Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 01:16:28 -0400 From: Maggie Heineman Subject: FOF statement on Amendment 2 forwarded to me by "ccwatch" -Maggie ---------------------------------------- This is from Focus on the Family re Amendment 2-- Colorado Springs -- The following statement was released by Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family vice president of public policy, in response to today's U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 decision to strike down Colorado's Amendment 2: "This is a disappointing decision that marks a defeat for the people of Colorado and for freedom of conscience. Once again, judicial activism has imposed itself upon the Constitution and the democratic process. "We applaud Justice Scalia's impassioned dissent and we agree with his opinion that this ruling has 'no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to.' We agree with Justice Scalia's conclusion that today's Court action 'is an act not of judicial judgment, but of political will.' "As Justice Scalia states, Amendment 2 is a 'reasonable provision' that 'does not even disfavor homosexuals in any substantive sense, but merely denies them preferential treatment.' The amendment would have simply prevented the Colorado legislature from granting special minority status based on what some people do in their bedrooms. "Amendment 2 politically-disenfranchised no one. It did not prohibit anyone from voting, lobbying, running for public office, or trying to persuade public opinion. Homosexuals have always had an equal right to participate in politics just as anyone else -- Amendment 2 would never have taken away that freedom. The amendment would have merely preserved the rights of the people of Colorado to respect their own moral beliefs about homosexuality. "We are puzzled that the Court has chosen to protect a group of people whose only identifiable trait is a behavior that the Court has allowed states to criminalize in Bowers v. Hardwick. As Justice Scalia states in his dissent: '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.' "This amendment clearly would not have sought out and persecuted homosexuals. It was passed by a majority of Coloradoans as a defensive act to prevent the legislature from enacting a law that would violate individuals' right to privacy and free exercise of religion in regards to legitimizing homosexual behavior. "It is a sad day for the Supreme Court and for the U.S. Constitution when six justices inject their own personal judgments by 'take[ing] sides in this culture war,' as Justice Scalia puts it, to disparage the moral views of the people of Colorado." []