From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: The "Hate" Problem -- Amendment 2
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:48:04 GMT

Frank Crary (fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: 
: As far as the "no claims of discrimination" clause, yes. (Essentially
: why I voted against it. That clause was an unacceptable singeling
: out of a particular group, in my opinion.) However, the "special
: status" clause does relate to the standing requirments of courts:
: The _normal_ rule is that evidence of real harm is required. However,
: many discrimination laws explicitly create exceptions: Certain 
: parties, who are expected to suffer from discrimination are often
: given automatic standing to sue. For example, if a landlord refused
: to rent to a black man, he could be sued even if the refusal caused
: no real harm or if there was no evidence that discrimination was the
: cause of the refusal. (In this case, the landlord would probably
: win in court, but he would still have to pay legal fees, etc...)
: This sort of automatic ability to sue, without any evidence of
: real harm, might be part of the "special" status refered to by
: Amendment 2.

Interesting, I had always wondered what exactly was the legal definition of
several of the terms used in the amendment: "minority status", "quota
preferences", "protected status", and "claim of discrimination".

The way I see it, though, even without the "claim of discrimination" clause,
I still don't see why anyone would have voted for an amendment that denies
"special rights" to homosexuals.  Seems to me if there is such a thing as a
"special right", there should be guidelines for who can get them and who can't,
and that should be the sole determining factor (these guidelines apparently
exist at least for affirmative action programs).  If there are such guidelines,
it seems like the only effect of the "special rights" clauses of amendment 2
are to say "you know those guidelines?  well, follow them on a case by case
basis for everyone class of persons, but homosexuals don't qualify no matter
what".  And if the guidelines don't uniformly exist, wouldn't it have been far
more productive to try to establish some, rather than try to state on an ad hoc
basis which groups should qualify and which shouldn't, and then write the
decision but not the rationale into the constitution?

: I'm a little hesitant about this: If the discrimination is widespread,
: then there is a large minority that sees nothing wrong with that
: form of discrimination. A law on the subject would, essentially, impose
: the moral judgement of the majority on a large, pro-discrimination
: minority. In general, I think this sort of imposition of majoritarian
: morals on a sizeable minority is something the government should
: avoid (no matter how much I agree with the majority...)

You've said this before, and this would seem to imply that you saw nothing
wrong with slavery or public lynchings either - or at least that the goverment
should not have done anything about either of these.  Am I correct?  If so, at
least you are being consistent, although not, I think, within the mainstream
of modern thinking.  If I am mistaken, you'd better explain how one form of
"imposing morals" is acceptable but the other isn't.

--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
Amendment 2 Is Legalized Discrimination - Shame On You, Colorado
--
"Neither the State of Colorado ... nor any of its municipalities ... shall ...
 enforce any ... ordinance ... whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual
 orientation ... shall ... be the basis of ... any ... claim of discrimination"
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Newsgroups: co.politics