|
A Different Angle: a random collection of essays and observations, mostly about lesbian/gay/bi issues.
|
The Supreme Court's recent 6-3 ruling against Colorado's notorious Amendment 2 stops far short of recognizing the true civil rights of lesbian, bi, and gay citizens. They didn't outlaw anti-gay discrimination. But they did finally establish (by a fairly safe 2/3 margin) that we do have the right to fight for those rights... just like any other citizen. According to Justice Anthony Kennedy and those who signed on to his written opinion, "equal protection under the law" does apply to us.
In 1992, Colorado voters were presented with a constitutional amendment drafted to sound innocuous, but which would quietly pull the rug out from under us... by revoking existing protections, and denying us access to the political and judicial processes to get them back (and to extend them beyond a few cities). It passed.
This set a dangerous precedent: the civil rights of a minority could be nullified by a simple majority. (This is how it started in Germany, some 65 years ago.) Without popular support, we had to resort to the tattered judicial safety net. The Supreme Court has never been friendly to lesbian/gay/bi issues, so appealing to "the court of last resort" was a risk. This time, it paid off.
The Court still says that we don't have the right to consensual sex in the privacy of our own homes (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986). And there is nothing in their ruling this year that actually recognizes our right to fair treatment in housing, employment, or public accommodation. But for the first time ever, the Supreme Court has explicitly guaranteed our right to work within the system to secure legal protection of these rights. It has exposed the anti- gay movement for what it is: an attempt to classify us as second-class citizens.
In his dissent, Justice Anthony Scalia stated that Amendment 2 "does not even disfavor homosexuals in any substantive sense, but merely denies them preferential treatment." (It's too bad reading comprehension skills are not required to serve.) And the right-wing supporters of Amendment 2 have called for the impeachment of the six justices who struck it down. (Relax. Justices can only be impeached for criminal misconduct, not for merely disagreeing with a particular political faction.) The lunatic fringe is showing its colors, making the majority look all the more rational.
Part of the reason for this incremental change is the make-up of the court. Half of the justices who voted in the Hardwick case are no longer on the bench. But that doesn't fully explain it, especially since it was the liberals who were replaced, by moderates and conservatives. Only one of the dissenters (William Rehnquist) was serving in 1986, with two New Kids On The Bench (Scalia and "Uncle" Clarence Thomas) joining him.
The difference is that even moderate and conservative jurists - including some appointed by Reagan and Bush - are learning to deal with the issues. A decade ago, when we were still in the closeted margins of society, the Supreme Court's majority wrote with contempt and disgust about homosexuals. That prejudice blinded them to the fundamental issue of privacy before them.
Today they seem less uncomfortable... enough to actually sit down and judge the questions of due process and equal protection. And that is the direct result of the increasing visibility and open participation of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in the life of our society. We just need to keep at it.
Comments?
To the Different Angle main menu