FREEDOM *INTRO* Civil rights ofr gays/lesbians and their seeking protection from discrimination under written law is not a new issue. Since the Stonewall riots of 1969, gains have been made on many fronts. Much has been written and spoken about anit-discrimination ordinances and laws at the state, local, and federal levels. Many arguments have been put forth inopposition to recognizing gays and lesbians as a legitimate minority in need of "protection". Almost all of these negative arguments are predicated upon, either directly or by inference, the religious belief that homosexuality is abnorman, sinful and against the "natural" order of "God's unviverse." Those who hold these beliefs insis our laws reflect these concepts. a majority of voters is the State of Colorado have recently passed a new State Ordinance specifically barring the State from ever offering protection status to homosexuals and rescinding all city orginances provinding protecton to gays that had been on the book for years in Aspen and Denver -- a clear case of an opion and r eligious belief system being elevated to the level of civil law. Below, is the main text of an Exectuve order written by the Governor of the State of New York in 1983. It is offered as one of the more concise statement regarding just why the concept of separation of Church and State is so essential to our form of democracy. Governor Cuomo's words were the preamble in his Order that included "sexual orientation" as a protected class in the state of New York's anti-discrimination policy. FROM: EXEC. ORDER NO.28, NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE. NOVEMBER 18, 1983 AND AMENDED APRIL 21, 1987. MARIO CUOMO, GOVERNOR. Ours is a UNIQUE government. It was created and has been preserved by people from all over the world who came here seeing ONE THING above all others: freedom - freedom to believe and to act on those beliefs; freedom that says so longs as an individual's conduct and acts remain a matter of personal expression and do not deprive others of their rights, they should be neither RESTRAINED NOR PUNISHED BY GOVERNMENT. Our nation values freedom so greatly, it has been written into our Constitution. We all prize that freedom and millions have fought to protect and expand it. Each generation has come to understand the basic wisdom of our Constitution: that ONLY BY PROTECTING THE FREEDOM OF OTHERS CAN WE ENSURE IT FOR OURSELVES; that to encourage or allow government to discriminate against any belief or creed or private way of life would THREATEN US ALL. This is so because we could never be sure which particular value would dominate government at any particular point in time. Only NEUTRALITY by government was deemed safe and that is what our Constituton assures. This freedom makes us strong. It seems essential to our pluralism. It protects religious believers, and agnostics, and athiests, and political dissenters, and conservatives and liberals, creating a nation and a state where the right to live as conscience dictates is enshrined as law. Because of such freedom we enjoy a cultural and relgious diversity unmatched by any other nation. The freedom our Constitution grants, however, requires that government excercise a degree of tolerance unthinkable in societies less open or diverse th an ours. It demand a tolerance for the privacy of each individual, A REFUSAL TO USE THE STATE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF COERCION OF BELIEF OR THOUGHT, however desirable the majority regards a particualar belief or thought to be. Event when this freedom is unchallenged, it is so precious to us all that o ur commitment to preseve it from encroachment by government deserves constant reaffirmation and reiteration. But when this freedom is questined or when evidence of unfair discrimination exists, then our reaffirmation is not an option - it is a simple necessity. I have seen evidence of such encroachment. As Secretary of State, I was required to issue special regulations to prohibit discrimination against o individuals seeking licenses for certain occupations or corporate privileges. Up to that time such licenses were denied on the basis of sexual orientation or even presumed sexual orientaton. There is no reason to believe that the discrimination apparent in that part of government was confined there. No one argued then against my change in the State's regulations. No one was heard to say that government had no place in fighting unfair discrimination. In fact, in recognition of this, a personnel directive against discrimination in hiring was issued during the prior administration. I suggest, respectfully, that what was right then is right now. And I believe that there is no justification for the failure to announce freedom from discrimination as the policy, not just of the Department of State but for the entire State Government. Indeed, the most persistent argument that has neen offered in opposition to my stating the views contained in this Order does not really contradict any of them. Rather, it says, in effect, we ought not to state this constitutional truth because it may be misrepresented to be something else. Specifically, it is suggested that the argument against discrimination will be distorted into an argument promoting homosexuality. THE ARGUMENT IS BESIDE THE MARK. There is no PERFECT PROTECTION against distortion. Indeed, one could as easily argue that SILENCE ON THE ISSUE could be distorted into an argument promoting discrimination against homosexuals. In this case, this staement on Executive order are clear. THEIR ESSENCE IS THAT OUR GOVERNMENT CANNOT PROMOTE ANY RELIGIOUS CREED, BELIEF, OR LIFE- STYLE WITHOUT THEREBY THREATENING ALL OTHERS. THIS IS AN ARGUMENT FOR SECURING FREEDOM BY INSISTING ON NEUTRALITY. IT IS A PROPOSITION THAT IS AT THE VERY FOUNDATION OF OUR NATION'S STREGNTH. WE OUGHT NEVER BE EMBARRASSED NOR AFRAID TO REPEAT IT.