[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 156 (Tuesday, October 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9764-H9765]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                TOLERANCE AND JUSTICE FOR ALL AMERICANS

  (Mrs. SCHROEDER asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, today my city of Denver and many other 
Coloradans went to the Supreme Court and a very, very powerful argument 
was put together by my city and many others that would say that all 
Americans, all Americans, have the right to equal protection of the 
laws, including gay men and lesbians. Amendment 2 was adopted by a slim 
majority in my State of Colorado in 1992, and this is the final 
culmination of it in the Supreme Court.
  Mr. Speaker, as I stand in this well, the word ``tolerance'' is right 
here to my left. The word ``justice'' is right behind me. Those kinds 
of words are printed all over and chiseled on stone all throughout this 
great city. The issue today is do we really mean it.
  Justice Ginsburg made a compelling analogy to the suffragettes, 
pointing out that when they could not win the right to vote nationally, 
they went to localities to do that. I certainly hope that the outcome 
continues to be in accordance with the words that we have chiseled on 
all of our stones around here about tolerance and justice and equal 
protection for all.
  Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court today heard a powerful argument on 
behalf of the city of Denver and other parties that a majority of 
voters cannot override the right to equal protection of the laws 
enjoyed by all Americans, including gay men and lesbians.
  Amendment 2, adopted by a slim majority of voters in 1992, would have 
deprived all branches of Colorado government of the power to remedy any 
claim of discrimination based on homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual 
orientation. Some people have framed this as a special protection 
issue, but it is clear that what is at issue is the right of people to 
be free from arbitrary, irrational discrimination based on their sexual 
orientation. Equal treatment, not special treatment, is the issue. Even 
more fundamentally, what is at stake is the ability of one group of 
voters to place roadblocks in the way of others who seek to participate 
in the political process.
  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a compelling analogy in this 
morning's argument to the suffragists and their struggle to win the 
vote for women. She noted that when suffragists were unable to win the 
right to vote on a broader basis, they sought and won the right to vote 
in certain localities. It would have been an outrageous interference 
with the political gains made by suffragists at the local level for a 
State to move to invalidate those local voting laws. Similarly, it is 
unacceptable for a slim 

[[Page H 9765]]
majority to declare that the State government, State subdivisions, 
municipalities, and school districts are powerless to act to provide a 
remedy for arbitrary discrimination.
  Observers of today's argument are hopeful that the Supreme Court will 
uphold the Colorado Supreme Court's decision invalidating amendment 2. 
I congratulate Denver and the other appellees for their powerful 
arguments before the Supreme Court this morning, and look forward to a 
decision consistent with this Nation's commitment to the civil rights 
of all its citizens.

                          ____________________