First, you may be surprised that "gay rights" is not described herein as a "moral issue." Second, you won't find homosexual behavior as a primary civil rights issue factor in this paper. Third, you may be surprised to learn that, as "gay rights" activists now define their position, "gayness" and protection of "gay rights" doesn't involve behavioral issues at all. Let me explain further...

Most people, both gay and "straight," who are concerned with the "gay rights" issue believe the intent of "gay rights" to involve the legal protection of homosexuals and their behavior, so as to (1) prevent homosexuals from suffering "discrimination" and (2) enable any "gay" person to "claim discrimination" under civil rights laws.

However, this understanding is now incorrect -- because gay activists and "gay rights" supporters have, in fact, redefined the issue. Here is a current operative definition of "gay rights" as gay activists and their attorneys themselves now define the concept: "Gay rights" involves the acquisition by all self-allegedly gay, lesbian and bisexual people of a special, "protected" status under civil rights law equal to that enjoyed by recognized "minority" groups, BASED SOLELY ON HOW ANYONE CLAIMING TO BE GAY, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL MERELY SAYS HE OR SHE DESIRES TO ENGAGE IN SEX.

Notice that "gay rights," as avowed gay activists and their supporters now define them, are not awarded based on how people have sex, nor on how they want to have sex, but solely on how they say they want to have sex. This distinction's full significance will become clearer as you read on, but for now, let me say this:

"Gay rights" advocates have taken sexual BEHAVIOR out of their definition of "gayness." Therefore, whether "gay rights" opponents approve of homosexual behavior or not, or believe homosexual behavior is "immoral" or distasteful has no relevance to the legal and constitutional arguments gay activists are now presenting. In fact, every member of a currently-recognized "minority" class in America could (God forbid) become a criminal sexual deviate tomorrow and not lose their "minority" status. The criteria by which the U.S. Supreme Court defines "minority" (or what's known as "protected class" or "suspect") status simply do not involve questions about sexuality or "morality" as these terms are commonly understood. What's more, civil rights authorities typically view class social deficiencies as proof of "minority" qualification. Thus, gay militants benefit from attacks on their behavior, which make them appear more "oppressed."

For these reasons, the analysis that follows doesn't discuss homosexual behavior or "lifestyles" as a primary issue. For whether or not "gay rights" becomes national policy, and homosexuals, bisexuals and lesbians become recognized as a nationally protected "minority" class will not be determined by either "moral" or even "public health" considerations, but strictly on the basis of whether gays as an entire class meet the criteria the U.S. Supreme Court has established for "minority" status. Strictly speaking, we must regard the issues at stake here as ethical, rational and political rather than as defined by a particular "moral code."

This analysis does summarize the arguments that support Colorado's Amendment 2, which denies gays as an entire class "protected status" in that State. More than 814,000 Colorado citizens voted Amendment 2 into Colorado's Constitution in November, 1992. Amendment 2 gained the support of some of Colorado's top civil rights leaders, including three past Chairs of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. On the position presented in this paper, Colorado's Attorney General has based the State's entire defense of the amendment against legal challenges by gay activists and the American Civil Liberties Union. It is a position designed, not just to win in the political arena, but to survive the scrutiny of our Nation's highest Court.

It may be difficult for some readers (perhaps you will be among these), to carefully evaluate the arguments and issues presented here apart from subjective opinions about the "morality" or acceptability of homosexual behavior. But I urge you to attempt to do so. Try to perceive the "gay rights" issue in terms of questions like these: Are "gay rights," as gay activists and their supporters now define them, reasonable, ethical, fair and equitable? Will "gay rights" make for workable public policy in the all-important political and civil rights arenas? How will "gay rights" impact the inalienable Constitutional rights of non-gay people? What might recognized minorities and society as a whole stand to lose, in exchange for what a highly vocal few stand to gain? These are the issues that confront America as we come to grips with "gay rights." That is why this analysis focuses on the civil rights issues involved, and almost exclusively on those alone.

November, 1993

Tony Marco

Author, Amendment 2, Founder, Colorado and America for Family Values