Gay and lesbian vs. homosexual

[RJLipkin at aol.com]

Just so long as liberal  positions are permitted to be called "The only 
constitutionally authorized"  position as in "the only constitutionally authorized 
position on the estate tax  is to retain it." 
 
        Seriously, Jim raises an  important question. My position is that 
there should be a strong presumption in  favor of honoring the names and 
descriptions the relevant people or movements  wish to be called. In practice, the 
issue arises (as it has on this List) in the  context of derogatory descriptions 
or descriptions perceived by the relevant  group to be derogatory. Once that 
is known, I think judges should alter their  descriptions out of civic respect 
if not moral agreement. But the  principle I embrace is more general and Jim 
is correct to test its  boundaries.
 
        Regarding Jim's  example, I think the "market" would take care of 
many such problems.   Should conservatives wish to use the term "righteous" to 
describe  their positions, I think they would soon find out that doing so would 
be a  marketing blunder. And generalizing such blunders would be just one more 
descent  in the so-called "culture wars." Imagine the Constitutional Party's 
insisting  that their position be described as "the Constitutional position" 
not "the  Constitutional Party's decision" or the Natural Law Party calling its 
positions  "the natural ones."
 
        Goodwill is certainly in  short supply in contemporary politics.  I 
would urge people to refrain from  such self-descriptions along the line Jim's 
example suggest. However,  should they persist I would honor it just so long 
as I can assure myself that  distortions of fact and value do not occur as a 
result of doing so.
 
Bobby
 
Robert Justin  Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of  Law
Delaware
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20050810/ef813be7/attachment.htm