Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 13:48:22 -0500 From: Chris Hagin To: Multiple recipients of list GLB-NEWS Subject: SUPREMES TO HEAR COLO AMEND. 2 CASE COMPILED FROM NEWS WIRE DISPATCHES Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 Court to review Colo. gay-bias law WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court today agreed to use a Colorado case to decide whether states can ban laws that protect homosexuals from discrimination. The court said it will consider reinstating an amendment to the Colorado state constitution that was struck down by state courts for denying homosexuals an equal voice in government. State officials contend that Colorado voters have the right to prevent homosexuals from being given ``preferred legal status.'' The state constitutional amendment was approved by voters in 1992, but state court rulings blocked it from ever being enforced. The amendment would rescind or bar Colorado laws and ordinances to protect homosexuals from discrimination. It would cancel ordinances in Denver, Boulder, Aspen and other cities that outlaw discrimination against homosexuals in employment, housing and public accommodations. After the amendment was enacted, gay activists organized a nationwide boycott of Colorado tourism. State officials said the boycott cost about $40 million in lost convention business. The cities of Denver, Boulder, and Aspen and a group of gay men and women sued, saying the amendment violated homosexuals' rights of equal protection and free speech and impeded their right to petition the government. A state judge ruled that the amendment violated the right to equal protection, and the Colorado Supreme Court agreed last October. ``The right to participate equally in the political process is clearly affected,'' the state's top court said. The amendment ``singles out one form of discrimination and removes its redress from consideration by the normal political process.'' In the appeal acted on today, Colorado Attorney General Gale A. Norton called the state court ruling ``a dramatic and unwarranted interference in the political process'' that improperly gives special protection to homosexuals. The amendment does not deny or dilute homosexuals' right to vote, Norton said, adding that gays do not qualify for the same protection racial minorities receive under the Constitution's equal-protection clause. Norton noted that the Supreme Court used a lower legal standard in 1986 when it upheld a Georgia law outlawing private homosexual conduct. Lawyers for the cities and gay residents said the Colorado courts ruled correctly. ``Antipathy arising out of hostility or groundless stereotypes is not a legitimate purpose justifying a law under the equal-protection clause,'' they said. Voters in Oregon and Idaho defeated similar anti-gay-rights amendments last November. Eight states provide some sort of civil rights protection for homosexuals: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont and Wisconsin. S. CHRISTOPHER HAGIN | The Pledge of Allegance says: Atlanta 1996 | "With liberty and justice for ALL" chagin@mindspring.com | What part of ALL do you not understand? HATE IS NOT A FAMILY VALUE