Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 09:56:51 -0400 Reply-To: rkinz@SLONET.ORG Following is a reply from the office of Dan Lungren, Attorney General of California to my earlier letter protesting his signing on to the amicus brief supporting the State of Colorado in asking the Supreme Court to allow anti-gay Amendment 2 to go into effect. One of the arguments Lungren puts forth is that homosexuals do NOT constitute a "suspect" class -- any independently identifiable group, such as race, creed, national origin. Somehow, Lungren seems to have overlooked the fact that gays and lesbians in the military are clearly identifiable in getting harassed and booted out of the military. He seems to have overlooked that Sharon Bottoms' kid was taken away from her because she was a lesbian. He seems to have overlooked the fact that gays and lesbians are harassed, beaten and killed BECAUSE they are lesbian and gay. That seems to be pretty "identifiable" to me. Let's hope the Supreme Court feels the same way. We need to start a letter barrage to the Supreme Court to let them know that this is an extremely important matter to us and that it demands their utmost consideration. [I use caps to replace the italics in the letter] ************************************************** State of California, Dept. of Justice, Public Inquiry Unit, P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550. (916) 322-3360 or (800) 952-5225 June 29, 1995 Dear Mr. Kinz This is in response to your recent letter to Attorney General Dan Lungren in which you protest the actions of this office regarding Romer v. Evans, U.S. Supreme Court No. 94-1039. Because of the large volume of correspondence the Attorney General receives each day, it is not possible for him to personally respond to all of the letters he receives. Therefore, I have been asked to respond to your letter on his behalf. As you are aware, California has signed on a multi-state amicus brief in Romer v. Evans, U.S. Supreme Court No. 94-1039, supporting the State of Colorado. The brief was filed April 21, 1995. The following are the issues and significance of the amicus brief. In 1994, the Colorado Supreme Court invalidated an initiative-based state constitutional amendment, passed by the voters, that provided that neither the state nor its political subdivision shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, ordinance, regulation or policy where sexual orientation serves as the basis of any preference, protected status or claim of discrimination. (Colorado Const., Art. 2, S. 30, "Amendment 2.") It is the so-called "Amendment 2" case, or, as characterized by the gay rights community, the "anti-gay rights initiative." In striking down the law, the Colorado Supreme Court fashioned a NEW FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT and held that a law infringing upon ANY IDENTIFIABLE GROUP attempting to "participate in the political process" is subject to equal protection analysis. Such analysis is normally applied only to legislation involving a traditionally suspect classification (race, creed, national origin). The U. S. Supreme Court has held that homosexuals do NOT constitute a suspect class. When the Attorney General of Colorado asked California to join a multi-state amicus brief in support of Colorado's petition for review in the U.S. Supreme Court, Attorney General Lungren declined. However, once the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, Attorney General Lungren decided to join the proposed multi-state amicus brief seeking to overturn the Colorado court's new and dangerously broad legal standard. Attorney General Lungren has asked me to advise you of his views and concerns in signing off on this brief: 1.) Mr. Lungren believes the way the law was struck down is the problem. The concern is over the legal reasoning employed by the Colorado Supreme Court. It is fundamentally flawed and is an incorrect equal protection analysis. 2.) Mr. Lungren did not go looking for the U.S. Supreme Court to take this case, but once review was granted, it became apparent that the case could have a serious impact on our state, If the reasoning of the Colorado Supreme Court were to be adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court, any "independently identifiable group" in California would be able to challenge any statewide law by claiming it infringes on the group's ability to participate in the political process. This could include laws affecting illegal aliens, welfare recipients, smokers, non-smokers, militia members, pro-life groups, pro-choice groups, etc. 3.) Now that the court is hearing the case, California has stake in it that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GAY RIGHTS ISSUE. 4.) If the Supreme Court were to follow the Colorado court, it would seriously threaten previously established action taken by the voters of the State of California, such as Proposition 187, or measures to limit payments or medical assistance to welfare recipients. 5.) The case may impact the ability of the legislature or the voters to pass laws of statewide application, laws that effectively bar cities and counties from adopting laws inconsistent with the state law -- such as bans on smoking in restaurants. Thank you for your comments and views to Mr. Lungren. While you may or may not agree with Attorney General Lungren's position on this matter, he always appreciates hearing from citizens on matters of public concern. He is sincere in his conviction that his involvement in this case is in the best interests of all of the people of California. Sincerely, DANIEL E. LUNGREN Attorney General by: ROBERT M. RAYMER, Analyst Public Inquiry Unit ******************************************************************************* To send a message to the entire list "queerlaw", email queerlaw@abacus.oxy.edu This list is run by the program MAJORDOMO@abacus.oxy.edu *******************************************************************************