From: ez000281@hamlet.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: Re: Homophobia: US vs. CUBA
Date: 8 Jan 93 07:09:45 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

Greg Parkinson writes:

[stuff deleted]

>Gay people can and
>are singled out for legal discrimination.  There
>was a Supreme Court decision in the mid-80's
>stating explicitly that gay people do not have
>the same right to privacy - i.e. sex acts between
>consenting adults in their own homes - that
>heterosexuals do.  

Well then the problem isn't in Colorado, but rather in the Supreme courts 
interpretation of the Constitution, and since the Supreme court rules over 
state statutes or constitutions, you better aim you boycott against Washington 
D.C., not Colorado.  Now remember, Greg, the times are a changing and don't 
stop thinking about tomorrow, perhaps Gov. Clinton will decide to name a gay or 
lesbian to the Surpreme Court and make it look more like America.  When this 
happens, thing like sodomy laws in the deep south will be overturned.  Thurgood 
Marshall will look like a whimp. 

>Gays and Lesbians are fired
>from their jobs regardless of performance -

I've know a lot with tenure, I mean the folks that tend to be unfireable.

>in the armed forces one of the ways they find
>the lesbians is by looking at their top performers -

Again the times are a changing, 20 years ago women in the armed forces were 
only nurses.  Again, I've got no problema with gays and lesbians in the 
military, as long as they shoot well and help us liberate Cuba.  In fact, we 
should create special forces with gay commanders that overrun the AIDS prisons 
in Cuba and  liberate the well treated prisoners Jeremy talks about.

>evicted from their homes, and subject to harassment
>and physical violence without legal recourse.
>Can you explain how this constitutes "equal protection"?

As your know the Armed Forces are inmune from all sort of litigation which 
guarantee civil rights.  You know how boot camp works, it creates "men" out of 
boys and it will take some time for them to adjust.

>If you're going to throw around these phrases you should
>know what they mean.  Why are anti-discrimination laws
>necessary?  Where do you think *you* would be without
>the protections they give you?

I would be right where I am cause these special law AREN'T necessary, what is 
necessary is a Supreme Court willing to uphold our constitutional liberties, 
not some law of Congress designed to curtail them.

[...]

[...]
>And you probably don't see the hypocrisy in saying:
|> we have a
|> amendment in our Bill or rights which GUARANTEES "equal protection under the

|> law", I believe its the 14th amendment.

>followed by
|>These programs
|> target the underpriviliged which have not had equal protection under the law

No, I don't see it 'cause one thing is to state that blacks lacked equal 
protection for more than a hundred years, and another is that it takes an act 
of Congress to erradicate it, when in fact, it was our judiciary who did away 
with it by enforcing our contitutional liberties.  The act of Congress came 
later, to channel litigaation through more dilatory channels. As Bill would 
say:  "Its the Constitution, Stupid!!" (no offense).

>What lesbians and gay men and bisexuals and a lot of heterosexuals
>as well are fighting for is *equal* protection regardless of
>the gender of the person or people you're attracted to.
>Not special protection, not quotas, but the ability to
>live our lives with the same protections and privileges
>that people like you take for granted.  Nothing more.

And I have not problem with that, is just that I don't think you need a 
statute for this, all you need are competent lawyers.

[...]

>Obviously the courts do not, and I wonder what has happened
>to this country so that it seems reasonable that people's
>basic rights can be put up for a majority vote.  That's what
>the Constitution and Bill of Rights was supposed to protect
>us *against*.

The people of Colorado can't impose discrimination or unequal treatement under 
the law on anybody.  All you need is someone to stand up for their rights and 
whatever the "people" said (if truly unconstitutional) will have been nonsense.

[...]
>You're talking about affirmative action, not anti-discrimination
>laws.  It's a simple tactic for the simple-minded, but won't cut
>it in the long run.  They are two different things.

Well if your dichotomy stands, there's nothing to worry about, use the 14th 
amendment to cancel out the Colorado amendment.

Edelmiro
Newsgroups: soc.culture.latin-america