Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh

In alt.rush-limbaugh, Michael R Linksvayer writes:

>>As you can see, the amendment was cleverly phrased to imply that it prevents
>>gays from acquiring special rights, but if you exclude the filler, you get:
>>
>>Colorado...shall not adopt any statute...whereby homosexual...practices or
>>relationships...shall entitle any person... to claim of discrimination.
>>
>>Since anybody else =can= be protected from discrimination, this amendment is
>>on very shaky ground with respect to the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
>>Constitution.  (You can look that one up yourself)
> 
> The 14th amendment is equal protection before the law. The
> Colorado amendment (quoted at the end of this article, thanks
> for posting it) seems to force Colorado local governments to
> comply with the 14th amendment by not giving some groups
> more-than-equal protection before the law. Unless I've totally
> lost my ability to understand written english the amendment
> does not prevent anyone from claiming discrimination on the
> basis of (race, creed, gender, age, etc.) - it just prevents
> people from claiming discrimination on the basis of
> homosexuality. 
	[stuff deleted]
> The only way one could possibly claim that the
> Colorado amendment is in violation of the 14th amendment is
> that it does not rule out the possibility of heterosexuals
> claiming discrimination on the basis of their heterosexuality.
> The amendment really should have read "NO PROTECTION BASED ON
> SEXUAL ORIENTATION" so as to include heterosexuals. However, I
> don't think there are any laws giving heterosexuals special
> recourse in the case of discrimination, so the point is moot.
> 
> If one is really interested in applying the 14th amendment then
> all anti-discrimination laws should be eliminated. However, this
> is a major task, and the Colorado amendment is a step in the
> right direction. It seems that the amendment may have been
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> written to appeal to bigotry (mentioning only same-sex
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> orientations, rather than simply any sexual orientation) but its
> effect is to increase freedom and equality under the law. Life
> is ironic sometimes, isn't it?

	funny thing about the breakdown of how people voted FOR
	this amendment [from the Rocky Mountain News... paraphrased]
	is that one group voted FOR Amd_2 b/c they don't like gays
	and feel they are sinners in [g]od's eyes [a christain god,
	according to their affiliations...]; a second group voted
	FOR Amd_2 b/c they don't want anyone to have *special
	rights*; and a third group voted b/c they don't know how
	to read [i.e., they had no idea what they were voting for].

	since Amd_2 was written in such a manner as to appeal to 
	bigotry, as you correctly pointed out, groups 1 & 2 were
	all over it.  however, this cannot be a step in the *right
	direction* since it singles out ONE group from claiming any
	discrimination based on their belief/practice/whatever...
	you can't do this piecemeal b/c you end up with discrimination.
	period.  

	if group two wanted to accomplish their goal, they should have
	waited for something along the lines to what Michael suggests: 
> 
> My proposed super equality before the law amendment:
> NO PROTECTION BASED ON ANY CATEGORIZATION ... [Your State] Shall
> not adopt any law ... whereby any categorization ... shall
> entitle any person ... to claim of discrimination.

	unfortunately in Colorado, constitutional amendments are 
	placed on the ballot simply by getting a requisite number
	of signatures... CFV, who sponsored the amendment, simply
	went around to churches, shopping malls, etc. and placed
	this before people who most likely didn't read it or
	didn't care and they signed their john hancocks...  Michael's
	amendment would only get into a constitution if there was
	a constitutional convention [does anyone remember how the US
	constitution was written?]... once on the ballot, you get
	your votes by clever wording--  just look at the Heading
	to Amd_2 and try to think of how many people over the age
	of 50 who wouldn't vote for this??!  not to mention another
	large percentage of people who are already biased towards
	gays...
> 
> 
*************************************************************************
> > Article 2, of the Colorado Constitution is amended by the addition of
> > Sec. 30, which shall state as follows:
> >
> > NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL
> > ORIENTATION.  Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its
> > branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political
> > subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt
> > or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby
> > homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or
> > relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or
> > entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority
> > status, quota preferences, protected status or claim or
> > discrimination.  This section of the Constitution shall be in all
> > respects selfexecuting.
> 
> -- 
> Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326