From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 01:45:41 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

chrisf@brtph316.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Chris Fulmer) writes:

> In article <1993Jan4.152505.22773@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>, greg
> |>  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.
> |> 
> |> As you can see, the amendment was cleverly phrased to imply that it preven
> |> 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.
>                                                         ^^
> Greg -- I think that you might be misreading that....  Here's how I read it..
> 
> Colorado...shall [not] adopt any statute...whereby homosexual orientation...s
> be the basis of...discrimination.
> 
> The part that I've highlighted with the ^^'s should be an "or," not an "of". 
> way you're reading it, it implies that the amendment does not allow a homosex
> to file a claim that says s/he's been discriminated against, which is definat
> not what it says.
> 
> What it does say is basically, "You're gay?  So what?  We don't care.  We won
> give you any special treatment, nor will we discriminate against you."
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Chris Fulmer                    Bell-Northern Research
> Sr. Software Designer            Research Triangle, NC
> mail to woodstock!chris@mcnc.org (preferable) or...
>         chrisf@bnr.ca            (not so preferable)
> Oh yeah.  The usual disclaimers apply here.


What REALLY matters is what legal fictions the court use when deciding 
cases that may fall under this statute.   For instance, we have had some 
courts actually give opinions that Creches on State Property set up with 
State funds are actually "secular expressions", and not religous.  No 
doubt rolling their eyes and smirking the whole while.  Wonder if this 
will stand if it ever is challenged in the Supreme Court?

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality