Attempting a Country with Democracy

On October 27 I read in this section [Opinion, in La Prensa] the article “Intentando un país sin Dios” (Attempting a Country without God), by Pedro Medina. I refer the interested reader to the original text, but I present here a brief summary of the relevant points, each one followed by my reply.

The article condemns the aspirations of gay Panamanians to live in a society in which their rights are protected by law. It lists homosexuality alongside prostitution and abortion as part of a supposed secular educational agenda, with the obvious implication that homosexuality is as morally reprehensible as these, and that being an atheist amounts to being amoral.

In his reasoning, Mr. Medina leaves out that a multitude of religious people, including Christians, accept homosexuals as normal people and ardently defend their legal rights; and that the American Psychological Association (APA) has stated flatly that homosexuality is not an illness.

Mr. Medina suggests that a homosexual is one by his own decision, and he calls homosexuality an “option in life,” something you can do “if you like it,” a preference, the result of thinking differently. This opinion is also refuted by the APA, which states that “human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight.”

The high point of the article is that the homosexuals of our country should not aspire to a law that protects them against discrimination. To attack the idea, the columnist makes use of an old logical fallacy: reduction to the absurd. The law “proposes to ban even jokes and wisecracks about homosexuals,” he warns us, in which case “jokes against flat-nosed people, Jews, Galicians, etc., would also have to be banned.”

I will not dwell on the unease that the implicit assumption that mocking members of a minority is an acceptable activity produces in me. I will limit myself to refuting the tacit conclusion that publicly ridiculing another human being for his sexual orientation is something innocent and without side effects.

The APA warns that children and adolescents are especially vulnerable to the harmful effects of prejudice, since they fear being rejected by their families and churches. Being the target of acts of hostility, including mockery and insults, can have serious consequences, such as depression or suicide.

To give just one example: in the United States, this past September, five gay teenagers—victims of anti-gay prejudice in their schools—committed suicide. Mr. Medina concludes his article with an admonition: “Gay gentlemen: as things stand you are free to live and believe as you see fit. But never forget that you are part of a minority.” That last sentence must be read several times. He ends by saying: “leave the laws of my country as they are.” The reason? “In a democracy,” he tells us, “this kind of law has no place.” This is, in my opinion, the greatest error in his discourse.

Anyone who knows the rudiments of modern democracy knows that among its cornerstones is the protection of the rights of minorities, to keep them from being oppressed by what Madison called “the tyranny of the majority.” Pedro Medina says in his piece: “As a people, the majority of us made an option for God [sic]: we believe in the Bible, we cross ourselves when we pass in front of the church, we want God in our homes, we have no interest in removing him from our laws or from our education.”

However, a society governed by laws dictated from the pulpit, where the school curriculum conforms to religious dogma, is not a democracy: it is a theocracy. Our country is not one. Therefore, our laws must reflect what Ingenieros called “a morality without dogmas,” based on the steady advance of human knowledge. I set down here, then, my opinion: protecting the rights of minorities is a basic duty of anyone who wants to preserve democracy in Panama.