Dr. Laura’s Right

May 2000

A hate monger who must be silenced– that's how many gay groups and individuals label talk radio's Laura Schlessinger, a.k.a. Dr. Laura. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), stopdrlaura.com, and dozens of gay publications and organizations have mounted campaigns to have radio stations pull the plug on Dr. Laura and to demand Paramount Studios retract plans to launch a Dr. Laura television show.

What has triggered such concerted efforts to muzzle Dr. Laura? Why have so many gay people been willing to sign on to crusades to have her silenced?

Part of the reason is that Dr. Laura is, by all accounts, obnoxious and easy to dislike. Standing in opposition to someone so disagreeable makes for easy organizing and fund-raising. But the animus behind the anti-Dr. Laura efforts lies in her twin assertions that gay people are "biological errors" and that the gay agenda is to "normalize all forms of sexuality." According to GLAAD and others, such contentions mean that Dr. Laura is guilty of "hate speech" and thus should not be allowed a public forum.

But the reaction to gag Dr. Laura is wrong-headed on two counts.

First, Dr. Laura has earned unfair opprobrium because she exposes the weakness of the all-too-often voiced "don't-hate-us-we-were-born-this-way" argument. Some gay people scared to champion homosexuality itself try to deflect homophobia by claiming that sexuality has a genetic basis; thus, they assert, it is unfair to discriminate against homosexuals. But all sorts of traits that rational people might not want to condone or encourage may have a genetic component (alcoholism and nearsightedness, for examples). The meaningful question isn't about biology, but rather is gay sexual expression something of value? Are people happier, more productive, and better capable of giving and receiving love when homosexuality is celebrated or persecuted? When we duck these questions and merely lamely assert "we can't help it, it's in our genes," we can't then lambast others who say that such genetic propensity represents a "biological error."

Similarly, Dr. Laura is right to note the radicalness of the gay liberation agenda. While some gay people try to reassure straight society that we aspire to be just like them– monogamously coupled with a tidy lawn in a nice neighborhood, true sexual liberationists understand that the struggle is to free us all from fear of sex outside of narrow boundaries. Again, Dr. Laura upsets sex-phobic gay people by steering the debate to fundamental questions: why should the state be able to punish any consensual sex? should individuals have the freedom to engage in whatever consensual sex practices they and their partner(s) desire? Her answers to these questions are terribly wrong, but Dr. Laura is correct to note that we aren't trying to move the respectability line over so that we stand with "normal" people against the "real" perverts, but rather to have all sexual behavior guided by true moral concerns of love, honesty, and compassion, not arbitrary rules about the gender, age, race, number, or marital status of our partners.

The second reason that attempts to gag Dr. Laura are ill-considered is that all civil liberties, including sexual freedom, depend on freedom of expression. Gay people who lobby for "zero tolerance" of "offensive" speech (as GLAAD does) are dangerously short-sighted. Regulations to curb offensive speech, promulgated as government censorship or as corporate response to boycotts, erode free expression and ultimately harm dissidents and non-conformists of all types.

The proper response to Dr. Laura's narrow-minded homophobia is not to yell "shut up," but to challenge her fearful contentions with a different and enlivening message: people can enjoy happier, more fulfilled and productive lives when freed from homophobic oppression. Silence, however enforced, is not our ally, because truth is on our side.

Pasted from <http://guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=D98CDB3F-1911-11D4-A7AB00A0C9D84F02>