From: corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<CORWIN+.93Jan6110234@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> <C0G9G0.D5J@rice.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:22:34 GMT

In article <C0G9G0.D5J@rice.edu> ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell) writes:

   Scott Safier writes:
   |> Michael R Linksvayer writes:
   |> > Show me how
   |> >white, straight males have more than equal protection _before the
   |> >law_. I agree that straight males have advantages based on some
   |> >people's attitudes and customs, but I am talking about _legal_
   |> >advantages. 
   |> 
   |> In Colorado, gays and lesbians are less equal, before the law.  They
   |> cannot seek recourse for hate-crimes committed against them.  They
   |> cannot seek recourse for discrimination is public services, jobs, or
   |> housing.  
   |> 
   I don't think you have met the challenge here.  If a gay person is 
   assaulted, are they denied legal recourse because they are gay?
   No.  The Colorado law does nothing of the sort.  

In Colorado, if a straight-white man is beaten by a gang of violent
drag-queens shouting "fucking straight asshole", the drag queens can
receive additional penalties for a hate crime based upon the person's
sexual orientation.  But if a gang of straight white men beat up on a
drag queen, shouting "fucking fag pervert", no additional penalties
can be applied because of Amendment 2 which singles out gay men,
lesbians and bisexuals for unequal protection.  

Thanks to all those that clarified Ervan's misconceptions about the
Supreme Court's recent Hate Crimes decision.

>   The second point begs the whole affirmative action debate, 

I think you have a serious misunderstanding about the inclusion of
sexual orientation in nondiscrimination statements.  No one is talking
about affirmative action, quotas or any such thing.  The inclusion of
sexual orientation in nondiscrimination statements allows be to open
about their sexual orientation without fear of reprisals, such as
loosing a house, loosing a job or being thrown out of a restaurant.

   |> People that murder gay men and lesbians are routinely found "not-guilty" or
   |> guilty of a lesser charge by many juries throughout this country.  
   |> [and numerous others anecdotes of how gays are treated unfairly]

   While all of this is true (as far as I know), it too misses the point.
   The question is equality in law, not in outcome.  If particular juries 
   refuse to properly apply the law, that does not mean the law itself is
   unequal, it only means prejudice is so strong that implementation is
   difficult.

This misses the point.  Equality in law demands equality in
punishment.  You are correct that law reflects the society.  If people
are treated unequally in society, they are treated unequally by the
law.  The two are deeply interconnected, and cannot be seperated so
neatly as you would like.

Look at other minority groups which have been persecuted by society.
For example, African American men are more likely to get the death
sentence than white men.  Would you argue that societies unequal
treatment of the African American community was not connected with
juries tendency to give harsher punishments to members of that
community?

Scott Safier                                   corwin+@cmu.edu
Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
        
member, T.S.A.K.C.  B0/1 f+ w- g k+ s- m(+) e++

"We do not have an anti-gay policy... The problems Boy Scouts are
having are with people trying to get in - the gay community, the
homosexuals, the atheists."
Burford Hill, Western Regional Director, Boy Scouts of America. 
5 June 1992, San Francisco Chronicle

"We don't necessarily discriminate.  We simply exclude certain types of
people."
   Lt. Col. Gerald Wellman, an ROTC instructor at the MIT,
   on the military's ban on gays
   Newsweek, May 25
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton