From: stevev@miser.uoregon.edu (Steve VanDevender)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Organization: University of Oregon Chemistry Stores
Distribution: co
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:53:35

Van Martin (vanm@col.hp.com) writes:

  Amendment 2 did not create a law that said "Thou Shalt Discriminate
  Against Homosexuals," it only said "Thou Shalt Not Single Out The
  Homosexuals for Special Dispensation Under Our Illustrious Legal
  System."  As a white male under 40 no handicaps (except a lack of
  unthinking tolerance) I see no laws that will allow me to demand
  that the government spend its time and taxpayer dollars on my claim
  of discrimination.  I am one of the masses that has less civil
  rights, the the homosexual community.

Having had to cogitate over this kind of argument from all kinds
of pro-Measure-9 people in Oregon, I've developed a severe
distaste for it.

I think that something that a lot of people miss is that our
federal Constitution is there to prevent any majority from taking
away certain civil rights of any minority.  Just because a
majority might approve of some kind of discrimination doesn't
mean that they can pass a law to enable that kind of
discrimination.

"Protected class status" does not mean that a group has _more_
civil rights than another group.  Some minority groups are
mentioned in law to reinforce that the defining properties of
that minority cannot be considered a basis for denying the
members civil rights.  This is not intended to diminish the
rights of any groups _not_ mentioned.

One way in which the beliefs of some fundamentalist Christians
are in conflict with the philosophy of our laws is that one
interpretation of fundamentalist Christian belief is that its
tenets are directly handed down from God and are the laws that
all people must follow, while our law does not attempt to enforce
any more universal restriction than that all citizens must have
certain fundamental rights and that even overwhelming majority
opinion may not take those rights away from a minority.  This
even protects the right of people to believe that civil rights
should be denied to some types of people--but prevents them from
enacting that belief.

I feel that the legal philosophy of protecting individual's
rights to any beliefs, however unpopular, is best suited to
promoting long-term social order.  However, some people who think
that their beliefs are universally correct find such universal
protection frustrating because they seem to feel it denies the
validity of their beliefs.  I think that's too bad for them.
They may be prevented from putting their beliefs into law, but
by the same means they are protected from having anyone deny them
their right to their beliefs.

The "no special rights" argument only works if it is being
applied to an unpopular minority.  Compare the slogans "no
special rights for the disabled" or "no special rights for
Hispanics" to "no special rights for homosexuals".  As someone
with a disability, I don't feel that laws requiring accessibility
modifications to public buildings and equal employment
opportunity is a special right for me or denies anyone else
rights--but most people's attitude towards disability is one of
pity rather than disgust or moral outrage.  On the other hand,
there is enough upset over homosexuality that the "no special
rights" approach works better -- people's discomfort with
homosexuality tends to mask their ability to think critically
about the civil rights ramifications of passing laws promoted by
that argument.

Imagine the furor if someone promoted a "no special rights for
Christians" ballot measure!
--
Steve VanDevender 	stevev@greylady.uoregon.edu
"Bipedalism--an unrecognized disease affecting over 99% of the population.
Symptoms include lack of traffic sense, slow rate of travel, and the
classic, easily recognized behavior known as walking."
Newsgroups: co.politics,co.politics.amend2.discuss