Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 19:25:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Beer Copyright 1994 Star Tribune Star Tribune May 4, 1994, Metro Edition SECTION: Variety; Deb Price; Pg. 6E LENGTH: 644 words HEADLINE: All the people should be equal under the law BYLINE: Deb Price BODY: The promise of our nation is chiseled in stone in the front of the U.S. Supreme Court Building: "Equal Justice Under Law." That magnificent guarantee is supposed to bring to mind the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Yet when I stand outside the courthouse and look up at those four words, the document I always catch myself thinking about is "Animal Farm." After the animals in George Orwell's tale overthrow the humans, their farm briefly operates on a simple premise: "All animals are equal." Once the pigs become lords of the manor, though, the motto is revised: "All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others." Are heterosexuals more equal than gay people under the U.S. Constitution? Are we gay people just the equivalent of workhorses in a republic ruled by selfish pigs? For more than 20 years, the Supreme Court has dodged those questions by turning away virtually all gay-rights cases involving employment or the military. For example, in 1985, it turned away the appeal of Majorie Rowlands, an Ohio guidance counselor fired for saying she is bisexual. "The court has repeatedly and consistently refused to take cases that would directly present the issue whether governmental discrimination against gay people violates the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause," said Arthur Leonard in "Sexuality and the Law." The court also ducks the fundamental civil rights questions raised in gay cases by simply declaring an issue isn't federal. That's the tactic used in 1972 to dismiss the appeal of a male couple seeking to marry in Minnesota. (In striking down state laws against interracial marriage, the court had declared marriage "one of the basic civil rights of man.") Except for its 1986 sodomy decision, which deemed privacy a strictly heterosexual right, the Supreme Court has ensured the survival of anti-gay laws mostly through inaction. Many gay-rights attorneys view the High Court as such hostile territory that they try to avoid it. The court, after all, has swung so far right that Barry Goldwater would be a "liberal" justice. This, of course, is not the first time that the Supreme Court has alternately encouraged and ignored horrendous violations of constitutional rights. In 1896, the court upheld the arrest of Homer Plessy for sitting in a "whites only" railroad car in New Orleans. Then for 58 years it refused to re-examine the racist "separate but equal" standard established by Plessy vs. Ferguson. Was racial segregation constitutional? Finally, in 1954, "the court could no longer dodge that question," Richard Kluger writes in "Simple Justice," a history of the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling. By outlawing segregated public schools in Brown, the court unanimously agreed with the civil rights attorney who pointed out: "Our Constitution has no provision across it that all men are equal but that white men are more equal than others." Similarly, the court cannot forever ignore laws that make heterosexuals more equal. Yet, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas opposed to civil rights for most anyone, gay-rights attorneys face the unnerving prospect of needing five of the six other justices. Of the six, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voted with the anti-gay majority on sexual privacy in '86 and Justice John Paul Stevens dissented. The others, including Justice Harry Blackmun's successor, remain largely untested. Our country is moving toward recognition that equal justice is a promise made to all Americans, straight or gay. No exceptions. The question before the court is whether it will lead or follow. Deb Price is a columnist for the Detroit News. Letters should be addressed to her at GNS Features, 1000 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22229-0001. Copyright 1994 Star Tribune Star Tribune May 4, 1994, Saint Paul Edition SECTION: News; Pg. 1B LENGTH: 622 words HEADLINE: Coleman won't sign gay month proclamation; Objects to 'lifestyle issues' language BYLINE: Anthony Lonetree; Staff Writer BODY: Gay pride will be celebrated in the Twin Cities this summer without the blessing of one of its mayors. St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman said Tuesday that he has refused to sign a proclamation declaring June as "the month of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Celebration." He said that he would have joined Minneapolis Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton in endorsing the annual event if it were for gays and lesbians only, but that he sees no public purpose in promoting bisexual or transgender pride. Why the distinction? "I see [being bisexual or having a sex change] as lifestyle issues," Coleman said. On the other hand, he said, gays and lesbians have legal status as "protected-class" citizens because of their sexual orientation. City Council President Dave Thune, who wrote a 1990 ordinance establishing gay rights in St. Paul, said he does not believe the mayor is being inclusive in his actions, and will ask him to reconsider today. Thune added that he makes no distinction among gays, lesbians, bisexuals and people who undergo a sex change. "My personal feeling is that it is not a lifestyle choice, it's the way nature intended things," he said. Organizers of this year's celebration, which also is to include a Gay Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Day on July 10, had been waiting about two weeks for Coleman to sign the proclamation after it had been endorsed by Sayles Belton. Rather than sign, he sent a letter saying he appreciates the "significant contributions" of the gay and lesbian community, and affirming that he is committed to promoting "fairness and equality in all areas of life." St. Paul has a history of leaders who have taken potentially unpopular stands in defense of gay rights. PAGE 19 Star Tribune, May 4, 1994 In 1978, Mayor George Latimer sided with gays and lesbians in the face of a divisive campaign to repeal a human-rights ordinance that included gays. Voters ultimately repealed the gay-rights provisions. The City Council approved another gay-rights ordinance in 1990. It also was the subject of a repeal campaign, but that effort was rejected. Mayor Jim Scheibel was among the elected officials opposing the repeal. Last year in his mayoral campaign, Coleman said he voted against repeal. But he also took pride in having the support of police Lt. Bob Fletcher and Council Member Dino Guerin, who helped lead the most recent repeal effort. Yesterday, Coleman said he believes that the inclusion of bisexuals and transgender people in the gay pride celebration represents the ultimate in political correctness. Jean Tretter, a gay-rights historian and archivist who lives in St. Paul and who delivered the proclamation to the mayor's office, said the two groups were added to the annual event about three years ago. But, he said, he believes that the mayor is second-guessing his decision not to endorse the event, and that his targeting bisexuals and transgender people is proof that he was struggling for an excuse for his actions. "This puts the whole city in a bad light," Tretter said. He also did not disguise his anger, calling Coleman a "bigot." But others were puzzled by the mayor's action. They said proclamations often are "friendly gestures" that politicians dole out routinely. Richard Shields, former chairman of the Fourth Congressional District DFL Party, who is gay, joked that Gov. Rudy Perpich designated so many days of celebration that he could have put a sign on his door reading: "Have proclamation, will travel." "These are not big issues, usually," Shields said. "I see proclamations as the equivalent of a birthday card from the White House."