From jweins@u.washington.edu Mon May 20 11:01:29 1996 Received: from homer29.u.washington.edu by lists.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW96.04/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA19104; Mon, 20 May 96 11:01:29 -0700 Received: from localhost by homer29.u.washington.edu (5.65+UW96.04/UW-NDC Revision: 2.33 ) id AA196064; Mon, 20 May 96 11:01:28 -0700 Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 11:01:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Jacqueline Weinstock To: uwtpride@u.washington.edu Subject: good news in the midst of bad... Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII FYI: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 13:06:45 -0500 From: Robin Buhrke Reply-To: div44@lists.apa.org Subject: div44: AP wire story on Amendment two decision In case you haven't heard, we won! >Resent-Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 12:10:15 -0400 >From: barnett@uic.edu (David Barnett) >Subject: AP wire story on Amendment two decision >Resent-From: ngltfcampus@nenet.org >X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/632 >X-Loop: ngltfcampus@nenet.org >Precedence: list >Resent-Sender: ngltfcampus-request@nenet.org > >Gay-rights forces win major test at high court > > WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court today handed gay-rights advocates their > biggest legal victory, throwing out a Colorado constitutional amendment >that forbids > laws protecting homosexuals from discrimination. > > The Colorado amendment violates homosexuals' constitutional right to equal > protection, the court ruled, 6-3, in its most significant gay-rights case >in a decade. In > 1986, the justices upheld a Georgia law that criminalized homosexual sex >for consenting > adults. > > Today's ruling did not decide the legality of homosexual conduct. > > The justices said the Colorado amendment denies gays a political right >enjoyed by > everyone else - the chance to seek protection from discrimination in >employment, > housing and public accommodations. > > ``We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further >a proper > legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else,'' Justice >Anthony M. Kennedy > wrote for the court. ``This Colorado cannot do. A state cannot so deem a >class of persons > a stranger to its laws.'' > > The amendment, approved in 1992, has never been enforced because it was >immediately > challenged in court by gay men and women as well as three Colorado cities >that had > enacted gay-rights ordinances. > > Writing in dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said, ``Today's opinion has no >foundation in > American constitutional law, and barely pretends to. The people of >Colorado have > adopted an entirely reasonable provision which does not even disfavor >homosexuals in > any substantive sense, but merely denies them preferential treatment.'' > > His dissent was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice >Clarence > Thomas. > > Joining Kennedy's majority opinion were Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day > O'Connor, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. > > The Colorado Supreme Court had invalidated the constitutional amendment on the > ground it denied gays an equal voice in government. > > The amendment approved by 53.4 percent of the state's voters would have >canceled > gay-rights ordinances enacted in Denver, Boulder and Aspen and barred the >enactment of > any other gay-rights laws or policies by the state or local governments. > > Gay-rights activists said local anti-discrimination ordinances extend >civil rights > protection to homosexuals but grant them no special privileges. > > But the state's lawyer argued before the justices that Colorado's voters >could determine > that all gay-rights issues must be decided on the state level rather than >by various city > governments. > > Voter approval of the amendment led gay-rights activists to organize a >boycott of > Colorado tourism that cost about $40 million in convention business. > > Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, said >today, ``We > are jubilant, and this is an outstanding moral victory. All the way to the >Supreme Court > the tone of this country has changed with regard to gays and lesbians... >Gay people are > full citizens of this country and have to be treated as such.'' > > Kennedy's majority opinion said the Colorado amendment ``identifies >persons by a > single trait and then denies them protection across the board... It is not >within our > constitutional traditions to enact laws of this sort.'' > > He said one of the primary rationales advanced for the amendment was that >it protected > landlords or employers with personal or religious objections to >homosexuality. But he > said the amendment did not relate to that purpose. > > ``It is a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something >the Equal > Protection Clause does not permit,'' wrote Kennedy, who read from his >opinion on the > bench for six minutes. > > Scalia, who read from his dissent for 11 minutes, said the Colorado >amendment ``is > designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality >favored by a > majority of Coloradans.'' > > ``Striking it down is an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political >will,'' Scalia > wrote. > > The Clinton administration decided not to file a friend-of-the-court brief >in the > Colorado case, despite the president's support of federal legislation to >bar most job > discrimination against gays. Attorney General Janet Reno said last summer >officials > decided to stay out of the case because there was no federal law at issue. > > But numerous other briefs were filed. Supporting Colorado's effort to >reinstate the > amendment were the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America >and the > states of Alabama, California, Idaho, Nebraska, South Carolina, South >Dakota and > Virginia. > > Backing the gay-rights supporters were the American Bar Association, the >National > Education Association and the states of Oregon, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, > Minnesota, Nevada, Washington and the District of Columbia. > > Maine voters defeated a proposed anti-gay-rights constitutional amendment in > November. > > The case is Romer vs. Evans, 94-1039. > >******************************************** >David Barnett, Ph.D., Acting Director >Office of Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Concerns >University of Ilinois at Chicago >Chicago, IL 60607-7140 >http://www.uic.edu/~barnett/Dave_B_home_page.html >******************************************** > ______________________________________________________________________ | Robin A. Buhrke, PhD \ Red / | | Duke University \ Orange / phone: (919) 660-1000 | | Box 90955, 214 Page \ Yellow/ fax: (919) 660-1024 | | Counseling and Psych Svcs \Green/ rbuhrke@acpub.duke.edu | | Durham, NC 27708-0955 \Blu/ | |__________________________________\P/_________________________________| .