gay rights--they were upheld in Oregon. In Colorado and Florida, voters made a statement in favor of freedom to contract and freedom of association. On all three questions, the voters came out in favor of sound limited government.

The proper functions of government as articulated by our Constitution, but completely abandoned in this century, are to protect individual liberty and to provide for a finite number of "public goods" (i.e., goods and services which cannot be provided by market forces alone).

The most important of these are the national defense, the police and the courts.

It is not proper for the states to take an official position on a lifestyle choice, even the majority's position, let alone indoctrinate the youth in that position. Freedom is not enhanced by this sort of propaganda, nor is any legitimate public good furthered.

Thus, the Oregon question was rightly rejected.

For the very same reasons, it is not proper for the state to dictate which factors may be considered in private transactions and those which may not.

If individual liberty is to have any meaning at all, it must include freedom to contract and freedom of association. It must also include freedom to be a bigot.

It is morally wrong for the state, which has been entrusted with a monopoly on the legal use of force to compel citizen A to deal with citizen B, if A doesn't want to.

Both A and B have a right to pursue their own ends, so long as each does not interfere with each other.

Thus, A is absolutely prohibited from committing acts of violence against B, from stealing B's money or from interfering with B's enjoyment of his property. If B is injured as a result of A's carelessness, the court will make A compensate him.

But A's refusal to deal with B violates no rights of B's. On the contrary, forcing A to deal with B is a gross violation of A's rights.

Should I for the sake of promoting "freedom of political expression" be forced to rent my property to a White Knight of the Ku Klux Klan, so long as it appears that he would be a good tenant? Should Cohen be forced to hire a card-carrying member of the American Nazi Party if he is qualified for the job?

While modern "civil rights" law would probably say yes, my notion of morality (and I would guess Cohen's also) says no.

Why should it be any different for an individual who happens to believe that homosexuality is wrong?

The view of the state that gave us sodomy laws, fornication laws and prohibitions against same-sex marriages is the very same view that gives us prohibitions against private discrimination.

This view holds that there is a predetermined, correct social order and the state should use its coercive power to bring that about.

I would think that, in principle at least, Cohen would agree with me that the only decent, moral government is one which leaves people free to manage their own lives.

Why does she refuse to see the logical conclusion of this statement? Frank Iacono   Harvard Law School Class of '95