How Laws Changed The River's Course: A History Of Uranian (Gay) In America [1770-1950] Mk.2

Untitled.png


They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself.”

The development of the Uranian, Urningin, and Dionigion(1) identity and how their acts came to be legal in the United States is a story that stretches almost two centuries, over continents, and the collision of factors that would seem unlikely intertwine. It is a story that starts with America’s founding fathers, the purchase of land from a man seeking to bring an entire continent under his control to a new nation, of a group that knows oppression and yet divided on one of greatest issues in America, and a question of what degree moral belief should be in government.

When America declared its independence from Britain, it was a society whom view on such acts were seen through the Judo-Christian worldview. Holding such acts at best a perversion and worst immoral as decreed by God himself, this the story about how that view slowly began to loose its grip. While one will still find Americans arguing that these people are sinners, few would accept this should dictate the law. As we go through the second half of this century, this is a tale one should take notice off.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) ALT Words homosexual men, woman, and bisexuals respectively.

Also I thank G. Washington_Fuckyeah for giving the other two POD's that I mixed in with my original.
 
Cabinet Room, Monticello, Virginia, 1776.

Jefferson looked down at the sixty page manuscript essay on his desk, perhaps wondering if he had misjudged the man whom written it. “How can he argue this?” He asked himself for what must have been the fourth time, the afternoon sunlight blighting the room in its glow and warmth. He, whom had written the colonies declaration to Britain without a doubt of its righteousness, was now in debate with himself for a matter he didn’t feel would ever arise.

Standing and moving to the window that looked out the fields, Jefferson mind wandered to one of the many philosophy treaties he studied over the years. Cesare Beccaria was the name of its author, and Jefferson had been deeply intrigued on the man’s reasoning on punishment-and found himself agreeing with the French, except for treason and murder. Those two crimes, who by their very nature were against the Commonwealth, were worthy of death.

Mr. Bentham…there is mercy, but to accept the immoral?” Bentham called it ‘irregularities of the venereal appetite’, but irregularities were not neutral or in some cases far from natural. Also, while he doubted Jesus supernatural claims, his moral claims still should be followed by all. Still, Jefferson admired that the man allowed reason to inform his being. Recalling how the two had started writing, Jefferson lips twitched. The man would not accept that people had unalienable rights, even after Jefferson had explained his misjudgement on the colonies declaration.

Walking back over the desk, Jefferson looked at the first page. “I cannot agree with his morality…but I cannot deny his argument-not without turning against my own.” Growing up in Virginia had provided many examples of laws and government that seem too tied to the church and its clergy. He hated how if one didn't follow the Anglicans they could not hold office, even if the man ability was one of the greats. “Castration is not death...” Jefferson had considered that to be merciful for the sinful act, but now the Jefferson was wondering if the thought was truly merciful. Sodomy was harmful…but Bentham had pointed out how that was not in the physical realm, perhaps more than Jefferson wanted to consider.

Moving to grab some blank papers, he began writing a letter to his close college

Montpelier, Virginia, 1776

Madison read looked over the letter Jefferson had sent him in one hand and the essay in the other. The letter had come as a surprise to Madison, but not welcomed-perhaps Jefferson wished to talk about the bill they hoped to introduce. The contents of the letter however had surprised him.

Madison knew that his friend had been writing to the French philosopher that was also an admirer of Beccaria. Both agreed that spiritual belief and state need to remain in their own spheres, least the good of both be sliced away by the evil of the other. Madison also knew that the man had many time questioned the punishment of death for a number of crimes in English law-including English law on sodomy. Jefferson told him some time ago he favoured castration.

Having read the Frenchman’s essay, Madison saw why the man wrote him. Bentham argument was rational and embodied the separation of church and state they both wanted. If anything, this essay only help to reaffirm that whatever one’s morals government must not base law on them.

Madison sought over what to say for about an hour before he finally found wrote his reply. The only reply he could really give, if he was to truly follow through with his principles.

Jefferson,

What can I say about what punishment is truly justice? By my own convictions, this new nation should take actions based on rational thought. Bentham essay argues comes from this well that we have so greatly embraced as our foundation. If forced to be judged by that standard, then Bentham would be found innocent by his peers. If you feel that castration is what must be done, then follow it as you conscious feels. For myself, imprisonment for one life is preferable to the certain death as set out by our former rulers.

Madison
.


Folding up the letter, Madison hopped that he would find it some help.

Monticello, Virginia, 1778

Reading over Madison letter, Jefferson was not deeply surprised by the contents. For the past week he’d thought over the matter, between his principles and the teaching he still accepted as having virtue.

Follow it as you conscious feels…

He would not accept its morality, but he could accept the punishment of life imprisonment.

Excerpt From Virginia and Uranians

Considered one of the four founding stones of Uranian legal acceptance in America, for most of the seventeenth century didn't possess a law against sodomy. This changed when Thomas Jefferson was given the task of studying and revising the state laws. As already been noted, Jefferson had already come to see English sentence of death to harsh and abandoned castration of Uranians and Urningin by 1777. Of the over hundred bills Jefferson proposed included one on reforming various crimes and their punishments-including the issue of sodomy in the state. Known simply as Bill-64, officially named “A Bill For Proportioning Crimes and Punishment in Cases Heretofore Capital,” those found guilty would be imprisoned for life.

When the bill came before the legislature, it encountered fierce debate and little enthusiasm, in particular the punishment for horse thievery and rape. When it was finally voted upon, it was passed by just one vote (1)-the liberal punishment seemingly drawing few criticisms from the house. While this removed death, sodomy was now officially illegal and punishable by the state outside religious and moral doctrine-and would provide an outline for other states to follow.

(1): OTL, the bill failed to pass by just one vote and it seemed the punishment of horse stealing is what made it fail.
 
just maybe . . . the uncle of someone who's gay visits Jefferson.

And this uncle says, No, I'm not going to tell you who my nephew is, but he is a good young man and he doesn't deserve this. The social opprobrium is more than enough punishment, in many cases merely because he's different. And a lot of rejection for just being a little bit different.

It should be whether a sexual act is done in public or not, that should be the standard.
 
And this uncle says, No, I'm not going to tell you who my nephew is, but he is a good young man and he doesn't deserve this. The social opprobrium is more than enough punishment, in many cases merely because he's different. And a lot of rejection for just being a little bit different.

Then again, Jefferson could claim that sodomy is a choice (and not a "sexual orientation", this term doesn't exist in these times), and since it is a choice, one can be prosecuted for it.
 
I concur it does seem more likely. In fact, I think the theory of cognitive dissonance is that when presented with new and potentially conflicting information, people tend to make among the smaller changes in their existing views, especially regarding beliefs more deeply held and felt as more important.
 
So, what might have made a difference?

Maybe if Bentham had continued with his plan to talk about the ancient Greeks and to point out that there seems to be a number of successful military men who engaged in Uranian activity. And also that such activity did not seem to seriously dent the population growth of the society (the other big criticism).

Maybe if other people had talked about anthropological examples from other societies.

I still think if friends and family members speak up for Uranian, Urningin, and Dionigion persons with matter-of-fact confidence that will make a big difference.

And in Bentham's unpublished essay, he pointed out that a lot of discussion of homosexuality commingled consensual activity with use of force. And once this is pointed out, once a good enough legal reformer like Bentham (which he clearly was) uses clear enough and also acceptably polite enough language to get past all the vagueness. I mean, once he asks, Hey, if we object to violence and going against someone's will, why don't we say so? But this is not an argument against consensual Uranian and Urningin behavior. And at this point, it's hard for Jefferson, Madison or for any other person who puts a lot of stock in reason, to not take this at least somewhat seriously.
 
Last edited:
Next update, enjoy!

Three.png



When examining the start of Uranian acceptance in America one is quick to notice how it seems to almost parallel the revolution itself, critically tied to a number of the founders and the political philosophy they used. It is for this reason that the period from 1780-1800 is known as the foundation years in the Uranian community, a reference to the two pillars formed around this time.

As already noted, the late 1770’s saw Jefferson begin a correspondence with Bentham after the former had delivered a harsh criticism of the declaration. Advocating major social and legal reform, Bentham published two essays on Uranian sexuality with the help of Cesar Beccaria, whom was a great influence on Bentham (1). Attacking the legal arguments of the day and examine Uranians in classical Greece, these essays were distributed throughout the colonies. As the founder of utilitarianism and someone whom believed that societies laws be created around rational thinking, Bentham believed that law should not govern public and private life at the same time. Steeped in rational thinking and himself an advocate of the separation between church and state, fathers like Jefferson and Madison would be particularly impacted.

Bentham work was received with mixed views in the colonies. While most of the colonist held that the act was immoral, Bentham argument for lighter sentences appealed to some-particularly in the north. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania were perhaps the greatest states influenced. However the fruit of this would not be seen until after America’s independence almost a decade later.

When the British recognised America’s independence in 1783, the thirteen colonies were now fully free to make their own laws. Virginia had already turned sodomy to life imprisonment, the father had seen it as a compromise between his moral beliefs and proportional punishment. Jefferson bill was soon followed by similar modifications in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. New York and Jersey followed Virginia with the sentence of life imprisonment, but New York added hard labour as part of the sentence in the 1790’s. When Pennsylvania modified its law in 1783, those convicted were forced to forfeit of their estate. These laws also helped to fuel the Uranian and Urningin community development as men and woman moved to one of the states, especially from the southern states. In particular, New York and New Jersey became popular destinations for many-and help them to play an importance in the latter half of the century.

While Bentham given Jefferson a moral pause, its greatest legal influence was on James Madison. Having already witnessed the result of intermixed state and church and fearful of the tyranny of the majority, Madison once again debated on the issue of privacy-especially for laws based on the groups moral. In Madison philosophy, a person had a right to property and privacy in their own dwelling. If how the person conducted themselves was no harm to the public despite whatever moral failings, which Bentham made a compelling case, was that worthy of violating those principles.

In the end Madison accepted that Uranian acts were immoral and that the state may see a law necessary, only a violation in the public sphere didn’t break the principle of privacy. When the Philadelphia Convention was called in the summer of 1787, Madison was believed that a firm separation between the public and private sphere was even more important. When a constitution was agreed upon and the new government came into force on March 4, Madison had started consider a Bill of Right may become necessary. When fears of a second constitutional conviction became a possibility, he began crafting the Bill of Rights.

For Madison, this new belief was incorporated into the first article:

“Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed. Nore shall Congress impose the law of morality of the public sphere into the people’s place of living insofar as it does not threaten the state.”

Twelve articles, including the first, were approved by congress and submitted to the legislator on September 1789 for consideration-and were ratified December 15, 1791. Only ten of the twelve were adopted into the constitution, but on 1792 article three become the first amendment of the United States Constitution. It is for these reasons that Jefferson and Madison are considered some of the first Uranian rights advocates, albeit indirectly.

(1) With confidence from sending the essay, Bentham contacts beccaria to see if he's willing to help publish his essays.
 
Oh mein gott. That passage in the Bill of Rights would send a precedent to not just the Uranian community, but all forms of moral and ethics issues in the private home.
 
Damn, this is really interesting! A few questions, since my knowledge of the LGBT community doesn't go back to the 18th century (actually, the general knowledge of the community's history is far weaker than it should be, unfortunately).

1) possibly this has been explained, but where does the term Uranian derive from?

2) Although I could definitely see New York drawing the Uranian community, I'm unsure if the laws would be harsher in the South than the North. After all, prior to the Civil War, the South was actually viewed was one of the more irreligious segments of the nation (which is hard to wrap the mind around, considering that this is certainly not the case now) and the North, in particular, New England was the opposite. Connecticut, for instance, didn't finally remove the preferential treatment of the Congregationalist Church from its constitution until it drafted the Constitution of 1816(I think that date is right?). It seems to me that there would be substantial anti-Uranian sentiment in some parts of the North, and that the South might be more open, at least for the time being. Does this benefit from the Uranians not being particularly out in the open and so it isn't considered a hot-button issue during this era?

Actually: random thought. Seeing as how I doubt that Catholic Church will be more accepting of LGBT peoples in this TL, during this era, than they were in OTL; is there any possible way for Homophobia to become associated with the Catholic immigrant populations that are going to be arriving soon? If so, you might have a possibility of some Protestant ministers moderating their stance in order to use it as a cudgel to attack Catholics with. This could have some interesting ramifications on the Know-Nothing Party and other groups in the future, to say the least.

Anyway; great job so far, this is fascinating. Please excuse my ignorance on any of the above questions! :)
 
Damn, this is really interesting! A few questions, since my knowledge of the LGBT community doesn't go back to the 18th century (actually, the general knowledge of the community's history is far weaker than it should be, unfortunately).

1) possibly this has been explained, but where does the term Uranian derive from?

2) Although I could definitely see New York drawing the Uranian community, I'm unsure if the laws would be harsher in the South than the North. After all, prior to the Civil War, the South was actually viewed was one of the more irreligious segments of the nation (which is hard to wrap the mind around, considering that this is certainly not the case now) and the North, in particular, New England was the opposite. Connecticut, for instance, didn't finally remove the preferential treatment of the Congregationalist Church from its constitution until it drafted the Constitution of 1816(I think that date is right?). It seems to me that there would be substantial anti-Uranian sentiment in some parts of the North, and that the South might be more open, at least for the time being. Does this benefit from the Uranians not being particularly out in the open and so it isn't considered a hot-button issue during this era?

Actually: random thought. Seeing as how I doubt that Catholic Church will be more accepting of LGBT peoples in this TL, during this era, than they were in OTL; is there any possible way for Homophobia to become associated with the Catholic immigrant populations that are going to be arriving soon? If so, you might have a possibility of some Protestant ministers moderating their stance in order to use it as a cudgel to attack Catholics with. This could have some interesting ramifications on the Know-Nothing Party and other groups in the future, to say the least.

Anyway; great job so far, this is fascinating. Please excuse my ignorance on any of the above questions! :)

I think the "Uranian" part was explained in his vanilla timeline. And the word "homophobia" would probably not exist given this is a pre-20th century POD. I'm assuming "antiuranianism" would be this timeline's equivalence of of "homophobia." The word "LGBT" would definitely not exist also.
 
I think the "Uranian" part was explained in his vanilla timeline. And the word "homophobia" would probably not exist given this is a pre-20th century POD. I'm assuming "antiuranianism" would be this timeline's equivalence of of "homophobia." The word "LGBT" would definitely not exist also.

Good to know about 'Uranian', as I missed the reference initially in the first thread. As to Homophobia and LGBT, I certainly wouldn't see them developing in the ATL as language can often times be as unpredictable as weather. However, as writing from this TTL, they are still the terms I am most trained in using ot discuss the concepts :)
 
Actually: random thought. Seeing as how I doubt that Catholic Church will be more accepting of LGBT peoples in this TL, during this era, than they were in OTL; is there any possible way for Homophobia to become associated with the Catholic immigrant populations that are going to be arriving soon? If so, you might have a possibility of some Protestant ministers moderating their stance in order to use it as a cudgel to attack Catholics with. This could have some interesting ramifications on the Know-Nothing Party and other groups in the future, to say the least.

The Catholic Church will be facing some image problems from Europe immigrants, however remember most people still put great faith in religion. So don't expect any 'it's not a sin or choice' thoughts for a bit from even sects looking to take a stab at the church. Still, we will see an earlier acceptance of of homosexuals/Uranian people

As for if they benefit for the time being from not being open, I'd say it's more the gay 'culture' didn't have a clear identity-my reading seems to be more a sense a person either felt inclined or had gay lovers/feelings, but more identifying in relation to either the sexes/religion.

Oh, and yes this first two parts are written like a history book. So like we use the term homosexual for same-sex relationships in history even if the people of the period did not have the word, so to does Uranian what was coined as the broad term for this subgroup.
 
Ok, this is not an update but a notice that I'm going deciding to change idea to an ASB-so this thread at the moment is from further notice inactive. I know this will be the second thread I've 'stopped' on this, but I'm finding it hard to write a believable timeline with a non ASB POD. I hope you all interested will follow on the ASB form, which should be up in a couple of weeks-a will have throurow background/timeline doc made. I thank you all that have enjoyed these two post and sorry if this feels like I wasted your time.
 
Top