In fact, 24 of the United States not only don't reward homosexual behavior or desire with protected class status. They place homosexual behavior under penalty of law. Whether sodomy laws should be re- instituted by states that have at some time repealed them is, according to the Supreme Court in "Bowers vs. Hardwick," a matter for individual states to decide. But much new evidence (some compiled for the first time in this analysis) has come to light that mandates the re- examination of currently standing, as well as proposed, special gay advantage legislation. And we do strongly suggest, on reasonable grounds, that "gayness" not be given special, extraordinary class status in any state, and that where "gayness" is awarded such status, citizens fight vigorously to rescind or repeal laws granting that status to this deceptive, two-faced special interest.

What will gays "lose" if special, protected class status is denied them, or rescinded? Not a single fundamental right that all Americans share. As John Franklin, past Chairman of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has said:

"...Gays already have established recourse against discrimination. They have the right to pursue civil litigation if they have been defamed or held up to ridicule. They are protected against verbal abuse by harassment laws. They are entitled under current laws to protection of their own property and persons. They are entitled to protection by all the criminal laws of this State. The basic Civil Rights laws of this country protect all people for basic due process. While gays are not currently elevated to the status of a specially protected class, they do have the same basic protections as all Americans. And I do not believe that either current special class protections given disadvantaged minorities or basic Civil Rights protections enjoyed by all Americans will be threatened if gays are not granted special protected class status in the foreseeable future." Nor will gay people lose any status or advantages they may be due owing to their membership in any legitimate suspect class.

What kind of "equal protection" are gay militants seeking? Protections equal to those granted to protected or suspect classes. Can gays as an entire class make a reasonable claim, on well-established and reasonable grounds, to be protected equally with those protected or suspect classes whose status gay militants seek to share? All evidence indicates that gays can make no rational claim to protected class status and its attendant protections and privileges.

State-level civil rights authorities have much reason to be concerned should gays gain protected class status. Because gays are not a federally recognized protected class, the cost of every "discrimination" case brought by gays under State "gay rights" laws must be born by the State alone. In Colorado, for example, to bring each discrimination case received by the Colorado Civil Rights Division to court costs approximately $6,000.

The Division has recently suffered a 19% reduction in staff. In fact, Division Director Jack Lang y Marquez was recently forced by the Division's extraordinary, already-existing case load to declare a one- month moratorium on new cases received. According to the Colorado Employment Newsletter, Jan. 1993, during the first five months of fiscal year 1992-'93, the Division received 666 discrimination complaints, vs. only 480 for the same five-month period just a year before. (These increases the Division attributes to implementation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and increased sexual harassment complaints.) At this rate, the Division calculates it will receive some 1,600 discrimination complaints for fiscal year 1992- '93, vs. only 1,226 in fiscal year 1991-'92 -- a 30% increase to be handled by a staff reduced by 19%.

If gays, clearly one of America's most affluent, powerful, aggressive and persistent politically-lobbying special interests, secure the ability to make discrimination claims and gain sufficient political "critical mass," the plethora of complaints by gay militants that's bound to result will seriously strain the ability of civil rights divisions like Colorado's to treat the valid complaints of legitimate, disadvantaged minority groups.

As F. Tom Duran, Director of the Colorado Division's Regional Offices, and a supporter of Colorado's Amendment 2, has said: "The squeaky wheel is sure to be the one that gets greased." And with gay militants' money and power, backed by the coercive power of government to advance their interests, legitimate minority concerns might scarcely have a chance to be heard, say Duran and others.

Once again, in summary: (1) Aside from gay militants' self-serving allegations of "oppression," all available evidence indicates that, far from being disadvantaged economically, educationally or culturally, self-identified gays as an entire class are extraordinarily advantaged relative to the general population and astronomically advantaged relative to the protected classes whose status gay militants seek to share; (2) "sexual orientation," defined as gay militants insist, not to include sexual behavior, and sexual ideation being highly mutable, transitory and evanescent, cannot possibly exhibit any obvious characteristics by which any class status may be defined or limited; (3) gays as a class, while representing perhaps 2% of America's population, represent a political force superior to 99.9% of all American political action committees. Enough money makes any group a "majority" -- and certainly insulates any group from becoming "second-class citizens." Therefore, in no way, can a case be made that gays as an entire class should be afforded protections equal to those enjoyed by traditionally protected or suspect classes. Thus, denying gay militants that class status and those protections is eminently rational, given the criteria established to rule inclusion in those classes.

Furthermore, the direct, traditionally-honored, unseverable connection between civil rights law, claims of discrimination and protected class or suspect status cannot be circumvented without totally destroying the existing fabric of civil rights law, especially of suspect class protections. The Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly, in its Research Publication No. 369, 1992, "An Analysis of 1992 Ballot Proposals," (sent to every voting household in Colorado prior to that State's 1992 General Election) defines all three of these terms, as follows (emphasis added):

"'Civil rights laws' refers to local, state, and federal laws designed to protect classes of persons from discrimination in areas such as employment, housing, and public accommodations.

"...'Discrimination' as commonly used in civil rights law, means any act which denies, prevents, or limits any person from obtaining or maintaining employment, housing, or public accommodations based on race, age, gender, disability, nationality, or religion... [i.e. all the traditionally recognized protected or suspect classifications]

"'Protected status' means that a group has been identified for protection from actions which affect a protected or suspect class and which are limited or scrutinized as required by anti-discrimination statutes, ordinances, or common law."

Thus, denying gays protected class or suspect status cannot constitute a denial of equal protection or due process, since gays cannot now qualify for that status under well- established and reasonable criteria. And the fact that no rational grounds for establishing protected (or suspect) class protections on the basis of "sexual orientation" exist means that gays as an entire class may certainly be denied protected class status without violating equal protection or due process. Perhaps Andrew Jackson, 7th President of the United States and a bastion of strength against the special interests of his day, described best the dangers special interests pose to governments -- and the stand determined citizens ought at least to take against these. Jackson's words apply just as well to the spurious claims of "gay rights" activists as they did to 1832's special interests:

"It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes... When the laws undertake...to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society...who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors for themselves, have a right to complain... If we cannot at once...make our government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand... against any prostitution of our government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many" (Message on the occasion of Jackson's veto of legislation renewing the charter of the Bank of the United States, 1832).