THE RIGHT BOOKS

According to Roger J. Magnuson, a trial lawyer in Minneapolis and the author of Are Gay Rights Right? (Straitgate Press, 2200 West 66th Street, Suite 190, Minneapolis, Minn. 55423; $7), the word “rights” is, in the context, as much a misnomer as the word “gay.” His well-argued, well-written little treatise is making its mark among state legislatures, city councils—even the sodomite camp— across the country. After remarking the degree to which the “gay-rights” movement “shows the mystifying power of language to forge a consensus based on language” (to play, that is to say, upon the power of the God-word “rights” and the devil-word “discrimination”), Magnuson proceeds to outline his fundamental argument, namely that, insofar as the test in question is one of behavior rather than of status, homosexuals cannot be considered a suitable subject for civil-or humanrights legislation, without legislating on their behalf legislative privileges rather than equal, or even compensatory, ones. Magnuson says:

Homosexuals can be characterized by what they do (sodomy) and with whom they do it (their own sex). What “gayrights” laws ask for is a special privilege for homosexuals not generally available to other groups, like those which commit incest, adultery, bestiality, sex with minors, or, for that matter, any other criminal or anti-social behavior.

CW

About the Author

Chilton Williamson Jr.

Featured Tags

According to Roger J. Magnuson, a trial lawyer in Minneapolis and the author of Are Gay Rights Right? (Straitgate Press, 2200 West 66th Street, Suite 190, Minneapolis, Minn. 55423; $7), the word “rights” is, in the context, as much a misnomer as the word “gay.” His well-argued, well-written little treatise is making its mark among state legislatures, city councils—even the sodomite camp— across the country. After remarking the degree to which the “gay-rights” movement “shows the mystifying power of language to forge a consensus based on language” (to play, that is to say, upon the power of the God-word “rights” and the devil-word “discrimination”), Magnuson proceeds to outline his fundamental argument, namely that, insofar as the test in question is one of behavior rather than of status, homosexuals cannot be considered a suitable subject for civil-or humanrights legislation, without legislating on their behalf legislative privileges rather than equal, or even compensatory, ones. Magnuson says:

Homosexuals can be characterized by what they do (sodomy) and with whom they do it (their own sex). What “gayrights” laws ask for is a special privilege for homosexuals not generally available to other groups, like those which commit incest, adultery, bestiality, sex with minors, or, for that matter, any other criminal or anti-social behavior.