[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 75 (Friday, May 24, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E927-E928]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 NEW BEDFORD STANDARD TIMES SUPPORTS SUPREME COURT'S COLORADO DECISION

                                 ______


                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 23, 1996

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to read 
in the New Bedford Standard Times, on Thursday, May 23, an excellent 
editorial in support of the recent Supreme Court ruling striking down 
the anti-gay and lesbian law in Colorado. As the editorial cogently 
points out, what the Supreme Court said is ``that this is still the 
United States of America, people are still entitled to equal protection 
under the law. All people. Even ones we may misunderstand or, as in the 
case of Colorado voters, despise. The Supreme Court understands that, 
even if many other people do not.'' I am very grateful to the editorial 
board of the New Bedford Standard Times for coming to the Supreme 
Court's defense on this important occasion when they have reaffirmed 
basic American constitutional principles. And I ask that this 
excellent, temperate, well reasoned editorial be printed here.

       Court's Ruling on Gays Was Strict Reading of Constitution

       The U.S. Supreme Court made a profoundly conservative 
     decision this week when it voted 6-3 to strike down a 
     Colorado measure that sought to deny homosexuals any 
     ``special treatment'' under the law.
       That's always the charge when gays in the United States 
     make any attempts to appeal to the government to stop people 
     from discriminating against them. They're looking for 
     ``special treatment'' that no one else gets.
       But the Colorado constitutional amendment turned that logic 
     on its head, giving homosexuals ``special treatment'' no 
     American would want, and in the process ran afoul of the 
     equal protection clause of the Constitution.
       The six justices who made that conclusion haven't lost 
     their minds. They haven't subscribed to some subversive 
     liberal agenda. They merely read the words of the amendment 
     in question and took them literally. And what they meant, 
     literally, that one group of people was to be singled out for 
     a single trait and systematically denied any specific civil 
     rights protection in the State of Colorado.
       ``It is not within our constitutional traditions to enact 
     laws of this sort'' was the tart understatement of Justice 
     Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority decision. To 
     better understand what he meant, try substituting the words 
     ``black'' or ``elderly'' or ``handicapped'' for the word 
     ``homosexual'' and try talking about denying those groups 
     protection under the law when they have

[[Page E928]]

     been discriminated against. To put it simply, in those cases 
     where communities have instituted laws protecting gays from 
     discrimination in housing, banking, employment or whatever, 
     it is because of the fact that without such protections it 
     remains legal to discriminate against them in many instances. 
     The discrimination does happen. As we see in Colorado, that's 
     the way a lot of people would like it.
       But thanks to the fact that this is still the United States 
     of America, people are still entitled to equal protection 
     under the law. All people. Even ones we may misunderstand or, 
     as in the case of Colorado voters, despise. The Supreme Court 
     understands that, even if many other people do not. We've got 
     a long way to go in this country, don't we?

                          ____________________