From: jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality
Subject: Protection for homosexuals *is* valid (Was "Colorado Amendment2 Query")
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:32:30 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer) 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. 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

This is entirely correct.  However, people do discriminate against
people solely for their sexual behavior - witness the upsurge of
"Gay-Bashing" as a national pastime in recent years.  Protection from
this kind of discrimination is prohibited by Amendment 2.

>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

All *anti*discrimination laws?  I don't think so - all laws which
require discrimination should be eliminated (eg Affirmitive Action),
but not those which help protect against it.

>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?

How does it increase freedom?  By denying one particular group its
right to claim discrimination on one particular basis?  Your argument
is illogical - nay, nonexistant!

>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.

No, but any person should be free to make claim of discrimination on
any basis, since any person is likely to discriminate against any other
for the most idiotic reasons - hot topic in racial discrimination today:
blacks discriminating against blacks because of skin *darkness*!  Where
does it end?  Nowhere.  We need the ability to make discrimination claims
no matter what the basis.

>Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326
-- 
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Jake Rose              :: Two men look out through the same bars.
jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu::                     One sees mud, and one the stars.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality