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 09:53:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.152505.22773@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:
>As you can see, the amendment was cleverly phrased to imply that it prevents
>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.
>
>Since anybody else =can= be protected from discrimination, this amendment is
>on very shaky ground with respect to the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
>Constitution.  (You can look that one up yourself)

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. 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. If a 70 year old black jewish crippled
homosexual feels discriminated against the amendment would not
prevent her from claiming discrimination because she is a
homosexual. She could still claim discrimination on the basis
of race, creed, age, handicap, just as she could if she were a
heterosexual. 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.
The amendment really should have read "NO PROTECTION BASED ON
SEXUAL ORIENTATION" so as to include heterosexuals. However, I
don't think there are any laws giving heterosexuals special
recourse in the case of discrimination, so the point is moot.

If one is really interested in applying the 14th amendment then
all anti-discrimination laws should be eliminated. 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?

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.

Wrt boycotts, I predict that in the next decade almost all
states will do something horrendously un-PC and we'll be asked
to boycott nearly all states. Ski Colorado, they're less evil
than (I dunno, I only ski in Switzerland :) which repealed a law
so wonderful I'm not even going to mention it!

I only know of three states for the PC crowd to boycott now:
Arizona (no MLK day)
Colorado (no anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals)
New Hampshire (no MLK day)

Any others?

> 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