... The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species15. In other words the homosexual became, in the nineteenth century, a category, a class; in the same way that race is a category or class. Whether one is homosexual or heterosexual or otherwise is, in contemporary society, regarded as an essential feature of one’s identity. People are defined, and define themselves according to their sexuality in the same way one may be defined or define oneself as black or white. Whether one regards a homosexual orientation as a matter of “nature” or “”nurture” is not relevant to this point. The point is: sexuality, whether existing by virtue of biology or nurture, has been constructed as a defining aspect of identity. Sexual orientation is more than sexual conduct. For the purposes of human rights law: Sexual orientation denotes real or imputed acts, preferences, lifestyles, or identities, of a sexual or affective nature, in so far as these conform to or derogate from a dominant normative-heterosexual paradigm16. The law has generally been more concerned with same-sex conduct. But it is important to note that sexual orientation is broader than this. As Edwin Cameron observes: The law has been less concerned with homosexual identity than with homosexual conduct. But social discrimination at large occurs principally on the basis of what people perceive as categories of sexual orientation. In other words, men and women are discriminated against not only because they perform sexual acts with others of their own gender, or because they accept for themselves the labels gay or lesbian, but because they are perceived as likely or disposed to perform homosexual acts – even if they never do17. The discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation thus targets who a person is, or is perceived to be, not what that person does. Legitimate Government Purpose? Having considered the concept of sexual orientation, the question arises as to whether sexual orientation may be excluded from the requirements of equality demanded by international law. In considering this point it is necessary to review equality jurisprudence. To determine whether there has been a violation of the requirement of equality, both international and domestic human rights jurisprudence adopts a three-stage test, though the terminology may differ18. The first test is to determine whether there has been discrimination on the alleged ground, the second, whether that discrimination serves a legitimate government purpose, and the third, whether the legislation is no broader than is required to achieve that purpose. This approach may be illustrated by applying it to a concrete example, which arose in Zimbabwe in 1995. Each year Zimbabwe hosts an International Bookfair. While primarily designed for publishers, various non-governmental organisations are invited by the organisers to participate. GALZ, a homophile organisation which lobbies for gay and lesbian rights, 15 Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality (Pantheon, New York, 1978) p. 43 16 Heinze op. cit. p. 60 17 Cameron, Edwin Sexual Orientation and the Constitution: A Test Case for Human Rights 110 (1993) SALJ 450-472 at p. 452. A gay activist when writing the article, from which the quote is taken, Edwin Cameron was later appointed a judge. 18 c.f. Belgian Linguistic Case No. 11 supra