Gays, lesbians and bisexuals across the United States are awaiting a decision on the most important gay-rights case the
U.S. Supreme Court has heard in nine years.

At question is Colorado's Amendment 2, a law passed by a voter referendum in November 1992, which prohibits the state or any municipality from passing any laws that protect gays from discrimination. The amendment voided gay-rights protections already in place in some Colorado cities.

Richard Evans of Denver sued, and the Colorado Supreme Court overturned the amendment. The ultimate fate of the measure now lies in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has just heard arguments on the case, but will not announce a decision for several months.

Equal rights regardless of race, religion, physical ability and other factors have long been federally protected. But if
Amendment 2 passed, it would be perfectly legal to fire someone or deny housing or even emergency room care solely because of a person's sexual orientation. Don't kid yourself to think these things never happen. They do.

Colorado's Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from denying equal rights.

I recently saw Kevin Tebedo, director of the measure's sponsoring group Coloradans for Family Values, on a talk show. He said firing someone for being gay is just like firing someone for being an alcoholic.

But he's completely wrong. Alcoholism will almost inevitably affect work performance and attendance. There is not a shred of evidence to demonstrate either that homosexuality is an illness or that it affects work performance.

There is no justifiable reason to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Gay-rights opponents ultimately just want to impose their religious views on others - a very un-American proposition.

What if Orthodox Jews came into the majority and mandated that we all eat kosher? What if conservative Muslims came into power and forced women to cover their faces in public?
Our government is a secular institution and should use secular reasoning. It should follow the Constitution, not the Bible.

Of course, conservative Christians have a right to believe homosexuality is morally wrong, but does that also entitle them to determine that gays should be legally treated as second-class citizens?

Loving members of your own sex is not a crime. It does not harm anybody.

But the Supreme Court refused to see that in 1986 in Bowers vs. Hardwick, in which the court upheld the enforcement of Georgia's anti-sodomy laws, saying that gays do not deserve the right to sexual privacy. A lot has changed since then in terms of Americans' attitudes about gay rights. We'll see if the Court has changed too.

Many straight people like to say that they don't mind that some people are gay as long as they don't have to hear about it. But is a man really trying to offend when he places a picture of his male partner on his desk at work? When a woman mentions to coworkers going on a date with another woman? When two women request to share a bed at a hotel? Are they asking to do anything that everyone else doesn't do every day? The issue is equal rights, not "special rights." Let's hope the court gets it right this time.

Gregory Potts is a journalism graduate student and a member of the Oklahoma Bisexual Network.

Monday, November 6, 1995