Per Scientiam ad Justitiam ? The Mythical Role of Emancipatory Science in the Decriminalisation of Same-sex Sexual Conduct through Constitutional Litigation

ABSTRACTThis article examines the role that emancipatory science on the innateness and aetiology of sexual orientation has played in the legal advancement of gay rights by analysing recent constitutional decisions on laws criminalising same-sex sexual conduct, in light of the global proliferation of such litigation. Standing at the intersection of comparative constitutional law and science and technology studies, it analyses how judgments on the criminalisation of same-sex sexual conduct across six jurisdictions, namely Belize, Trinidad and Tobago, Botswana, India, Kenya and Singapore, between 2016 and 2020, have dealt with arguments based on emancipatory science. Building on existing scholarship on the role of emancipatory science in the pursuit of queer justice, this article shows how such science has played a mythical role in judicial decisions on the constitutionality of same-sex sexual conduct. In addition to its empirical and theoretical contributions, this article cautions gay right activists and lawyers to carefully consider whether and why they intend to introduce the science of sexual orientation in constitutional litigation over laws criminalising same-sex sexual conduct. AcknowledgementsThe author is grateful to Professor Holly Doremus, whose class on science and regulatory policy an earlier version of this paper was written for, the two anonymous reviewers for their feedback and guidance, and the journal’s editorial team. All errors remain the author’s own.Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Indian Penal Code 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), s 377.2 Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India [2018] 10 S.C.C. 1 [143] (Plurality Opinion of the Chief Justice).3 EG & 7 others v Attorney General; DKM & 9 others (Interested Parties); Katiba Institute & another (Amicus Curiae) (High Court, 2019) [393].4 Kenyan Penal Code 1948 (Cap. 63), ss 162 and 165.5 Welcome to Truth Wins Out’s LGBT Science Project (Directed by Truth Wins Out, 2013) accessed 14 December 2021.6 ibid.7 Henry L Minton, Departing from Deviance: A History of Homosexual Rights and Emancipatory Science in America (University of Chicago Press 2001) 3.8 ibid 2.9 James Steakley, ‘Per Scientiam Ad Justitiam: Magnus Hirschfeld and the Sexual Politics of Innate Homosexuality’ in Vernon A Rosario (ed), Science and Homosexualities (Psychology Press 1997).10 Janet E Halley, ‘Sexual Orientation and the Politics of Biology: A Critique of the Argument from Immutability’ (1993) 46 Stanford Law Review 503; Edward Stein, ‘Sexual Orientations, Rights, and the Body: Immutability, Essentialism, and Nativism’ (2011) 78 Social Research: An International Quarterly 633.11 Dudgeon v UK (1981) Series A no 14, (1981) 4 EHRR 149.12 For a general account of the rise in constitutional litigation against the criminalisation of same-sex sexual conduct, see, Achim Hildebrandt, ‘Routes to Decriminalization: A Comparative Analysis of the Legalization of Same-Sex Sexual Acts’ (2014) 17 Sexualities 230; Angioletta Sperti, Constitutional Courts, Gay Rights and Sexual Orientation Equality (Hart Publishing 2017).13 Udi Sommer and others, ‘Institutional Paths to Policy Change: Judicial Versus Nonjudicial Repeal of Sodomy Laws: Institutional Paths to Policy Change’ (2013) 47 Law & Society Review 409.14 See for example, David L Faigman, ‘“Normative Constitutional Fact-Finding”: Exploring the Empirical Component of Constitutional Interpretation’ (1991) 139 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 541; Dean M Hashimoto, ‘Science as Mythology in Constitutional Law’ (1997) 76 Oregon Law Review 111; Shawn Kolitch, ‘Constitutional Fact Finding and the Appropriate Use of Empirical Data in Constitutional Law Comment’ (2006) 10 Lewis & Clark Law Review 673; Angelo N Ancheta, Scientific Evidence and Equal Protection of the Law (Rutgers University Press 2006); TK Naveen, ‘Use of “Social Science Evidence” in Constitutional Courts: Concerns for Judicial Process in India’ (2006) 48 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 78; Jula Hughes and Vanessa MacDonnell, ‘Social Science Evidence in Constitutional Rights Cases in Germany and Canada: Some Comparative Observations’ (2013) 32 National Journal of Constitutional Law 23; Melissa Hamilton, ‘Constitutional Law and the Role of Scientific Evidence: The Transformative Potential of DOE v. Snyder’ (2017) 58 Boston College Law Review E. Supp. 34; Ari Ezra Waldman, ‘Manufacturing Uncertainty in Constitutional Law’ (2022) 91 Fordham Law Review 2249.15 Russell K Robinson and David M Frost, ‘“Playing It Safe” with Empirical Evidence: Selective Use of Social Science in Supreme Court Cases About Racial Justice and Marriage Equality’ (2018) 112 Northwestern University Law Review 1565.16 Hashimoto (n 14) 116.17 Laurence H Tribe, ‘Seven Deadly Sins of Straining the Constitution Through a Pseudo- Scientific Sieve’ (1984) 36 The Hastings Law Journal 155, 170.18 Since July 2023, there have been several other cases where the courts in Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, St Kitts and Nevis, and the Cook Islands have struck down laws criminalising same-sex sexual conduct. There are also several pending cases before the courts in Mauritius, Dominica, Saint Lucia and Grenada. For completeness, in February 2021, the Federal Court of Malaysia held in case no. BKA-3-11/2019(W) brought by an anonymous petitioner against the government and religious authorities of the state of Selangor that the state could not criminalise the same acts (ie, male same-sex sexual conduct) which have already been criminalised under federal criminal law. However, this case falls outside the scope of this Article as the issue in dispute concerned federalism, not the constitutionality of criminalising such acts.19 Caleb Orozco et al v The Attorney-General of Belize, 90 WIR 161 (Supreme Court of Belize, 10 August 2016).20 In re an application for constitutional redress under S. 14 of the Constitution Between Jones, Jason v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [defendant]; The Equal Opportunity Commission, H.C.720/2017. CV.2017-00720 (Supreme Court of Trinidad and Tobago, 4 April 2018).21 Navtej Singh Johar (n 2).22 EG v AG (n 3).23 Letsweletse Motshidiemang v Attorney General; LEGABIBO (Amicus Curiae) MAHGB- 000591-16. (High Court. 2019). The Botswana government unsuccessfully appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal: see Attorney General v. Letsweletse Motshidiemang; LEGABIBO (Amicus Curiae) CACGB-157-19 (Court of Appeal. 2021).24 Ong Ming Johnson and others v Attorney-General [2020] SGHC 63 affirmed in Tan Seng Kee and others v Attorney-General [2022] 1 SLR 1347; [2022] SGCA 16.25 Enze Han and Joseph O’Mahoney, ‘British Colonialism and the Criminalization of Homosexuality’ (2014) 27 Cambridge Review of International Affairs 268.26 See generally, Charles Parkinson, Bills of Rights and Decolonization: The Emergence of Domestic Human Rights Instruments in Britain’s Overseas Territories (Oxford University Press 2007).27 See for example, Halley (n 10); Simon LeVay, Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research Into Homosexuality (The MIT Press 1996); J Michael Bailey and others, ‘Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science’ (2016) 17 Psychological Science in the Public Interest 45; Joanna Wuest, ‘From Pathology to “Born Perfect”: Science, Law, and Citizenship in American LGBTQ+ Advocacy’ [2020] Perspectives on Politics 1.28 Singapore Penal Code 1871.29 Lucas Ramon Mendos, ‘State-Sponsored Homophobia: Global Legislation Overview Update’ (International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association 2020) 31 .30 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, 19 April 2017, A/HRC/35/36 [32].31 Report of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, Vitit Muntarbhorn, A/72/172 (2017) 35. See also Dan M Kahan, ‘The Secret Ambition of Deterrence’ (1999) 113 Harvard Law Review 413, 421.32 Han and O’Mahoney (n 25).33 ibid.34 Victor Asal and Udi Sommer, Legal Path Dependence and the Long Arm of the Religious State: Sodomy Provisions and Gay Rights across Nations and over Time (State University of New York Press 2016) 58.35 Michael Kirby, ‘The Sodomy Offence: England’s Least Lovely Criminal Law Export?’ in Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites (eds), Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in The Commonwealth (University of London Press 2013) 65.36 Singapore repealed its equivalent of section 377 in its Penal Code in 2007 but rejected calls to repeal section 377A. See Douglas E Sanders, ‘377 and the Unnatural Afterlife of British Colonialism in Asia’ (2009) 4 Asian Journal of Comparative Law 42–46.37 Alok Gupta and Human Rights Watch, ‘This Alien Legacy: The Origins of “Sodomy” Laws in British Colonialism’ in Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites (eds), Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in The Commonwealth (University of London Press 2013) 98.38 See for example, Jun Yan Chua, ‘The Strange Career of Gross Indecency: Race, Sex, and Law in Colonial Singapore’ (2020) 38 Law and History Review 699.39 Gupta and Human Rights Watch (n 37).40 ibid 94.41 Kirby (n 35) 65.42 Bailey and others (n 27) 47.43 See for example, Jane Ward, Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men (NYU Press 2015).44 Bailey and others (n 27) 63.45 ibid 62.46 Wuest (n 27).47 ibid.48 Stein, ‘Sexual Orientations, Rights, and the Body’ (n 10).49 According to Halley, the claim that sexual orientation is immutable is based on the notion that ‘whatever it is that constitutes the essence of homosexual identity cannot be lost or removed from a person once it exists, whether that occurs at conception, before birth, in infancy, at a wild high school party, or in an agony of early adult self-re-creation’. However, there is little clarity in either public discourse or scientific scholarship over what constitutes the ‘essence of homosexual identity’. Halley (n 10) 549.50 While the idea of ‘innateness’ may extend beyond the biological and refer to a more sociocultural or identity-based conception of innateness, this Article’s reference to innateness is strictly in relation to the notion that sexual orientation is inborn, ie biologically or genetically determined.51 Robert L Spitzer, ‘Spitzer Reassesses His 2003 Study of Reparative Therapy of Homosexuality’ (2012) 41 Archives of Sexual Behavior 757; Robert L Spitzer, ‘Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation’ (2003) 32 Archives of Sexual Behavior 403.52 Simon LeVay, Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2017) 90.53 Bailey and others (n 27) 77.54 Lisa M Diamond and Clifford J Rosky, ‘Scrutinizing Immutability: Research on Sexual Orientation and U.S. Legal Advocacy for Sexual Minorities’ (2016) 53 The Journal of Sex Research 363; Bailey and others (n 27).55 Edward Stein, The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation (Ideologies of Desire) (Oxford University Press 1999) 328.56 Alvin M Weinberg, ‘Science and Trans-Science’ (1972) 10 Minerva 209. ibid.57 Halley (n 10).58 Stein, ‘Sexual Orientations, Rights, and the Body’ (n 10) 654.59 Jennifer Terry, ‘The Seductive Power of Science in the Making of Deviant Subjectivity’ in Vernon A Rosario (ed), Science and Homosexualities (Routledge 1997) 271.60 Jennifer Terry, An American Obsession: Science, Medicine, and Homosexuality in Modern Society (University of Chicago Press 1999) 40–41.61 Terry ‘The Seductive Power of Science’ (n 59) 278.62 Terry, An American Obsession (n 60) 360–61.63 ibid.64 Edward Stein (ed), Forms of Desire: Sexual Orientation and the Social Constructionist Controversy (Routledge 1992) 5.65 Stein, Forms of Desire (n 64).66 LeVay (n 27) 251.67 Wuest (n 27) 839; Cyril Ghosh, ‘Marriage Equality and the Injunction to Assimilate: Romantic Love, Children, Monogamy, and Parenting in Obergefell v. Hodges’ (2018) 50 Polity 275, 283.68 Bailey and others (n 27) 87.69 American Psychiatric Association Commission on Psychotherapy by Psychiatrists., ‘Position Statement on Therapies Focused on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation (Reparative or Conversion Therapies)’ (2000) 157 The American Journal of Psychiatry 1719; American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, ‘Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation’ (American Psychological Association 2009) accessed 20 November 2021; Pan-American Health Organization, ‘Position Statement “Cures” for an Illness That Does Not Exist’ (2012) accessed 20 November 2021.70 Timothy F Murphy, Gay Science: The Ethics of Sexual Orientation Research (Columbia University Press 2001) 184.71 Sheila Jasanoff, ‘Just Evidence: The Limits of Science in the Legal Process’ (2006) 34 Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 328, 329.72 Angelo N Ancheta, ‘Science and Constitutional Fact Finding in Equal Protection Analysis Symposium: The School Desegregation Cases and the Uncertain Future of Racial Equality’ (2008) 69 Ohio State Law Journal 1115.73 Faigman (n 14).74 Tribe (n 17) 170.75 Hashimoto (n 14) 151.76 Wendy E Wagner, ‘The Science Charade in Toxic Risk Regulation’ 95 Columbia Law Review 1613.77 ibid 1617.78 Hashimoto (n 14) 152.79 39 U.S. 558 (2003). One of the two questions presented before the court was whether the Texas statute that criminalises same-sex sexual conduct violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Immutability is one of the factors under the suspect classification doctrine in Equal Protection jurisprudence, where heightened scrutiny is warranted if the law treats a group differently on the basis of an immutable characteristic such as race, national origin or gender. See Frontiero v Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 684 -686 (1973). However, some scholars have also argued that immutability is not a necessary element in an equal protection claim: see Halley (n 10); Shannon Gilreath, ‘Of Fruit Flies and Men: Rethinking Immutability in Equal Protection Analysis – With a View toward a Constitutional Moral Imperative’ (2006) 9 Journal of Law and Social Change 1, 13–15.80 ‘The State cannot evade equal protection review by attempting to recast this law as a ‘neutral’ conduct regulation, because the law expressly treats identical conduct differently depending on who is engaging in it. There is no permissible justification for that classification, even under the most deferential equal protection review’. See Petitioner’s Merit Reply at 11.81 Gilreath (n 79) 12.82 Obergefell v Hodges 576 U.S. 644 (2015).83 ibid 4 and 8.84 Diamond and Rosky (n 54) 364.85 Robinson and Frost (n 15) 1590.86 ibid.87 Constitution of Belize 1981, Chapter 4, ss 3, 6, 12 and 14.88 Criminal Code of Belize 1981, Chapter 101, s 53.89 Caleb Orozco (n 19) [37].90 ibid [36].91 ibid [76].92 ibid [81].93 ibid [71].94 ibid [72] – [73].95 ibid [99].96 Attorney General v Caleb Orozco and others [2019] CA Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2016.97 Sexual Offences Act 1986, Chapter 11:28, ss 13 and 16.98 Jason Jones (n 20) [81] and [83].99 ibid [164]. See Toonen v Australia, Communication No. 488/1992, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992 (1994).100 ibid [91].101 ibid.102 ibid.103 Naz Foundation v Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009) 111 D.R.J., 1.104 [2014] 1 S.C.C. 1.105 ibid.106 The Constitution of India 1950.107 Navtej (n 2) at para 4 (Plurality Opinion of the Chief Justice).108 ibid [9].109 ibid.110 ibid [231].111 ibid [143] – [144].112 ibid [145] – [146].113 ibid [143].114 ibid [253(vii)].115 Gautam Bhatia, ‘Case Comment: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India: The Indian Supreme Court’s Decriminalization of Same-Sex Relations’ (2019) 22 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online 218.116 Navtej (n 2) [229] (Plurality Opinion of the Chief Justice).117 ibid [237].118 ibid [240].119 ibid [13.1] (Concurring Opinion of Malhotra J).120 ibid [13.1] and [13.2].121 ibid [14.5].122 ibid [14.3].123 Letsweletse (HC) (n 23).124 Gosego Rockfall Lekgowe, ‘A New Dawn for Gay Rights in Botswana: A Commentary on the Decision of the High Court and Court of Appeal in the Motshidiemang Cases’ [2023] Journal of African Law 1.125 Letsweletse (HC) (n 23) [140].126 ibid [143].127 ibid [144].128 ibid [141] and [142].129 ibid [169].130 ibid [190].131 ibid [33].132 ibid [34].133 Letsweletse (CA) (n 23).134 ibid [25] – [26]. The constitutionality of section 167 of the Botswana Penal Code was instead put into issue by LEGABIBO in its capacity as amicus curiae rather than as a party in the proceedings. Consequently, the Court of Appeal accepted that since section 167 was not properly before the High Court, it could not make an order to excise the word ‘private’ from the provision until the matter is raised properly before the court in a future case.135 The Constitution of Kenya 2010, ss 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 43 and 50.136 EG v Attorney-General (n 3) [395].137 ibid [394]138 ibid [326].139 ibid [28].140 ibid [31].141 ibid.142 ibid [29].143 ibid [39].144 ibid [42] – [44].145 ibid [48].146 ibid [77].147 ibid.148 ibid [84].149 ibid [86].150 ibid [89].151 ibid [90].152 ibid [88].153 ibid [89].154 ibid [394].155 ibid.156 ibid [396].157 Lim Meng Suang and others v Attorney-General [2015] 1 SLR 26; [2014] SGCA 53.158 Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General [2013] 4 SLR 1059; [2013] SGHC 199 [22(d)].159 Ong Ming Johnson (n 24) [266].160 Bailey and others (n 27).161 Ong Ming Johnson (n 24) [273].162 ibid [274].163 Bailey and others (n 27) 87.164 Ong Ming Johnson (n 24) [276].165 ibid [279].166 ibid [277].167 Tan Seng Kee (n 24) [156].168 ibid.169 ibid [160].170 Kanane v The State 2003 (2) BLR 67 (CA).171 Suresh Kumar Koushal (n 104).172 Hashimoto (n 14) 150.173 Waldman (n 14) 2253.174 ibid 2290.175 Hashimoto (n 14) 150.176 Wagner (n 76) 1617.177 Gregory B Lewis, ‘Does Believing Homosexuality Is Innate Increase Support for Gay Rights?’ (2009) 37 Policy Studies Journal 669.178 Tan Seng Kee (n 24) [159].179 ibid [156].180 ibid [157] citing Mohammad Faizal bin Sabtu v Public Prosecutor [2012] 4 SLR 947 [27].181 ibid [157].182 Richard A Posner, ‘Against Constitutional Theory’ (1998) 73 New York University Law Review 3.183 Ancheta, Scientific Evidence and Equal Protection (n 14) 160.184 cf Gary Mucciaroni and Mary Lou Killian, ‘Immutability, Science and Legislative Debate over Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Rights’ (2004) 47 Journal of Homosexuality 53.185 Lewis (n 177); Donald P Haider-Markel and Mark R Joslyn, ‘Beliefs about the Origins of Homosexuality and Support for Gay Rights: An Empirical Test of Attribution Theory’ (2008) 72 The Public Opinion Quarterly 291.186 Caleb Orozco (n 19) [71] – [73].187 See generally, Henry E Brady, ‘Causation and Explanation in Social Science’ in Robert E Goodin (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Political Science (Oxford University Press 2011). Henry E Brady, ‘Causation and Explanation in Social Science’ in Robert E Goodin (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Political Science (Oxford University Press, 2011).188 Robinson and Frost (n 15) 1568.Additional informationNotes on contributorsDaryl W. J. YangDaryl WJ Yang is a Singapore-qualified lawyer and independent researcher. He obtained an LLM (Dean's List) from Berkeley Law School as a Fulbright scholar after graduating with an LLB (First Class Honours) and a BA (Magna cum laude) from the National University of Singapore's Faculty of Law and Yale-NUS College. His research interests include queer and disability legal studies, comparative constitutional and equality law and criminal justice.