Discrimination against gays is OK, expert says
But he says term isn't 'pejorative'

By Chris Wolf
Colorado Daily Staff Writer

  DENVER -- Attorneys for the state concluded six days of testimony in defense
of Colorado's disputed anti-gay-rights amendment Wednesday with the questioning
of a Princeton University professor on "the intersection of public morality and
civil liberties," and how it relates to Amendment 2.

  According to Professor Robert George, all public policy and lawmaking is
based on moral judgment, and decisions on such matters will inevitably encroach
on the civil liberties of some.  While the Constitution sets out some specific
boundaries of what is and is not negotiable in the way of rights, there are
some issues the founder failed to address [such as genocide], he said.

  Therefore, George told state Solicitor General Timothy Tymkovich, Colorado
voters' approval last fall of the amendment outlawing "protected-class status"
for homosexuals is an appropriate answer to a policy question.  [the QUEER
question, no doubt, like the Final Solution to the Jewish Problem]

  "In certain areas, moral issues have been addressed at the constitutional
level and thereby taken out of the realm of ordinary politics," George said. 
"But in other areas, they have not.  And here, it is left to the people to
decide through public referendum," he said.

  "Is there anything illegitimate about pursuing moral judgment through the
political process?" Tymkovich asked. [Remember Kids: slavery was quite
legitimate according to the Founding Fathers]

  "There can't possibly be if we believe in democracy," George said.

  "During cross-examination, however, plaintiff's attorney Greg Eurich put a
different spin on the subject of discrimination.  "Do you believe that Colorado
would be better off it its citizens were free to discriminate against gays,
lesbians, and bi-sexuals [sic]," Eurich asked.

  "Yes," George replied, adding that in this case he applied the word
"discriminate" in the broader sense, not the "pejorative" sense.  [I wasn't
aware there were two senses of the word.  "Discriminate" just means to treat
differently.  In some cases that is appropriate, and in others it is not.  To
discriminate based on ability is essential.  Based on sexual orientation, it is
ridiculous.]

  George, who had earlier testified that he draws his own moral philosophy from
Aristotle, Play-dough, and [Clarence] Thomas Aquinas, said these thinkers have
said clearly that homosexuality is "BAD." [emphasis mine]  George also said he
agreed with these great thinkers when they professed that the only appropriate
sexual behavior [for NORMAL Aryans] was heterosexual within marriage.

  Like sex with corpses, sex with animals, sex out of marriage and
masturbation, George said, homosexuality is "BAD sexual conduct" and "SHAMEFUL
behavior such that a person of appropriate self-respect WOULD NOT subject him
or herself [yeah for gender parity!] to the negative moral consequences of [boo
for prepositions to end a sentence with]."  [One would presume that further
restrictions apply to sexual relations within marriage, so the obedient should
consult the good professor before engaging in anything pleasurable.]

  Although George said for these  reasons he saw no philosophical problem with
the majority's decision last fall, he also said that no person can be the Moral
Superior or Inferior of another [uh HUH].  "This is what's meant by 'all MEN
are created equal,'" he said. "All people are of the same inherent worth,
dignity and value [BARGAINS! CLEARANCE SALE! TREMEDOUS VALUES AT GREAT
SAVINGS!], no matter what their FAILINGS [ding! ding! ding! ding! value
judgment in progress!]."

  But, "good acts make good character, and bad acts make bad character [some
are MORE equal than others]," George said.

  The hearings on Amendment 2 are in recess today, and will resume Friday for
rebuttals and closing arguments.  Denver District Court Judge Jeffrey Bayless
is expected to render a decision within weeks. [a long time to hold your
breath, folks]