From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 Yet Again (was Re: Colorado
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:43:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.195154.5368@g5.com> robin@g5.com writes:
>I would be curious to know exactly what people consider "special rights"
>to be.  What would be some examples of special rights for gays?

Affirmative action laws, or easier access to the courts (in general,
if you sue someone, you must have standing: You can't walk in with
no evidence and see if the jury is sympathetic anyway. Many anti-
discrimination laws grant automatic standing, no matter how little 
evidence there is.) 

>Is the right to not be fired from your job *solely* because you are gay
>a "special right"?

I don't think "right" applies in this context: Working for a particular 
person/company is a privilage, not a right. I don't, for example, 
think I have a "right" not to be fired solely for having green eyes.
If someone insisted that he had a "right" not to be fired solely for
some specific reason, I'd call that a "special right" (Actually, I'd
call it a lame effort to keep his job, but...) I do _not_, however,
condone or support such a firing: It would be stupid, hurtfull and
discriminatory. I just don't think the action concerns any basic 
right.

>Is the right to not be evicted from your apartment *solely* because you
>are gay a "special right"?

Again, I think the only real "right" involved is on the other side: A
person has a right to use his personal property however he wants. That
includes the right to rent, or not to rent, an apartment to whoever
he wants. There are, however, immoral and mindless ways to exercise these
property rights (just as the KKK often uses it's right to freedom of
speach in a mindless and hurtfull way.) Refusing to rent to gays would
be an example of a mindless and immoral use of one's property rights, 
but that doesn't justify the government violating the landlord's
basic rights.

>Is a legally recognized marriage a "special right"?

A legally recognized marriage is a privilage offered by the government.
No one has a right to it. (If the state were to simply step out of the
matter, and leave marriages to the church and the individuals involved,
this wouldn't violate anyone's rights.)

The issues you raise (marriage, employment and housing) aren't
what I'd call rights, but as far as support for Amendment 2 goes
that's just a question of semantics. There isn't much public 
opposition to laws assuring these privilages. These laws (at least
in theory) simply promote equal access based solely on relevant 
criteria. I have alot of doubts about the effectiveness, side effects
and appropriateness of such laws, but I don't think the general public
finds the concept offensife. What is generally considered offensive 
are laws that give a minority _superior_ access, beyond a neutral
consideration of ability, in order (I suppose) to make up for 
past discrimination. For example...

>Are quota preferences a "special right"?

I'd call this a special protection, not a special right. But as far 
as support for Amendment 2 goes, there isn't much of a difference.
The objection to these laws is that they depart from the idea of
everyone being equal, and decisions being made solely on relevant 
criteria and ability.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder
Newsgroups: co.general