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

   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