Blog

  • Chapter 9: Chad and Luke Share Bible Stories

    Chad was hard at work finding Bible stories he could tell the kids while they ate after soccer. He had managed to speak the story from Daniel chapter 1 in his own words, which made more sense than how it sounded in the King James Bible.

    Meanwhile, Luke was also busy picking his own set of Bible stories. He was looking for something he could use to fight against Chad’s Vegan diet and also justify his own beliefs about eating meat. He also remembered that Chad said he could bring any food he wanted for the children. He decided to buy some regular hot dogs and buns because he knew it would make Chad angry.

    On the next Sunday, Chad and Luke coached the kids in soccer, and everyone had a lot of fun. There seemed to be more children there than the previous week. Chad said it was probably because they told their friends about the fun of soccer and free food.

    When it was time for lunch, Chad got a big cooler out of his car and bags of chips. This choice of food surprised Luke, because he had expected Tofu sandwiches. He also noticed that there was no grill, and Stacy wasn’t there.

    Chad served everyone a plate full of chips and filled several cups with cold lemonade. He brought a cup to each child and told them to come to the table for more if they were still thirsty.

    “Chad, do you have a Bible story prepared today?” said Luke.

    “You bet I do, but first I need to drink some lemonade,” said Chad.

    “In that case, I will tell my story,” said Luke.

    “The story begins in Genesis chapter 6, when humans were so evil that God regretted making them. He decided the earth needed a great reset. He liked a man named Noah, who was righteous, and told him to build a big boat called an ark. He and his family would collect animals and lots of food to eat during a flood that would drown every other living thing. The only humans on the ark were Noah, his wife, their 3 sons, and their wives. They also had a male and female of every kind of animal,” said Luke.

    “Why did all the animals on the earth have to die?” said Simon.

    “They were not necessary because the animals on the ark would reproduce after the flood, and there would be more of all the animals,” said Luke.

    “What does it mean to reproduce?” asked Simon.

    "You might want to ask your parents about that. I am not qualified to answer that, especially for children. Anyhow, that’s not the point. After the flood ended, God gave humans permission to eat animals for food. In Genesis chapter 9, God said

    
    And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
    
    2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
    
    3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
    
    

    “So you see, animals exist to be eaten, which reminds me, I brought hot dogs,” said Luke.

    The children hissed and booed at Luke. They wanted no part of eating animals, and they were quite traumatized by the Noah’s Ark story. They asked Chad to tell another Daniel story.

    “Of course, I can tell you a story,” said Chad.

    “Many years after King Nebuchadnezzar died, and also his son Belshazzar was killed, a new king named Darius took over. In spite of this, Daniel was still trusted by the new king and still considered a wise man or a prophet because he had interpreted dreams for King Nebuchadnezzar and had translated the writing on the wall for Belshazzar. He was assigned to be in authority over the princes and presidents,” said Chad.

    “The presidents and princes became jealous of Daniel because he was their boss and the king liked him more. Therefore, they tried to find a way to turn the king against him. They asked King Darius to write a decree that for the next 30 days, anyone who prays to any God or human other than him would be thrown into a den of lions. He agreed and wrote a decree that anyone caught praying to someone else would be executed by being thrown into the Lion’s Den. Though he didn’t realize that this was a trap being set for his most trusted servant, Daniel,” said Chad.

    “The men who asked him to make the decree knew they would find Daniel praying near his window as he always had. Daniel knew about the law, but he still prayed to God 3 times a day and didn’t change anything he did.”

    “Why didn’t he just keep his prayers hidden or hide somewhere where the bad guys couldn’t catch him?” said a young boy named Trevor.

    “I think that he knew it was better to be faithful to God and live in his truth, even though he knew he might be in trouble for it,” said Chad.

    “What happened after that?” said multiple children.

    “The princes and presidents told the king that Daniel was still praying to his God, despite the decree. They demanded that he be thrown into the Lion’s Den as was written in the executive order,” said Chad.

    “The king tried to talk his way out of his, but the law of the king could not be disobeyed even by the king himself because he would be admitting he made a mistake and was not a God. He knew he had been tricked by the bad guys. Daniel was thrown into the Lion’s Den, and the king could not eat or sleep that night because he was so worried about Daniel. The next day, he went and found that Daniel was still alive. The lions had not even touched him. Daniel said that God closed the mouth of the lions because he was innocent,” said Chad.

    “At that moment, the king ordered Daniel to be taken out of the den and to throw in all the men who had accused Daniel. The lions tore them each up before they even hit the ground. He then made a new executive order that everyone should worship and pray to the God of Daniel. He believed that he was the true God who could make sure that even hungry lions would not eat the innocent,” said Chad.

    “Come on, Chad, do you really believe this story? Those lions would have eaten Daniel if he were in there all night,” said Luke.

    “Tell me, Luke, do you believe the flood story you told the children in Genesis? Do you really think that a God who prevents lions from eating innocent man would drown all the innocent animals of the whole earth, and that only 8 humans were righteous enough to be saved?” said Chad.

    “Well, these stories are both part of the Bible, so I guess they are both true,” said Luke.

    “But that’s not what I asked you, Luke. I asked whether YOU believe the story you read to the children,” said Chad.

    “I am not sure. But do you believe the story of Daniel in the Lion’s Den?” said Luke.

    “You bet I do. It only makes sense. Daniel was innocent, and he had done nothing wrong. We also know that he did not eat meat from last week’s story. He did not have the smell of meat on him, and the lions probably didn’t think he smelled like food. They probably would have left him alone even if God had not intervened. This story not only matches what I believe, but it makes sense to my brain as well,” said Chad.

    The children clapped and continued to enjoy the salty chips and the cool. Lemonade. Chad knew just what their bodies needed in the summer heat and told a story that they could understand and relate to.

    Nobody touched Luke’s hot dogs, not even him. He was too angry to eat. He was jealous of Chad, just like the princes and presidents who had tried to turn King Darius against Daniel.

  • chastecmp 64-bit

    This post is the source of the 64-bit edition of chastecmp, my file comparison tool. It behaves exactly the same as the 32-bit edition. However, I am slowly translating my best programs to use the 64-bit calling convention for the eventual 64-bit edition of my book. This will be a few years away but there is not too much work that needs to be done. Mostly I just have to use different registers and different numbers along with the syscall instruction instead of interrupt 0x80. The calls are standard and part of the Linux kernel. All I am doing is translating it to be more compatible with how 64-bit Linux does things.

    main.asm

    ;Linux 64-bit Assembly Source for chastecmp
    format ELF64 executable
    entry main
    
    include 'chastelib64.asm'
    
    main:
    
    ;radix will be 16 because this whole program is about hexadecimal
    mov [radix],16 ; can choose radix for integer input/output!
    mov [int_width],1
    
    pop rax
    mov [argc],rax ;save the argument count for later
    
    ;first arg is the name of the program. we skip past it
    pop rax
    dec [argc]
    mov rax,[argc]
    
    cmp rax,2
    jb help
    mov [file_offset],0 ;assume the offset is 0,beginning of file
    jmp arg_open_file_1
    
    help:
    mov rax,help_message
    call putstring
    jmp main_end
    
    arg_open_file_1:
    pop rax
    mov [filename1],rax ; save the name of the file we will open to read
    
    call putstring ;print the name of the file we will try opening
    
    mov rsi,0   ;open file in read mode 
    mov rdi,rax ;filename should be in rax before this function was called
    mov rax,2   ;invoke SYS_OPEN (kernel opcode 2 on 64 bit systems)
    syscall     ;call the kernel
    
    cmp rax,0
    js file_error_display ;end program if the file can't be opened
    mov [filedesc1],rax ; save the file descriptor number for later use
    mov rax,file_open
    call putstr_and_line
    
    arg_open_file_2:
    pop rax
    mov [filename2],rax ; save the name of the file we will open to read
    
    call putstring ;print the name of the file we will try opening
    
    mov rsi,0   ;open file in read mode 
    mov rdi,rax ;filename should be in rax before this function was called
    mov rax,2   ;invoke SYS_OPEN (kernel opcode 2 on 64 bit systems)
    syscall     ;call the kernel
    
    cmp rax,0
    js file_error_display ;end program if the file can't be opened
    mov [filedesc2],rax ; save the file descriptor number for later use
    mov rax,file_open
    call putstr_and_line
    
    files_compare:
    
    file_1_read_one_byte:
    mov rdx,1            ;number of bytes to read
    mov rsi,byte1        ;address to store the bytes
    mov rdi,[filedesc1]  ;move the opened file descriptor into rdi
    mov rax,0            ;invoke SYS_READ (kernel opcode 0 on 64 bit Intel)
    syscall              ;call the kernel
    
    ;rax will have the number of bytes read after system call
    mov [file_1_bytes_read],rax ;we save the number of bytes read for later
    cmp rax,0
    jnz file_2_read_one_byte ;unless zero bytes were read, proceed to read from next file
    
    mov rax,[filename1]
    call putstring
    mov rax,end_of_file_string
    call putstr_and_line
    
    ;Even if we have reached the end of the first file,
    ;we still proceed to read a byte from the second file
    ;to see if it also ends at the same address
    
    file_2_read_one_byte:
    mov rdx,1            ;number of bytes to read
    mov rsi,byte2        ;address to store the bytes
    mov rdi,[filedesc2]  ;move the opened file descriptor into rdi
    mov rax,0            ;invoke SYS_READ (kernel opcode 0 on 64 bit Intel)
    syscall              ;call the kernel
    
    ;rax will have the number of bytes read after system call
    mov [file_2_bytes_read],rax ;we save the number of bytes read for later
    cmp rax,0
    jnz check_both_bytes ;unless zero bytes were read, proceed to compare bytes from both files
    
    mov rax,[filename2]
    call putstring
    mov rax,end_of_file_string
    call putstr_and_line
    
    jmp main_end ;we have reach end of one file and should end program
    
    check_both_bytes:
    
    ;we add the number of bytes read from both files
    mov rax,[file_1_bytes_read]
    add rax,[file_2_bytes_read]
    cmp rax,2
    jnz main_end
    
    compare_bytes:
    
    mov al,[byte1]
    mov bl,[byte2]
    
    ;compare the two bytes and skip printing them if they are the same
    cmp al,bl
    jz bytes_are_same
    
    ;print the address and the bytes at that address
    mov rax,[file_offset]
    mov [int_width],8
    call putint_and_space
    mov [int_width],2
    mov rax,0
    mov al,[byte1]
    call putint_and_space
    mov al,[byte2]
    call putint_and_line
    
    bytes_are_same:
    
    inc [file_offset]
    
    jmp files_compare
    
    file_error_display:
    
    mov rax,file_error
    call putstr_and_line
    
    main_end:
    
    ;this is the end of the program
    ;we close the open files and then use the exit call
    
    mov rdi,[filedesc1] ;file number to close
    mov rax,3           ;invoke SYS_CLOSE (kernel opcode 3 for 64 bit Intel)
    syscall             ;call the kernel
    
    mov rdi,[filedesc2] ;file number to close
    mov rax,3           ;invoke SYS_CLOSE (kernel opcode 3 for 64 bit Intel)
    syscall             ;call the kernel
    
    mov rax, 0x3C ; invoke SYS_EXIT (kernel opcode 0x3C (60 decimal) on 64 bit systems)
    mov rdi,0   ; return 0 status on exit - 'No Errors'
    syscall
    
    ;variables for displaying information
    
    help_message db 'chastecmp by Chastity White Rose',0Ah,0Ah
    db 9,'chastecmp file1 file2',0Ah,0Ah
    db 'Differing bytes are shown in hexadecimal',0Ah
    db 'until the EOF has been reached.',0Ah,0
    
    file_open db ' opened',0
    file_error db ' error',0
    end_of_file_string db ' EOF',0
    
    db 48 dup 0 ;fill with extra space to match 1280 executable size
    
    ;variables for managing arguments and files
    argc dq ?
    filename1 dq ? ; name of the file to be opened
    filename2 dq ? ; name of the file to be opened
    filedesc1 dq ? ; file descriptor
    filedesc2 dq ? ; file descriptor
    byte1 db ?
    byte2 db ?
    file_1_bytes_read dq ?
    file_2_bytes_read dq ?
    file_offset dq ?
    

    chastelib64.asm

    ; chastelib assembly header file for 64 bit Linux
    ; This file is where I keep the source of my most important Assembly functions
    ; These are my string and integer output and conversion routines.
    
    ; To simplify documentation. The Accumulator/Arithmetic register
    ; (ax,ebx,rax) depending on bit size shall be referred to as register A
    ; for the description of these core functions because the A register
    ; is treated special both by the Intel company and my code;
    
    ; putstring; Prints a zero terminated string from the address pointer to by A register.
    ; intstr;    Converts the number in A into a zero terminated string and points A to that address
    ; putint;    Prints the integer in A by calling intstr and then putstring.
    ; strint;    Converts the zero terminated string into an integer and sets A to that value
       
    ; Now, the source of the functions begins, with comments included for parts that I felt needed explanation.
    
    putstring:
    
    push rax
    push rbx
    push rcx
    push rdx
    
    mov rbx,rax ; copy rax to rbx as well. Now both registers have the address of the main_string
    
    putstring_strlen_start: ; this loop finds the lenge of the string as part of the putstring function
    
    cmp [rbx],byte 0 ; compare byte at address rdx with 0
    jz putstring_strlen_end ; if comparison was zero, jump to loop end because we have found the length
    inc rbx
    jmp putstring_strlen_start
    
    putstring_strlen_end:
    sub rbx,rax ;subtract start pointer from current pointer to get length of string
    
    ;Write string using Linux Write system call
    ;Reference for 64 bit x86 syscalls is below.
    ;https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/developer-library/reference/linux-constants/syscalls/#x86_64-64-bit
    
    mov rdx,rbx      ;number of bytes to write
    mov rsi,rax      ;pointer/address of string to write
    mov rdi,1        ;write to the STDOUT file
    mov rax,1        ;invoke SYS_WRITE (kernel opcode 1 on 64 bit systems)
    syscall          ;system call to write the message
    
    pop rdx
    pop rcx
    pop rbx
    pop rax
    
    ret ; this is the end of the putstring function return to calling location
    
    ; This is the location in memory where digits are written to by the intstr function
    ; The string of bytes and settings such as the radix and width are global variables defined below.
    
    int_string db 64 dup '?' ;enough bytes to hold maximum size 64-bit binary integer
    
    int_string_end db 0 ;zero byte terminator for the integer string
    
    radix dq 2 ;radix or base for integer output. 2=binary, 8=octal, 10=decimal, 16=hexadecimal
    int_width dq 8 ;default width of integers. Extra zeros prefixed if more than 1
    
    ;this function creates a string of the integer in rax
    ;it uses the above radix variable to determine base from 2 to 36
    ;it then loads rax with the address of the string
    ;this means that it can be used with the putstring function
    
    intstr:
    
    mov rbx,int_string_end-1 ;find address of lowest digit(just before the newline 0Ah)
    mov rcx,1
    
    digits_start:
    
    mov rdx,0;
    div qword [radix]
    cmp rdx,10
    jb decimal_digit
    jnb hexadecimal_digit
    
    decimal_digit: ;we go here if it is only a digit 0 to 9
    add rdx,'0'
    jmp save_digit
    
    hexadecimal_digit:
    sub rdx,10
    add rdx,'A'
    
    save_digit:
    
    mov [rbx],dl
    cmp rax,0
    jz intstr_end
    dec rbx
    inc rcx
    jmp digits_start
    
    intstr_end:
    
    prefix_zeros:
    cmp rcx,[int_width]
    jnb end_zeros
    dec rbx
    mov [rbx],byte '0'
    inc rcx
    jmp prefix_zeros
    end_zeros:
    
    mov rax,rbx ; now that the digits have been written to the string, display it!
    
    ret
    
    ; function to print string form of whatever integer is in rax
    ; The radix determines which number base the string form takes.
    ; Anything from 2 to 36 is a valid radix
    ; in practice though, only bases 2,8,10,and 16 will make sense to other programmers
    ; this function does not process anything by itself but calls the combination of my other
    ; functions in the order I intended them to be used.
    
    putint: 
    
    push rax
    push rbx
    push rcx
    push rdx
    
    call intstr
    
    call putstring
    
    pop rdx
    pop rcx
    pop rbx
    pop rax
    
    ret
    
    ;this function converts a string pointed to by rax into an integer returned in rax instead
    ;it is a little complicated because it has to account for whether the character in
    ;a string is a decimal digit 0 to 9, or an alphabet character for bases higher than ten
    ;it also checks for both uppercase and lowercase letters for bases 11 to 36
    ;finally, it checks if that letter makes sense for the base.
    ;For example, G to Z cannot be used in hexadecimal, only A to F can
    ;The purpose of writing this function was to be able to accept user input as integers
    ;This function is improved with error checking and uses the new strint_error variable
    ;The program can check this value after the call and see how many errors happened.
    
    strint_error db 0 ;declare a byte variable that keeps track of errors
    
    strint:
    
    mov rbx,rax ;copy string address from rax to rbx because rax will be replaced soon!
    mov rax,0
    mov [strint_error],0 ;set errors to 0 at the start of this function
    
    read_strint:
    mov rcx,0 ; zero rcx so only lower 8 bits are used
    mov cl,[rbx]
    inc rbx
    cmp cl,0 ; compare byte at address rdx with 0
    jz strint_end ; if comparison was zero, this is the end of string
    
    ;if char is below '0' or above '9', it is outside the range of these and is not a digit
    cmp cl,'0'
    jb not_digit
    cmp cl,'9'
    ja not_digit
    
    ;but if it is a digit, then correct and process the character
    is_digit:
    sub cl,'0'
    jmp process_char
    
    not_digit:
    ;it isn't a digit, but it could an alphabet character which is a digit in a higher base
    
    ;if char is below 'A' or above 'Z', it is outside the range of these and is not capital letter
    cmp cl,'A'
    jb not_upper
    cmp cl,'Z'
    ja not_upper
    
    is_upper:
    sub cl,'A'
    add cl,10
    jmp process_char
    
    not_upper:
    
    ;if char is below 'a' or above 'z', it is outside the range of these and is not lowercase letter
    cmp cl,'a'
    jb not_lower
    cmp cl,'z'
    ja not_lower
    
    is_lower:
    sub cl,'a'
    add cl,10
    jmp process_char
    
    not_lower:
    
    ;if we have reached this point, result invalid and end function with error
    jmp strint_end_error
    
    process_char:
    
    cmp rcx,[radix] ;compare char with radix
    jnb strint_end_error ;if this value is above or equal to radix, it is too high despite being a valid digit/alpha
    
    mov rdx,0 ;zero rdx because it is used in mul sometimes
    mul qword [radix] ;mul rax with radix
    add rax,rcx
    
    jmp read_strint ;jump back and continue the loop if nothing has exited it
    
    strint_end_error: ;we jump here if there was an error with one of the chars
    inc [strint_error] ;increment error counter because char invalid
    
    strint_end: ;we jump here when no errors happened
    
    ret
    
    ;The utility functions below simply print a space or a newline.
    ;these help me save code when printing lots of strings and integers.
    
    space db ' ',0 ;a string containing only a space
    
    putspace:
    push rax
    mov rax,space
    call putstring
    pop rax
    ret
    
    line db 0Ah,0 ;a string containing only a newline
    
    ;the next function which pushes rax to the stack
    ;moves the address of the line string and prints it with putstring
    ;then it pops the original value of rax back from the stack before the function returns
    ;this allows me to print a newline anywhere in the code without a single register changing
    
    putline:
    push rax
    mov rax,line
    call putstring
    pop rax
    ret
    
    ;a function for printing a single character that is the value of al
    
    char: db 0,0
    
    putchar:
    push rax
    mov [char],al
    mov rax,char
    call putstring
    pop rax
    ret
    
    ;a small function just for the common operation
    ;printing an integer followed by a space
    ;this saves a few bytes in the assembled code
    ;by reducing the number of function calls in the main program
    
    putint_and_space:
    call putint
    call putspace
    ret
    
    ;a small function just for the common operation
    ;printing an integer followed by a line feed
    ;this saves a few bytes in the assembled code
    ;by reducing the number of function calls in the main program
    
    putint_and_line:
    call putint
    call putline
    ret
    
    ;a small function just for the common operation
    ;printing a string followed by a line feed
    ;this saves a few bytes in the assembled code
    ;by reducing the number of function calls in the main program
    ;it also means we don't need to include a newline in every string!
    
    putstr_and_line:
    call putstring
    call putline
    ret
    
  • Everlasting Love Episode 32: LGBTQIA+ Part 3: Laws and Abominations

    • Define Abomination
    • Various Laws that were called Abominations
    • Are some sins worse than others
    • What is sin?
    • Picking out sin that are popular to criticize by heterosexual people, but ignoring others that were considered as abominations.
  • chastack prototype

    I have created a small prototype of a calculator in the C programming language. It is a stack based calculator similar to the forth programming language. It is written in C as a testing ground but uses methods designed to be translatable to Assembly language. It will be a featured program in chapter ten of my Linux Assembly book.

    main.c

    #include <stdio.h>
    #include <string.h>
    #include "chastelib.h"
    
    #define stack_length 0x10
    int stack[stack_length]; /*stack array of size stack_length*/
    
    /*
    variables named after registers
    
    esp is declared as a pointer because its only purpose in Assembly is managing the stack
    ebp is declared as a pointer to keep track of the original stack pointer address
    
    all other registers are used as normal integers
    */
    int eax,ebx,ecx,edx,esi,edi,*ebp,*esp;
    
    void push(i)
    {
     esp--;
     *esp=i;
    }
    
    int pop()
    {
     int i=*esp;
     *esp=0; /*set the value at [esp] to 0 to delete it*/
     esp++;
     return i;
    }
    
    
    int main(int argc, char **argv)
    {
     int x=1;
    
     /*set the radix used for integer display*/
     radix=10;
     int_width=1;
    
     /*set the stack pointer to where it should start*/
      esp=stack+stack_length;
      ebp=esp; /*backup address of esp to ebp*/
    
     /*
     Now the fun begins. Each argument is processed as a number or command
     */
    
     while(x!=argc)
     {
      /*
      putstr(argv[x]);
      putstr("\n");
      */
      
      /*first, we check for commands before we check for integers*/
      
      if(!strcmp(argv[x],"add"))
      {
       /*putstr("The add command adds using the top two numbers on the stack.\n");*/
       ebx=pop();
       eax=pop();
       eax+=ebx;
       push(eax);
      }
      
      else if(!strcmp(argv[x],"mul"))
      {
       /*putstr("The mul command multiplies using the top two numbers on the stack.\n");*/
       ebx=pop();
       eax=pop();
       eax*=ebx;
       push(eax);
      }
    
      else if(!strcmp(argv[x],"sub"))
      {
       /*putstr("The sub command subtracts using the top two numbers on the stack.\n");*/
       ebx=pop();
       eax=pop();
       eax-=ebx;
       push(eax);
      }
    
      else if(!strcmp(argv[x],"div"))
      {
       /*putstr("The div command divides using the top two numbers on the stack.\n");*/
       ebx=pop();
       eax=pop();
       eax/=ebx;
       push(eax);
      }
    
      else /*try to get a number and push it to the stack*/
      {
       
      eax=strint(argv[x]); /*get a number from the string*/
      if(strint_errors)
      {
       putstr("Last argument was not a number, but it could be a command!\n");
      }
      else
      {
       /*
       putstr("number returned by strint(argv[x]) is: ");
       putint(eax);
       putstr("\n");
       putstr("It will be pushed to the stack.");
       */
       push(eax);
      }
      
      }
      
      x++;
     }
     
     while(esp<ebp)
     {
      putint(*esp);
      putstr("\n");
      esp++;
     }
     
     return 0;
    }
    
  • SALUTE THE RAINBOW FLAG

    The most potent weapon against the lesbian and gay community has been the stereotypes that we have ourselves aided in creating. Our parades are videotaped, but only our campiest brethren are not edited out; our statements are recorded, but only the most extreme are heard; our disagreements are noted, but only the most politically correct are not filtered out. We find ourselves portrayed as an army of leather and feather clad politically correct hot-heads marching in lockstep (in heels??) to the beat of the same drummer.

    And yet, when any group raises its head, not to denounce our more eccentrically coffered siblings, but to disagree with the community’s self appointed coat-and-tie leadership, we are ostracized.

    It is not too much to say that there is a concerted effort within the gay and lesbian community to suppress the pro-life message. If you come forth as a pro-life gay man or lesbian, you are likely to be accused of sedition. To speak in defense of the unborn is to violate the last taboo of the gay community. The argument that sexual privacy rights necessarily are dependent on abortion rights is specious. In the 1973 the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was a constitutionally protected privacy right: In 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that consensual homosexual relations were not. Therefore, for lesbians and gays this specific constitutional theory of privacy rights is irrelevant.

    When was the last time that the Human Rights Campaign Fund or any local gay political action committees endorsed a pro-life candidate for office – even if that candidate was also pro gay? And what about a the routine diversion of funds raised by AIDS walks to abortion providers – and this in the name of compassion for people with with AIDS? Pro-life gays and to lesbians – even those who have lost loved ones AIDS – have actually found themselves excluded from AIDS walks because they objected to this practice. When any march or rally is proposed to seek redress of a grievance of the lesbian and gay community – anti-gay violence, for example – it must be joined in equal measure with a demand for reproductive freedom and abortion on demand. We are exhorted in our publications and e-mail to resist any restriction on abortion as if it intended to replace the daily execution of 4400 of the unborn with 4400 of our own.

    Of all Americans, those of us in the sexual minority community have the most reason to be concerned about protecting human life. After all, we know what it is to have our lives and rights trampled on, especially the basic human right just to keep on living. Homophobia has placed our right to life in danger every day: ask anyone who has been bashed or someone whose insurance will not cover lifesaving medical care. We fight back in every way that we can: we organize, we lobby, we vote. We claim the same basic rights heterosexuals take for granted.

    But lesbian and gay Americans are not the only ones whose rights are jeopardized. Everyday, the ugly face of prejudice shows itself when the rights of others are shortchanged because of gender, race, state of health, ethnicity, religion, politics, etc. The gay community has come to the realization that we cannot work for our own rights alone but must work to achieve basic human rights for all those who suffer discrimination.

    Why? Because our rights and the rights of others are the same human rights. As gay men and lesbian women, we stay that all human life deserves dignity and respect. No human life should be considered expendable and the basic right to live should be guaranteed without threat or harassment. That includes the unborn, a voiceless minority with no defense against the worst of all abuses: death. Some 4400 are wiped out every day. Why must we speak for unborn people? Simply because they are people. To be pro-life and pro-gay is to affirm that human rights are not discretionary.

    America’s abortion policy violates this basic concept of human rights. Just like homophobia, abortion denies people their status as members of human society. Just like homophobia, abortion tries to rid society of real human beings who are considered threatening or undesirable. Just like homophobia, abortion denies one’s place as a member of human society and even one’s right to be alive in it.

    No, not all lesbians and gays are “pro-choice” and it is far past the time when the stereotype imposed on us by some of the “leaders” of our community attempt to force upon us is removed. No survey suggests that members of the sexual minority community are any more pro-choice than the average American. While equal rights have not yet been won, we have grown into a community as diverse as the nation. Closet doors have been abandoned by the thousands. Invisibility and fear are fading into history. Gays and lesbians come from many different backgrounds and hold widely differing belief on many issues. We represent a diversity and pluralism of beliefs at which the rainbow flag only hints. To attempt to enforce a “party line” on all members of our community is to betray the very cause we are fighting for: The right to be different.

    For years, mainstream society has rightly been condemned for not letting lesbians and gays participate fully in the American dream. Now we, in turn, are not permitting our own to be fully active in gay society. We wave rainbow flags and envision multi-colored mosaics but somehow these colors fade away when gay pro-lifers attempt to join the parade. Gays and lesbians who tout ideological diversity prove themselves hypocrites when they ostracize gay pro-lifers.

    If the gay movement is to win the struggle against bigotry and intolerance in mainstream American society, it must first eliminate bigotry and intolerance within it own ranks. We must not do the work of homophobes for them by stereotyping ourselves and enforcing a blanket of political correctness. Even worse, they hinder our entire march of civil rights. When gays and lesbians stereotype themselves with a uniform of political correctness, we make it easy for anti-gay fanatics to smear all of us.

    The existence of the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL) shreds both the stereotype which the lesbian and gay community has of pro-lifers as well as the stereotype which the straight community has of lesbian and gay Americans. The voices of lesbian and gay pro-lifers are testimony that gays and lesbians are, indeed, everywhere.

    Twenty-five years ago others fought for our rights at Stonewall and we can best honor their memory by defending the rights of others today. Not only the rights of unborn Americans, but also the free speech rights of gay and lesbian Americans. After all, the fight at Stonewall was for our right to be different, not merely to replace the conformity demands of straight society with the conformity demands of certain elements of gay and lesbian society. The freedom of gays and lesbians – not the extermination of the unborn – must be the benchmark for gay liberation.

    Abortion proponents have targeted the LGBТ community with a position paper to the effect that our rights are dependent on the judicially created “right to privacy” which is the foundation upon which Roe v. Wade, and hence abortion, is based. The parallel analysis of changes in abortion rights with changes in gay rights shows how specious this argument is.

    Since the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, there has been a slow and consistent erosion of abortion-on-demand with the imposition of mandatory counseling, waiting periods, and parental notification. Prohibitions against the expenditure of federal funds as well as state funds have been found constitutional. International family agencies receiving U.S. aid have been prevented from counseling for abortion. Casey v. Planned Parenthood replaced Roe v. Wade as the law of the land on abortion; it replaced the “strict scrutiny” test of state anti-abortion laws with a much weaker “undue burden” test, with four of the nine justices calling for an outright reversal of Roe. Thirty-two states now require parental notification and 18 states require waiting periods and counseling as to risks and fetal development. Both houses of Congress have voted to ban “partial birth” abortions. And the number of abortions has been steadily declining for at least a decade.

    As abortion rights have been undergoing a consistent cutback, there has been a simultaneous expansion of gay rights. In 1961, all states and the District of Columbia had anti-sodomy laws. By the time of the infamous Bowers v Hardwick decision in 1976, fully 50% of the states had already decriminalized sodomy. Bowers held anti-sodomy laws constitutional and stated that the fact that homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home does not affect the result. Bowers was decided fully three years after Roe v. Wade, giving giving lie to the argument that the “right to privacy” had any application to the LGBT community: “Respondent would have us announce …a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy. the This we are quite unwilling to do.” This is the same court, which by a 7 to 2 holding, found a fundamental right in the abortion process.

    When Bowers was specifically overruled by Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, the 25 states that had outlawed sodomy in Bowers had been reduced to only 13, of which only 4 enforced their laws against homosexual conduct. In dissent, Justice Scalia noted that the LGBT community had had considerable success in promoting their agenda to decriminalize sodomy through democratic means. To be sure, there is plenty of language in Lawrence as to “privacy,” but it has little, if any, relevancy to the actual holding based on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

    Gay marriage (civil unions, domestic partnerships) is currently a hot public policy issue, but it is the very antithesis of a privacy right because it seeks state action for the approval and sanction of LGBT relationships. Because the marriage contract is a three-party contract (the state is the third party) there can be no meaningful talk of a “right to privacy.” The issue of marital equality is one which has just started, with a few states taking positive steps and The several states taking negative ones. The LGBT community need not fear the competition in the marketplace of ideas.

    Other than gay marriage (which does not concern the right to privacy) and sodomy (which has been won largely by the democratic process and not litigation) the Supreme Court’s only other gay decision, Romer v. Evans, is based on equal protection of the laws and not the right to privacy. Romer disallowed a Colorado constitutional amendment which would have denied gays the protection of anti-discrimination laws. The argument for the right to privacy (“get out of my bedroom") is an appealing one for the LGBT community but it has nothing to do with the advancement of gay rights since the movement began with the Stonewall Riots of 1964. The long fight to decriminalize gay sexual behavior was won state by state through the democratic process. The success was so absolute prior to the Lawrence decision that homosexual sodomy was outlawed in only 4 of the 50 states, and even in those states it was not enforced, leading Justice Thomas to call it an “uncommonly silly” law. The fight for marriage equality is a public policy issue outside any privacy concerns. Any other gay court decision has addressed equal protection of the laws, once again not sounding in any “right to privacy.”

    The position paper put forth by abortion advocates is a thinly veiled attempt to shore up rapidly fading support for abortion-on-demand. Gay Americans, much like their counterparts in straight America, have differing philosophical, religious, moral, ethical, and pragmatic attitudes toward abortion. This appeal to our self-interest will fail as will the attempt to divide and conquer. Abortion advocates have attempted to divide men from women, rich from poor, white from black, religious from secular but it appears all this hard work will come to naught. Abortion rights will fail because, unlike gay rights, they are not the result of a democratic process but rather a brand new “constitutional right” created by a court impatient with democratic change.


    Rainbow Pro-Life Alliance Historical Preservation Project

    Source of this Article: https://mads.si.edu/mads/id/NMAH-AC1146-B041-F025