The Militant(logo) 
    Vol.60/No.23           June 10, 1996 
 
 
Anti-Gay Law Struck Down;
Clinton Vows To Sign Another  

In a 6-3 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down on May 20 a Colorado constitutional amendment that not only nullified existing civil rights protections for homosexuals in the state but also barred the passage of new anti-discrimination laws.

"The court has mistaken a Kulturkampf [culture war] for a fit of spite," said Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissenting opinion.

Two days later, President William Clinton announced he would sign a bill that in effect bans same-sex marriages.

The Supreme Court ruling provides gay rights advocates with new legal ammunition in their continuing fight against the ban on homosexuals in the military and other discriminatory measures. It also protects existing provisions in nine states and more than 100 cities that prohibit anti-gay bias on the job, housing market, public accommodations, and elsewhere.

"Today the court gave all gay people in all states the right to move forward and ask for equality in employment, housing, and the political process," said Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University professor. It means gays and lesbians are not second class citizens, she said. "For the first time the Supreme Court has said that the government cannot justify discrimination simply out of hostility and fear," stated Matt Coles of the Civil Liberties Union.

Numerous protests against implementation of "Amendment 2," as the Colorado measure is known, have taken place since its approval in a state referendum in November 1992. Some 7,000 people from Colorado, for example, took part in the half-million strong gay rights march in Washington, D.C., in April 1993. The measure was also protested during the massive demonstration commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Stonewall rebellion in New York City in June 1994 and in other gay rights actions.

The Colorado Supreme Court voted 6 to 1 against Amendment 2 in 1993 and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed later to hear the state's appeal - the first time in a decade an antigay measure was reviewed at that stage. Earlier that year, a federal judge ruled a similar measure unconstitutional in Cincinnati.

The high court decision ignited attacks from conservative and right-wing groups. "Those forces bent on forcing a deviant life style down the throats of the American people have moved a long step forward in making government their pet bully," said Will Perkins of Colorado for Family Values.

Scalia, who voted against the ruling along with justices William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas said, "If it is constitutionally permissible for a state to make homosexual conduct criminal, surely it is constitutionally permissible for a state to enact other laws merely disfavoring homosexual conduct."

Scalia was referring to the Supreme Court's other major decision on the issue: the 1986 Bowers v. Harwick ruling that upheld a Georgia "antisodomy" statute, declaring the constitutional privacy right didn't extend to protecting consenting adults from prosecution for homosexual sex in their own bedrooms.

The majority opinion, Scalia said, "contains grim, disapproving hints that Coloradans have been guilty of `animus' or `animosity' toward homosexuality as though that has been established as un-American.... I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible - murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals - and could exhibit even `animus' toward such conduct."

The degree of anti-gay hostility reflected in the Colorado amendment "is the smallest conceivable," the justice wrote in his dissenting opinion. Even though the state had repealed anti-sodomy laws, Scalia added, "the society that eliminates criminal punishment for homosexual acts does not necessarily abandon the view that homosexuality is morally wrong and socially harmful."

The May 22 announcement by Clinton that he would sign the Defense of Marriage Act fueled the arguments of Scalia and company.

The bill, whose chief sponsor in the Senate is Republican presidential front-runner Robert Dole, defines legal marriage as "a union between a single man and a single woman." The legislation, which has not passed either house of Congress, would thus deny federal pension, healthcare, and other benefits to same- sex couples. It would also absolve states from recognizing a same- sex marriage performed in other states.

Clinton will "sign the bill if it is presented to him as it's currently written," White House spokesman Michael McCurry said at a May 22 news conference. When asked why Clinton opposes same-sex marriages, McCurry said, "He believes this is a time when we need to do things to strengthen the American family."

 
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home