Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 16:20:04 -0400 From: Maggie Heineman Subject: CO for "Family Values" speaks out on Amendment 2 - closing up shop? YOU DECIDE Thanks to my colleague and friend, the Rev. Meg Riley, of the Washington Office of the UUA for forwarding this. -geo >A message from Will Perkins, Chairman of the Board, Colorado for Family Values. > >Dear Friends, >I write to you today on a sad and personally difficult occasion. > >By now, I'm sure you've heard an earful in the media about the Supreme Court's decision against Amendment 2. I write now, not in an attempt to put a "good face" on this dark outcome, but rather to share my heart with you at this pivotal juncture in our history. I write not to try to soothe the anger you may be feeling, but rather to ask you to join me in channeling it into redemptive action. > >On Monday morning I barely had time to grab the text of the decision off the fax machine before rushing out the door to address the media at a mid-morning press conference. I only knew the basics: that Amendment 2 had been overturned 6 to 3. Little more. Only later did I get the chance to sit down and review Justice Kennedy's opinion for myself. The more I read, the deeper my heart sank. > >Not only did the Supreme Court majority strike down Amendment 2, but it did so bitingly, with an aggressiveness and a vengeance that surprised even impartial court observers. University of Colorado Law Professor Robert Nagel noted that Kennedy seemed to go out of his way to politicize the decision. "I don't think there's any doubt that the court took sides in what is a political and moral dispute, and wrote an opinion that is essentially political," Nagel said. "This opinion is written for people who already agree with the court. It doesn't really recognize that there are people who would take the other side, either morally or constitutionally." > >Justice Kennedy repeatedly accused Amendment 2 supporters - you and I, in other words - of being motivated by "animosity" towards gays. He allowed no shred of principled disagreement on gay rights. No amount of legitimate concern over the intolerance of militant homosexuals. No, in Kennedy's mind, only good old-fashioned "homophobia" could possibly have motivated the Colorado majority. Every poll taken after the election proved conclusively that hatred played no part in the vote. As I examine my heart, and I'm sure as you examine yours, I know Justice Kennedy was dead wrong. His aspersions were so unfair that dissenting Justice Scalia struck back: "The Court's portrayal of Coloradans as a society fallen victim to pointless, hate-filled 'gay-bashing' is so false as to be comical." > > It's important to remember now, as so many people talk of healing and unity, that Justice Kennedy's rhetoric injected a divisive, even spiteful tone into this outcome. But the decision is actually far worse than that. > >FIrst of all, Kennedy accuses Amendment 2 of making a "status-based" distinction against homosexuals. The word "status" is incredibly frightening. With the word, the Justices have officially implied that homosexuality is an unchangeable part of who someone is - that they are "born that way." Never before has the United States Supreme Court made such an inference. People's choice of sex partners has now been raised to the same level of importacne as the color of someone's skin, and by extension, the struggle for racial equality. If the highest court in the land arbitrarily rules homosexuality a "status" - actually a scientific and theological controversy which is none of its business - what rights or protections will they recognize for those who disagree? > >Second, worse still - this decision effectively gives homosexuals the status of a protected minority. Dan Friesan, a constitutional law expert, told the press today that "...gays and lesbians are now, in a very real sense, in a protected class." By upholding the "strict scrutiny" standard imposed by the Colorado courts, the six majority Justices have in effect slapped the very same "do not touch" sign on homosexual issues which minority status would have given them. Other judges are sure to interpret this ruling as a definitive prohibition on any law which would inconvenience homosexuals - from measures banning same sex "marriage" to bills sttempting to shield school children from pro-gay indoctrination. Another reason why this decision is an across the board disaster for all those defending the right to disagree with homosexuality. > >Third, the Evans v. Romer decision gives any group whatsoever, regardless of the behavior which defines it, a constitutional right not to be adversely affected by the outcome of an election. Using the logic of this decision, the losing party in next November's presidential election could file a lawsuit and declare the proceedings null and void. Do me a favor and read the preceding sentence again. If it sounds absurd, if it seems to fly in the face of our whole democratic tradition, then you've captured the Court's ruling precisely. No wonder California Attorney General Dan Lungren, no opponent of "gay rights" per se, signed a pro-Amendment 2 friend-of-the-court brief and warned that if the Colorado Supreme Court verdict was upheld, "...any 'independently identfiable group' in California would be able to challenge any statewide law..." > >As I said earlier, I'm not out to sugarcoat this. The decision is far worse than I had ever imagined possible. In fact, this decision represents such an agregious overstepping of the Supreme Court's judicial boundaries that we have ample cause to call for the impeachment of the six majority justices. Although it may be unusual, there is strong case law to back up such a move. > >Possibly the only shred of consolation we can glean from this decision is the impassioned opinion of Justice Scalia, who wrote for the three dissenting justices (himself, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist). Scalia objected so strongly to this decision that he insisted on the highly unusual move of reading his opinion aloud from the bench. In various places Scalia called the decision, "ridiculous" and "insulting," accused Kennedy's opinion of "ignoring inconvenient precedent," and accused it of having "...no support in law or logic." He described Amendment 2 as "...a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws." Later on, he stated, "No principle set forth in the Constitution, nor even any imagined by the Court in the past 200 years, prohibits what Colorado has done here." In summation, he wrote, "Today's opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends so...Striking it down is an act, not of judicial judgement, but of political will." > >Thank God for Justice Scalia and his two sensible colleagues. Let's keep them in our prayers in the days ahead, asking that they be protected from the attacks sure to accompany this courageous dissent. > >Now we are left with a troubling, abiding question: "What's next?" What can we expect in Colorado following the reversal of Amendment 2? What sort of renewed attacks will come from the jubilant forces of militant homosexuality? To answer that question, I'd like to return us to 1991, when all this began. The events of that year, which motivated us to initiate Amendment 2, probably hold the answer to what comes next. > >1991 saw our Legislature debate a so-called "ethnic harrassment" bill containing a speech-clause so broad that it would have made any statement critical of homosexuality a "hate crime." (If you don't think such a thing is possible in America, please remember that Canada slaps $25,000 fines on anyone criticizing homosexuality over the airwaves. In Sweden, a pastor was recently jailed for delivering a sermon from Romans 1 which "offended" homosexual listeners.) > >1991 also saw state-funded "sensitivity training" instructors actually force employees of Pueblo State Hospital who would not wear a button stating "it's OK to be gay" to walk forward and stand silent before their assembled colleagues. That year saw activist members of the state Civil Rights Commision crosscross Colorado in support of a statewide bill making it a crime for someone disapproving of homosexuality to exercise his or her freedom of association. It saw Metro State College of Denver tell a Jewish student group that it would be expelled from campus unless it violated it's religious tenets and admitted open homosexuals. It saw these and more extremist, pro-homosexual measures waiting in the legislative bullpen. > >You see, we did not propose Amendment 2 to "pick on" poor, innocent, politically powerless homosexuals. We did it to protect our most basic freedoms from a very real and very vicious threat. Now, that threat is redoubled. That is why I believe the work of Colorado for Family Values is more necessary that ever. > >Today, however, we also see threats to our children. Governor Romer's recent pro-homosexual speech before a classroom of ten-year-olds may only be an outrageous preview of things to come. Several years ago, the AIDS administrator for the Denver school district pledged to implement the infamous Rainbow Curriculum "...as soon as CFV pipes down." You may remember the New York City uproar over the Rainbow Curriculum, which would have subjected kids of all grade levels to degrading pro-gay propoganda and graphic "safe sex" instructions. This decision may give this administrator the cue she's been waiting for. > >I'll say it again: the day is dark. All freedom-loving Americans have been dealt a severe blow, Coloradans most of all. > >"This is not a time to extend the arm of friendship," yelled Rabbi Steven Foster, a leading Amendment 2 opponent, to a jubilant crowd of homosexuals celebrating the decision. "This is still a war, and it has not been won!" There is no doubt about it. The weeks and months ahead will witness the most concentrated onslaught of pro-homosexual activism our state has ever seen. > >All that said, however, I don't intend to sit around and wring my hands for the rest of my life. I see two options before us. We can lapse into despair over the state of our nation, or we can turn our anger into positive action. Let's choose the latter. Now, more than ever, Colorado needs a strong voice opposing the forced affirmation of homosexuality. Without that voice, the events which loomed large in 1991 will come to pass. > >Another thought has struck me since this decision. Because precendent played no role in this decision, the ruling could have easily gone either way. That reminds me who is actually sovereign here. It causes me to remember the true source of my values - certainly not the Supreme Court. And it causes me to think that perhaps God has something far bigger and far more exciting than Amendment 2 in store for us. I'm not sure what that is; it could be a restoration of judicial restraint returning legislative powers to elected representatives, or a return to our Judeo-Christian heritage, or even a sweeping spiritual revival. Whatever it is, the prospect gives me a sense of great anticipation. > >What about you? One thing I know for certain: this organization cannot continue without your immediate support. Five years ago, we presented Coloradans with the concept of protecting our freedoms through Amendment 2, and you responded. Today, with our amendment struck down and the threat of homosexual extremism renewed, we need to know, quite honestly, whether you want us to continue. We have no interest in perpetuating some lonely crusade. We need your thoughts and ideas, because in the final analysis, that's what keeps us going. The outcome depends on your reaction. > >Colorado for Family Values has always depended month-to-month on the goodwill giving of everyday citizens like you. Because they are not tax deductible, these gifts have been truly sacrificial. We operate in the black, debt-free, with a limited staff of two and one part-timer. Our office relies heavily on volunteer help. We stretch every dollar in our efforts to protect traditional values. > >Homosexual extremists would love nothing more than to see Colorado for Family Values, and all opposition to their oppressive agenda, disappear with this verdict. We cannot let that happen - not for our state, not for our nation, certainly not for our children. > >Will you stand with us? I need to hear from you soon - with your thoughts, and with your financial support. Join me in moving beyond anger and despair. On this dark day, let's redouble our determination to take positive action and preserve our future. > >SIncerely, >(signed) >Will Perkins =================================================================== Please note: Effective immediately, correspondence to George Neighbors, Jr., PFLAG Field Services Director, should be sent to this address,"GNeighbors@PFLAG.org (George Neighbors.Jr.)", not "Neighbors@aol.com" thanks geo "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it 's the only thing that ever does." - Margaret Mead "love much... be strong.... ain't that what it is all about???" Shannon Brady PS: Visit our wonderfully, helpful, useful and fun web site at: http://www.pflag.org/ -- Maggie Heineman maggie@critpath.org List-owner pa-expose & pa-explv@critpath.org Webmaster PFLAG-Talk/TGS-PFLAG http://www.critpath.org/pflag-talk/