Ann Coulter’s recent comments about John Edwards’ sexuality, implying that John Edwards was “”a faggot”” at the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference, came on the heels of the establishment of the endowed academic chair in sexual orientation law at the Williams Institute at UCLA. While Coulter is extremely well-known as a right wing extremist, there are many people who are more moderate, but equally homophobic.

Coulter’s comments highlight an important facet of the gay rights issue that the political system cannot solve: forcing people to change their attitudes toward homosexuals. Before it is possible for legal changes to be made that truly give homosexuals the same rights as everyone else, the flawed and bigoted way of thinking that leads to anti-gay oppression must be eliminated.

The Williams Institute is a self-described “”think tank dedicated to the field of sexual orientation law and public policy”” that deals with discrimination against homosexuals. It aims to publish its research and disseminate it to lawmakers, with the explicit intent of promoting legal changes in favor of gay rights.

While this approach is useful for fighting against current and proposed anti-homosexual legislation and referendums, it does little to explain why lawmakers pass such legislation in the first place or why voters elect such lawmakers.

There is no rational reason for laws restricting the rights of homosexuals. Rather, it is hatred and fear of gays that motivates legislation against homosexuals. All sorts of reasons are thrown up in the air like a smokescreen, ranging from homosexuality being unnatural to preserving the family unit, as well as various religious concerns.

For example, a passage from the Bible stating that, “”there shall be no … sodomite of the sons of Israel,”” only appears as such in the King James Version of the Bible. If this is the justification for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, then an amendment mandating the death penalty for boys who disobey their parents should be proposed as well.

People use these facades as a reason for denying homosexuals their legal rights, just as people used all sorts of arbitrary reasons to deny black people their rights 50 years ago.

There is no legal basis for passing legislation against homosexuals; under the Constitution, there is no provision for denying legal rights to people based on sexual orientation.

Laws such as the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which limit the legal institution of marriage to only straight couples, clearly violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Under the 14th Amendment, “”No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.””

If straight couples are to enjoy the legal institution of marriage and all of its legal benefits, then all couples must have the same right. It does not matter that a homosexual couple cannot produce children, or that God chose to raze Sodom and Gomorrah for their supposed sexual deviance; all citizens of the United States are entitled to the same legal rights. While the Bible is an important and influential part of the lives of many Americans, the United States bases its laws on its Constitution.

However, logic and laws have little influence on those bent on denying equal rights to their fellow citizens.

Whether motivated by ignorance, religion or insecurity, they are the latest in a long lineage of people who apply double standards and act out of hatred with no other purpose than to oppress their fellow man.

Back when the color of a person’s skin was the measure of his rights, those in power who feared blacks enacted Jim Crow laws mandating “”separate but equal”” conditions that inevitably resulted in legal discrimination against blacks.

Today, however, there is not even an attempt to mask the underlying intent behind the legislation. Unfortunately, the implicit point made behind many arguments is that homosexuals are separate and unequal.

Fearing black people sitting in the next seat on a bus or feeling uncomfortable with a married gay couple living next door is by no means a valid basis for denying people their rights – both reasons violate the minority’s right to due process before the law.

Anti-gay legislation passes through state and federal legislature because of social and religious intolerance against homosexual people, not because of any valid legal reason.

While efforts to fight legislation that discriminate against homosexuals are necessary, they are needed only because of the underlying attitudes in American society.

Changing these attitudes, and realizing that the U.S. Constitution outweighs personal fear and hatred in the legal arena, is the first step in guaranteeing equal rights for all Americans.