Hofstra Law Review Volume 29 | Issue 2 Article 2 2000 Homosexuality as Contagion: From the Well of Loneliness to the Boy Scouts Nancy J. Knauer Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Knauer, Nancy J. (2000) "Homosexuality as Contagion: From the Well of Loneliness to the Boy Scouts," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 29: Iss. 2, Article 2. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol29/iss2/2 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Knauer: Homosexuality as Contagion: From the Well of Loneliness to the Bo HOMOSEXUALITY AS CONTAGION: FROM THE WELL OFLONELINESS TO THE BOY SCOUTS Nancy J. Knauer* I. ITTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 403 II. THE WELL OF LONELINESS AND THE MEDICO-SCIENTIFIC MODEL OF HOMOSEXUALITY ................................................... 410 A. The Early Sexologists ........................................................ 413 1. Krafft-Ebing and Ellis ................................................. 414 2. Liberatory Value of the New Science ......................... 417 3. Foucault and "Reverse Discourse" .............................. 418 B. The Well of Loneliness ..................................................... 422 1. Constructing the Life of an Invert ............................... 424 2. The Argument on Behalf of Inverts ............................ 425 m. THE COUNTER-NARRATIVE OF HOMOSEXUALITY AS CONTAGION ......................................................................... 430 A. The Six Enduring Maxims of the ContagionModel of Homosexuality ................................................................... 434 1. Homosexuality Is a Vice ............................................. 435 2. Homosexuals Prey on Innocent Victims ..................... 435 3. Homosexuals Have No Shame .................................... 436 4. Homosexuals Demand Recognition, Not Mere Toleration .................................................................... 436 5. It Is a Battle Between Good and Evil ......................... 437 6. Society Must Silence Homosexuality ......................... 437 B. The Decision to Prosecute ................................................ 438 IV. THE OBSCENITY CHARGES ....................................................... 440 A. The Hicklin Rule ............................................................... 442 * Professor of Law, The James E. Beasley School of Law. Temple University. I %ould like to thank Caroline J. Lindberg and Francine Tischner for their insightful comments on earlier drafts. In addition, I would like to thank Melynda Rowland for her research assistance. Published by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law, 2000 1 Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 29, Iss. 2 [2000], Art. 2 HOFSTRA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 29:401 B. The London Trials............................................................. 445 C. The New York Trials ......................................................... 446 1. Homosexuality Is a Vice ............................................. 447 2. Homosexuals Prey on Innocent Victims, and It Is Not Just the Children ................................................... 448 3. The Well Extols Homosexuality .................................. 448 4. The Well Demands More than Mere Toleration .......... 449 5. It Is a B attle ................................................................. 44 9 6. The Well Is Obscene .................................................... 449 D. The New York Appeal and Epilogue ................................. 450 E. A FinalNote About the Necessarily PartialNature of Censorship ........................................................................ 450 V. THE CONTAGION MODEL OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY ....................................................... 454 A. Pro-FamilyOrganizations ................................................ 456 B. Homosexuality Is an Immoral, Unhealthy, and Freely Chosen Activity ................................................................. 458 1. We Know You Can Change ........................................ 459 2. The Status/Acts Divide, Sodomy Laws, and Suspect Classification ............................................................... 464 C. Homosexuals Prey on Innocent Victims ............................ 468 1. The Adult Victim ........................................................ 469 2. The "Trophy Children" ......................... 470 3. But, It Is Not Just Their Own Kids .............................. 471 a. Curriculum Issues .................................................. 473 b. Gay Student Groups .............................................. 475 c. The Gay Teacher ................................................... 478 4. The Pedophile and the Gay Scout Master ................... 480 D. Homosexuals Flaunt Their Lifestyle, Infringing on the Rights of Others ................................................................ 482 E. Homosexuals Demand "Special Rights," Not Mere Toleration.......................................................................... 489 F. It Is a Culture War ............................................................ 493 G. Society Must Silence Homosexuality................................. 495 VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................498 http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol29/iss2/2 2 Knauer: Homosexuality as Contagion: From the Well of Loneliness to the Bo 20001 HOMOSEXUALITYAS CONTAGION I. INTRODUCTION In 1998, a consortium of pro-family organizations ran a series of full page advertisements featuring testimony by self-described "ex-gays" designed to expose the truth about homosexuality: "nurture, not nature, is the real cause of homosexual behavior."' In addition to offering hope to those currently struggling with homosexuality, the advertisements had a clearly articulated political goal-to undercut the construction of sexual orientation as a valid category for civil rights protection.2 They also illustrate that the controversy over gay rights is, at base, a struggle over the definition and the meaning of homosexuality-over the very nature of same-sex desire. In the political arena, there are currently two central and competing views of homosexuality. Pro-family organizations, working from a contagion model of homosexuality, contend that homosexuality is an immoral, unhealthy, and freely chosen vice Many pro-gay organizations espouse an identity model of homosexuality under which sexual orientation is an immutable, unchosen, and benign characteristic Both pro-family and pro-gay organizations believe that to define homosexuality is to control its legal and political status 1. CitizenLink, In Defense of Free Speech, al http-.//www.family.org/cformlresearchpapersa000200.html (last modified Sept. 15, 1993) (advertisement). For a description of the advertising campaign, see Laurie Goedstein, 7he Architect of the 'Gay Conversion' Campaign, N.Y. TIMEs, Aug. 13. 1998. at A1O; Frank Rich. Lot's Lesbian Ally, N.Y. Tamss, July 22, 1998, at A19. 2. For example, the advertisement entitled In Defense of Free Speech lists several essential truths about homosexuality that appear to be designed to counter claims that sexual orientation qualifies as a suspect classification for purposes of constitutional protections because szxual orientation is an immutable trait and homosexuals are a disadvantaged minority. See CitizenLink, In Defense of Free Speech, at httpJ/vww.family.orgteformn rsearch/pape-/a0002800.html last modified Sept. 15, 1998) (advertisement). These claims are as follows: i) homosexuality is not genetic; ii) homosexuals can change; iii) homosexual activists have promoted homosexuality under pretexts, iv) homosexuals possess "raw political power"; and v) homosexuality is a sin. See id. For a discussion of the requirements for suspect classification, see infra note 351 and accompanying text. 3. See infra Part III (discussing the contagion model of homosexuality). 4. See infra Part II (depicting the identity model of homosexuality). 5. This Article uses the term "pro-family" to describe conservative political organizations with anti-gay policies. Instead of referring to the groups as "anti-gay," it uses the term that the groups use to describe themselves. It therefore tries to avoid the anti-choie/pro-life rhetoric over- characterization that can intrude when writing about politically-charged issues. This Article also does not use quotation marks around terms such as "pro-family" or "ex-gay" to indicate the Author's skepticism regarding the appropriateness or accuracy of the terms. Pro-family literature consistently puts the word gay in quotation marks. Recent court decisions dealing w~ith sexual orientation have also placed words used by the litigants to describe themselves or their relationships in quotation marks. See, e.g., Shahar v. Bowers, 114 F.3d 1097, 1099, 110 -01, 1103, 1105-07 (1 th Cir. 1997) (using quotation marks around "marriage" or "married" vhen referring to Shahar's Published by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law, 2000 3 Hofstra Law Review, Vol. 29, Iss. 2 [2000], Art. 2 HOFSTRA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 29:401 This sometimes bitter debate regarding the nature of same-sex desire might seem