From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: interesting thought (ammendment 2)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:26:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.200959.23319@col.hp.com> kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary) writes:
>I live in Colorado Springs and you (aparently) live in or around Fort Collins. 
>Neither of these communities, nor the county or State they are in have ever
>ever had any kind of gay rights ordinance or law.  Has it always been legal
>to discriminate against homosexuals in these communities?  If not, why is
>it now legal to discriminate?

Because Amendment 2 specifically states that discrimination because of
gay, lesbian or bisexual orientation is _no_longer_ grounds for
suit. Previously, one could sue, even without relevant laws (winning, or
even getting standing would be _extremely_ difficult without such a
law, but it was still possible.)

>I think it would have been illegal to discriminate against homosexuals before
>amendment 2, based on the US Constitution, Amendments and case law.  I think
>that is still the case.

Certainly Amendment 2 can't alter the federal Constitution or laws, but
I'm not aware of any applicable federal laws. Since you mention case law,
can you cite a case where existing federal laws were succesfully used
against this form of discrimination?

>I've always thought that local civil rights ordinances are a bad idea because

I'd have to disagree completely.

>I feel that local government and what they have that passes for a "judiciary"
>is not competent to judge anything more important than traffic violations.
>I don't want a local civil rights commission or panel or a municipal judge
>making civil rights decisions.

Local officials aren't a great choice, but they are better than the
alternatives: They are in touch with local feelings, and know best how
the people want discrimination handled, and how the conflicting rights
involved should be balanced.

>I very strongly prefer that civil rights
>issues be the domain of federal laws and courts.
>...civil rights need to be the same everywhere
>and there is no need for local variances.

All laws (as well as every act of government) need to have the consent of
the people. (Not necessarily the agreement, just a willingness to accept.)
On a national level, there is often _no_ general consensus on such matter.
In principle, this means the federal government ought to stay out of
it, and I think the Constitution prohibits it (Everything the federal
government does must be, at least, "reasonably related" to the powers
granted in the Constitution. Current federal anti-discrimination laws
are supposedly "reasonably related" to the power to regulate interstate
commerce, an explanation I'd call extremely doubtfull.) In any case, 
since the federal government is limited by the need for a national
consessus and consent, I think there is a strong need for local laws: 
The residents of Colorado Springs don't want anti-discrimination laws
based on sexual preference, and the residents of Boulder do. Local 
laws seem to me the best solution: Niether is subject to outside laws,
that the local people object to.

                                                     Frank Crary
                                                     CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics