US Exporting Sexual Anarchy
Barely 12 weeks after his appointment as United States special envoy for human rights of LGBT persons, Randy Berry is currently paying a visit to Jamaica. The timing of his visit and the priority of Jamaica in the list of planned stops are not insignificant.
In appointing him to this unique post, the secretary of state, John Kerry, emphasised that Mr Berry’s mandate was at the “heart of American foreign policy” as an “advocate for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people overseas” and for “overturning laws that criminalise consensual sex acts”.
No one can deny that all the genuine fundamental rights of LGBT persons are already guaranteed and enforceable under Jamaican law. The priority of special LGBT ‘rights’ is clearly evidenced by the fact that the current administration has not seen it fit to appoint a similar ambassador in any other sphere where human rights are considered to be under threat.
The appointment of Mr Berry suggests that sexual anarchy – the establishment of sexual ethics based on desire – is now a central aspect of American foreign policy. This is an alarming development considering the high and increasing prevalence of HIV in Western democracies where Mr Berry’s goals have already been achieved, and the annual cost of treating this largely preventable condition.
It may be instructive to consider the milestones on the trajectory of this notable moment in American history.
The publication of Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male in 1945 was a watershed moment in America’s (and the world’s) law, sexual ethics and social mores. As a result of research that is now known to be methodically flawed and ethically questionable, Kinsey claimed to disprove assumptions about desirable human behaviour and sexual ethics which had served for centuries as the foundation for social taboos and laws.
In his book, Kinsey cited anecdotal reports from known paedophiles, as data representative of the sexual response of children as young as two months. Data in adults were collected from volunteers, rather than a randomly chosen population. The questions asked assumed – in the words of one member of the Kinsey team – that “everyone had done everything”.
NO CLEAR DIVIDING LINE
In a 1993 journal, the Archives of Sexual Behavior, J. Gordon Muir and Edward W. Eichel accused Kinsey of using and deliberately concealing disproportionate samples of subjects, including 25% of prisoners, additional sex offenders and several hundred male prostitutes, and lying about the nature of his work.
Despite this, the answers to Kinsey’s sex questionnaires were extrapolated to general population. From this data, Kinsey concluded that there was no clear dividing line between heterosexuals and homosexuals; instead, sexuality was a continuum. Kinsey’s ‘data’ also presented premarital, extramarital and animal sexual contact as mundane and common activities.
These ideas heavily influenced sex education, psychology, medicine and law. As Kinsey and his collaborators argued, it would be counterproductive to criminalise activities in which a majority of citizens indulged. This ‘research’ provided ‘scientific evidence’ for many who desired a revolution in prevailing sexual norms. The more than 6,000 citations of Kinsey in law, social science and scientific journals reveal the extent of his influence.
As far back as 1948, Morris Ploscowe (author of the American Law Institute – Moral Penal Code) relied on Kinsey to call for a change in US law by asserting that “premarital, extramarital, homosexual and animal contacts are eventually indulged in by 95 per cent of the population in violation of statutory prohibitions. If these conclusions are correct, it is obvious that our sex-crime legislation is completely out of touch with the realities of individual living.”
The decision of Lawrence v Texas in 2003 arguably placed a stamp of approval on the philosophy that sex was a private act and its boundaries (but not its consequences), a matter for individual responsibility. One notable voice of warning in this case was that of Judge Antonin Scalia, who warned that repeal of the sodomy laws would eventually threaten the definition of marriage. Even a cursory look at American legal history proves him correct.
CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT?
In 1993, the Supreme Court of the state of Hawaii ruled (in Baehr v Lewin) that the Hawaiian state statute limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples was presumed to be unconstitutional. Three years later, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), which barred the federal government from recognising same-sex unions. Scalia’s prediction was more fully realised when, in June 2013, the Obama administration refused to defend DOMA, declaring it unconstitutional. In what may be the coup de gr‚ce for natural marriage, the US Supreme Court is now deliberating on whether same-sex ‘marriage’ is a constitutional right.
The Obama administration illogically asserts that sexual relations between same-gender persons are good and admirable; but anatomy and physiology (structure and function), as well as differential HIV prevalence rates, clearly show that to be an irrational notion. Equally irrational is the fallacious idea of a ‘right’ to sodomy which, if imposed, would imply that this behaviour cannot be legally treated any differently from natural heterosexual relations. Further, anyone who attempts to do so would be in breach of the ‘human rights’ of those who indulge.
One outcome of these irrational new ‘rights’ is the fact that service providers have been fined, dismissed or otherwise punished for refusing to affirm same-sex ‘marriages’ by producing wedding cakes, photography, or other services. Academics such as Crystal Dixon have been dismissed for refuting the equivalence of race and sexual ‘orientation’ and Kelvin Cochran was dismissed from his job after years as a fire chief for espousing a traditional definition of marriage.
The global danger of the establishment of LGBT ‘rights’ at the heart of US foreign policy is that where such ‘rights’ are being ignored in other countries, the sovereignty of the offending state will not be accepted as justification.
This is the face of the new imperialism being foisted on Jamaica in the person of Mr Berry.
The visit of this LGBT ambassador is in flagrant contempt of Jamaica’s sovereignty as expressed in the opinion of 91 per cent of citizens. The valid fundamental human rights of all Jamaicans can and should be respected without affirming behaviour that is unnatural, medically and socially harmful, as well as directly inimical to human flourishing
The lesser-developed states of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean cannot afford the financial or social costs of following this illogical US experiment.
This is one export that we should politely but firmly decline.
• Dr Kay Bailey is a member of the Jamaica Coalition for
a Healthy Society. Email feedback to columns@