Can somebody explain to me how the Constitution can be used to support special treatment l

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Can somebody explain to me how the Constitution can be used to support special treatment laws for homosexuals? Doesn't the "equal treatment" clause of the 14th Amendment prohibit special treatment laws? The U.S. Constitution *cannot* be used to support special treatment laws for homosexuals, so I doubt that anyone could explain otherwise. But, Oregon's Prop 9 is in direct conflict with the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law, as Prop 9 *does* guarantee special treatment for homosexuals, in a very negative way. It is sad to see that although many of our forefathers fled their native lands to avoid religious persecution, their descendants are only too glad to gleefully inflict this torture upon others; it is horrific (but not unprecedented) to think that the inalienable rights of a select minority can be subject to a popular vote. The religious fundamentalists are fervently attempt- ing to undermine our Constitution, undaunted by the fact that the "equal treatment" clause of the 14th amendment prohibits "special treatment" of any select group; (today, it is the homosexuals; tomorrow, who knows? They are currently waging a massive campaign to take over the Republican party, at *every* level.) It is painfully clear that you wholeheartedly endorse enforcement of your particular brand of superstitious morality at the point of a gun, and this was the exact sort of thing the drafters of the Constitution were trying to avoid. Oregon's Prop 9 is designed to condemn homosexuals in a most heinous and unconstitutional way. Proponents of Prop 9 claim that homosexuals are seeking "special rights". I would concede that this *does* have some basis in fact, given that: homosexuals *are* seeking the right to marry the ones they love, the right to receive income tax benefits for such marriage, the right to visit their (not legally recognized) spouse in hospitals or make medical decisions for their spouse, the right to serve in the military, the right to avail themselves of police protection should they get beaten to a pulp with a baseball bat, the right to fair housing and employment as outlined by *existing* state and federal laws, etc., etc. These are all indeed *special* rights, as they currently only apply to heterosexuals. However, most of these "special" rights are not at all relevant to Prop 9. I guess homosexuals are also seeking "special rights" against violence, as they are the number 1 target of hate crimes. (Laws against hate crimes are obviously "special treatment", as such laws do not apply to people who are free from such persecution.) And *yes*, God forbid, many homosexuals are actively seeking out gay teenagers, to discourage them from killing themselves over hate-filled bigotry. (One-third of all teen-age suicides are committed by gay teens; I think that homosexuality is the number 1 reason for teenage suicide, though I could be mistaken). If Prop 9 does pass, then that will quickly put an end to any and all such "special treatment" that would serve to discourage hate crimes and suicides, with regard to homosexuals; it is highly likely that such stats may even increase. The phrase is "equal protection," Mr. Albrecht. I would argue that laws that discriminate against homosexuals or that permit discrimination against homosexuals are violations of equal protection, not the other way around. Regrettably, the subtle distinction between "special treatment" and "equal protection" is surely lost, as his mind has been dulled by the opiate of the masses. -- Rob (robert@cs.ucla.edu) "Christianity: the Borg of humanity." -friend of mine, Star Trek fan -------------------------------------------------------------------- All of you who want special treatment for select minorities have shit for brains. The Constitution CLEARLY states that ALL people are to be treated equally. If this is not the case (and we know it isn't), we should not create new laws, which will certainly be just as ineffective as old laws, but rather enforce the old laws. If we start making new laws to cover certain minorities for particular circumstances, where will it stop? As important as your point might be, it is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread (unless I'm completely messed up). This thread does not deal with special treatment for selected minorities to *protect* their Constitutional rights. (That is a topic for another thread). This thread is dealing *specifically* with the special treatment of a selected minority (homosexuals), with the explicit intent of *denying* them their Constitutional rights. This would *change* the "CLEARLY" stated nature of the Constitution, at the state level. There are currently two state measures where their Constitutional rights are being put to a popular vote. This is wholly different from any point you may be trying to make about the ridiculousness of anti-discrimination laws. Such as: AP Washington - Congress passes new law to gaurentee equal protection under the law to white males, between the ages of 24 and 27, who weigh 134-162 pounds, have brown hair... Get the point? No, I don't. Could you please clear this up for me. Slender young white (straight) males do not often have to worry about being treated unfairly, or denied their Constitutional rights, whether in practice, or by popular vote. If, indeed, you do mean that anyone who wants special treatment for select minorities has shit for brains, please note that, in this thread, that refers *specificly* to the OCA (Oregon Citizens Alliance?), and the CFV (Colorado for 'Family Values'), both of which are dedicated to the "special" treatment of homosexuals, Constitution be damned. -- Rob (robert@ucla.cs.edu) "Does religion cause stupidity, or is it the other way around?" ------------------------------------------------------------------- This exchange occurred in the context of Gay rights, and Oregon's measure 9 from outer space. Are you aware that Gays do not seek affirmative action? In my research I have not found one single legal case where a gay rights suit sought that (in Oregon, at least). On the other hand, a gay was bashed not 5 blocks away from where I live < 6 months ago -- saw the pool of blood myself. In Salem, a lesbian woman and the retarded gay man she took care of were firebombed and killed just a few short weeks ago. The rights they seek do not automatically detract from yours. It seems to me that someone with > 5 firing neurons (your words) could see that. Whether you choose to see it or not, hatred and fear of homosexuals is killing people, and the intent expressed in the constitution is not enough - it must be implemented and enforced in law. Any law that catagorizes people into groups based on race, creed, sexual preference (or anthing else along those lines that does not impact the person's ability to perform some task, pay for some goods, etc) is wrong and evil. Then you agree that the military should not eject gays after decades of faithful service, just for being gay? You agree that gay marriages should have legal status? You agree that the schools should not be compelled to "set a standard recognizing homosexuality et al as perverted and abnormal"? Well? People are people and all shoulf be treated as such. To set up artificial distintinctions is to cause feelings of resentment. Sorry you resent AA so much. It is irrelevant to the gay rights issue in Oregon - recommend you put a few of your many (>5) firing neurons on the task of learning about the issues before firing your mouth. Max

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank