Not too long ago I wrote that while there was a time when the accusation of homosexuality was treated as libelous, that was slowly changing and might no longer be the case soon. Well, it seems like “soon” has arrived, at least in Massachusetts.

The Lexington Herald-Leader reports:

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner came as she threw out a lawsuit by a former boyfriend of pop singer Madonna who claimed he was libeled because his name appeared in a photo caption in a book about Madonna - under a picture of Madonna walking with a gay man. "In fact, a finding that such a statement is defamatory requires this court to legitimize the prejudice and bigotry that for too long have plagued the homosexual community," she wrote in her opinion Friday. ... Gertner said other courts' rulings that stating someone is homosexual is defamatory had relied on laws criminalizing same-sex sexual acts that might well be unconstitutional. Previous decisions hadn't taken into account more recent decisions recognizing gays' equal rights, she said.

This raises an interesting question: Would a ruling on behalf of the plaintiff “legitimize the prejudice and bigotry” against gays, or would it simply acknowledge the prejudice and bigotry that exists? After all, if there is real prejudice and bigotry and real negative consequences to being called a homosexual — however unfair that may be — shouldn’t that be considered libel? Or would the courts just be helping the bigotry and prejudice continue?

I’m inclined to go with the former. Even if it is true that such a ruling might be seen by some as supporting their prejudice, the courts need to focus first and foremost on the plaintiff and case before them. If a person really would suffer from being known as a homosexual, however unfair that is, then that is what the court should deal with.

Read More:

• Guide to Ethics and Morality
• News About Ethics
• Ethics and Culture
• Evangelical Christianity & Homosexuality