From: mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:48:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.181236.2245@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>In article <C0DKsH.2rx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mr. Clueless) writes:
>>The 14th amendment is equal protection before the law. The
>>Colorado amendment (quoted at the end of this article, thanks
>>for posting it) seems to force Colorado local governments to
>>comply with the 14th amendment by not giving some groups
>>more-than-equal protection before the law.
>
>Mr. Clueless, Does the term "de facto" mean anything to you?
>In The united states, white, straight males have de facto
>more than equal protection. If you can not see this, then I suggest
>to you that it is time to wake up.

I've taken my stimulants for the day, thank you. Show me how
white, straight males have more than equal protection _before the
law_. I agree that straight males have advantages based on some
people's attitudes and customs, but I am talking about _legal_
advantages. 

>>Unless I've totally
>>lost my ability to understand written english the amendment
>>does not prevent anyone from claiming discrimination on the
>>basis of (race, creed, gender, age, etc.) - it just prevents
>                                                ^^^^
>>people from claiming discrimination on the basis of
>>homosexuality. 
>
>Are you implying that this is somehow a lesser form of discrimination?
>Please be prepared to back this up. By the way, no bible quotes allowed.

No babble quotes from me. I'm an atheist, thank you very much. I
do not claim that discrimination on the basis of sexuality is a
lesser form of discrimination than discrimination on the basis of
anything else. My point is that disallowing legal claims of
discrimination on the basis of sexuality does not make anyone less
than equal before the law - anyone can still make claims based on
any form of discrimination that is mentioned by the law,
regardless of their sexuality. Btw, the fact that we're talking
about sexual orientation is irrelevant. Insert race, creed,
gender, age, etc. in the above "My point is..." sentence in place
of 'sexuality' and my point remains the same.

>>The only way one could possibly claim that the
>>Colorado amendment is in violation of the 14th amendment is
>>that it does not rule out the possibility of heterosexuals
>>claiming discrimination on the basis of their heterosexuality.
>
>Buzz! Wrong answer.
>
>Amendmant 14, section 1, sentence 2, phrase 2.
>"nor shall any state deprive any person of life,liberty, or property,
>without due process of law"
>
>A law allowing discrimination against homosexuals is allowing
>the citizens of the state to deprive homosexuals of property,
>and possibly liberty and life. This is most certainly contradictory to
>the 14th amendment.

Discrimination deprives one of property? Please explain that one
to me. Discrimination may 'deprive' one of potential higher
earnings, but potential higher earnings is not property.

>>However, this
>>is a major task, and the Colorado amendment is a step in the
>>right direction. It seems that the amendment may have been
>>written to appeal to bigotry (mentioning only same-sex
>>orientations, rather than simply any sexual orientation) but its
>>effect is to increase freedom and equality under the law. Life
>>is ironic sometimes, isn't it?
>
>Seems? May have been? I believe the proper wordage would be to
>say that it WAS written toappeal to, and legislate, bigotry.

Ok, let's say it was written to appeal to bigotry. How does it
legislate bigotry? Does it force anyone to discriminate against
homosexuals? 

>>My proposed super equality before the law amendment:
>>NO PROTECTION BASED ON ANY CATEGORIZATION ... [Your State] Shall
>>not adopt any law ... whereby any categorization ... shall
>>entitle any person ... to claim of discrimination.
>
>There are two ways to have equality before the law; either everyone,
>or no one should be entitled to such claims. I, for one, much prefer
>the former.

Yes, and I prefer the latter. The former is absurd. Do you really
want anyone to be able to obtain legal redress for any form of
discrimination whatsoever?

>In any case, the latter only theoretically provides equal protection.
>There will always be some group with greater power than another, and
>thus, de facto more-than-equal protection. Perhaps you are suggesting
>Communism, so that this might not occur?

Back to the original point. I'm talking about equal protection
_before the law_. There will probably never be a time when
everyone is equal in every respect. However, I do not think that
such inequality should be addressed _legally_.

>If you expect to be taken seriously, (snicker, guffaw) then don't 
>use terms like PC. It has been so abused by right wing morons, as
>to become meaningless.

I have to admit you're right about this. Sorry. In the future I'll
use 'sacred cow', as it is non-ideologically specific, as far as I
know.

>>> 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.
>>
>>-- 
>>Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326
>
>Mr. clueless, get a clue.
>
>Robert Johnston

-- 
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326