- - Friday, February 28, 2014


A business’ religion-based refusal to serve someone who is homosexual is not only an exercise of a right guaranteed under the First Amendment, but an implicit critique of the homosexual lifestyle. The latter, I suspect, is at the heart of the pressure that influenced Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to veto Arizona’s religious freedom bill (“Brewer veto backs gay rights over Arizona business’s religious rights,” Page 1, Feb 27.).

Missing entirely from this story and almost completely from the homosexual rights debate overall is any mention of the health risks of the homosexual lifestyle. In his book “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth” Dr. Jeffrey Satinover points out that the health risks involved in being homosexual are essentially the same as those of alcoholism. The origin of both may involve inherent biological factors, but only in the case of alcoholism are health risks prominently discussed.

Would it make sense to urge our young people to try binge-drinking to see if alcoholism is part of who they are? Of course not — that would be insane. As we now see in Arizona, it is hard to characterize public policy driven by fear of uneducated, popular reaction more than by care for the health of our citizens (especially our children) as anything other than insane, too.


Falls Church

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide