From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: Homophobia: US vs. CUBA
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:09:56 GMT


In article <21047@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, ez000281@hamlet.ucdavis.edu writes:
|> Alberto Pinkas writes:
|> 
|> >As far as I understand, Gays and Lesbians are asking for equal protection
|> >under the law and not for special rights.
|> >Also, I understand that it has nothing to do with Affirmative Action
|> >programs.
|> 
|> >Someone might want to clarify this.
|> 
|> Well Alberto, now that your asking for reinforcements, let me start setting up 
|> my minefield.  First, if you are right, then there was no need fight against 
|> the Colorado propostion, for in our county, unlike Argentina perhaps, we have a 
|> amendment in our Bill or rights which GUARANTEES "equal protection under the 
|> law", I believe its the 14th amendment.  Hence, any legislation which singles 
|> out a specific group for equal protection is redundant inasmuch as we are all 
|> insured on these matters, gays and straight people have equal protection under 
|> the law.

This is completely untrue.  Gay people can and
are singled out for legal discrimination.  There
was a Supreme Court decision in the mid-80's
stating explicitly that gay people do not have
the same right to privacy - i.e. sex acts between
consenting adults in their own homes - that
heterosexuals do.  Gays and Lesbians are fired
from their jobs regardless of performance - 
in the armed forces one of the ways they find
the lesbians is by looking at their top performers - 
evicted from their homes, and subject to harassment
and physical violence without legal recourse.

Can you explain how this constitutes "equal protection"?
If you're going to throw around these phrases you should
know what they mean.  Why are anti-discrimination laws
necessary?  Where do you think *you* would be without
the protections they give you?

|>  Thirdly, Affirmative Action programs are aimed at 
|> increasing representations of ecomically deprived ethnic minorities in the 
|> workplace, and to give them ADDED protection under the law.  These programs 
|> target the underpriviliged which have not had equal protection under the law, 
|> not people like Martina Naratilova.

The big lie again.  Anti-discrimination laws are not the
same as affirmative action and no matter how many times
you repeat it it won't be true.  

And you probably don't see the hypocrisy in saying:
|> we have a 
|> amendment in our Bill or rights which GUARANTEES "equal protection under the 
|> law", I believe its the 14th amendment.

followed by
|>These programs 
|> target the underpriviliged which have not had equal protection under the law

What lesbians and gay men and bisexuals and a lot of heterosexuals
as well are fighting for is *equal* protection regardless of
the gender of the person or people you're attracted to.  
Not special protection, not quotas, but the ability to
live our lives with the same protections and privileges
that people like you take for granted.  Nothing more.

|>  Whether or not the people of Colorado feel that there 
|> is need to give ADDED protection to those who are potentially discriminated on 
|> the basis of sexual orientation is a matter for them to decide, for the courts 
|> already grants them equal protecion.

Obviously the courts do not, and I wonder what has happened
to this country so that it seems reasonable that people's
basic rights can be put up for a majority vote.  That's what
the Constitution and Bill of Rights was supposed to protect
us *against*.  

|> In fact, it could very well be argued 
|> that all affirmative action programs are unconstitutional since they privilege 
|> certain groups above others with respect to the law, and hence there is a 
|> violaiton of the 14 amendment.  This is precisely what the Supreme Court has 
|> decided in some actions on "reverse" discrimination cases.

You're talking about affirmative action, not anti-discrimination
laws.  It's a simple tactic for the simple-minded, but won't cut
it in the long run.  They are two different things.

Anti-discrimination laws are a protection; affirmative action
is prescribed-where-needed remedy to past and on-going discrimination.

-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.