Analysis of the Cornfield Resolution By Scott Curry, Equality Kansas Several legislators aligned with the religious far-right have readied a resolution that they will introduce in the Kansas House next session. The wording of the resolution is very similar to Amendment 2, which recently passed in Colorado, and several other similar amendments and resolutions that are now being introduced all over the country. At first glance, the resolution appears to be harmless enough, stating that since "all citizens have equal fundamental rights and have equal protection under law," the "preferences of some people are not entitled to have a priority over the preferences of any other citizens." If all citizens have equal fundamental rights under the constitution, and if those fundamental rights include rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then clearly the "preferences of some people are not entitled to have a priority over the preferences" of others. So why a resolution? The answer is in the resolution's next paragraph, which states, "We memorialize Congress to refrain from enacting or amending any legislation that defines certain sexual or life-style preferences as having PROTECTED CLASS status." With this sentence, the authors of the resolution have leapt from equality to bashing. What they are trying to fool us into resolving is: Because the Constitution states that we are all created equal, neither single individuals, nor a group of individuals, needs the protection of our government. After all the talk of everybody being equal, most people do not recognize what the authors of the resolution are stating when they use the term "protected class". Most people, after reading through all the statements about everybody else being equal, see "protected class" as meaning "special class, with special rights." At this point we have to ask ourselves whether homosexuals are asking for special rights. Is the right to have housing a special right? Is the right to be served food in a restaurant a special right? Is the right to have and raise children without the state seizing them a special right? Is the right to walk down the street and not get attacked because of who you are and whom you love a special right? These do not seem to be special rights. These appear to be the fundamental rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the Constitution guarantees to every citizen of the United States of America. If we take these rights from homosexuals through a sleight-of-hand distortion of the language, who's next? Will it be a race of individuals? Will it be the Jews, Muslims, Catholics, or Protestants? Republicans? Democrats? Will it be the trade unionists? We would urge you to write to your legislators. Explain that without civil rights laws that specifically ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, gay people, as well as those suspected of being gay, can lose their jobs, their homes, and their families and be refused service at public accomodations simply because they are gay -- with no legal recourse. Let Topeka know you are watching and you will no longer tolerate your rights being usurped by right wing zealots who speak of special rights, while wanting the very special right to discriminate against those whom they hate.