From out of the past, a reason for hope...

A very interesting article from latimes.com, via the good folks at Towleroad.com:

In 1992, the State of Colorado passed Amendment 2, which abolished anti-discrimination laws in some of Colorado's major cities. It was considered a major step backward for the Gay Equal Rights Cause, until legal appeals were brought against it.

Following the enactment of Colorado's Amendment 2, its opponents filed suit claiming that it unlawfully singled out gays and lesbians as a class to deny them rights that other citizens not only possess but take for granted. These rights include access to housing, government services, public accommodations and public and private employment opportunities without regard to an individual's race, sex, religion, age, ancestry, political belief or other characteristic that defines each of us as a unique human being. Amendment 2, the opponents argued, therefore denied gays and lesbians the equal protection of the laws, which is a guarantee of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

To the surprise of many, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, deemed Amendment 2 unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy wrote:

"[It] is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance." Laws such as Amendment 2 "raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected," Kennedy wrote, adding a reference to another 1973 ruling. "If the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."

Full article can be found here.

This raises hope for those of us who oppose Proposition 8, because the same basic argument can be made in this case that the Supreme Court made in 1992. The very fact that Proposition 8 rescinded rights already in place, rather than denying rights that did not already exist, suggests that definite malice, or as Kennedy put it, "a bare...desire to harm", was at play.

Let us hope that the current Supreme Court, if the case must be taken that far, recognizes the wisdom of the 1992 Supreme Court and agrees to reinstate to gay couples in California the rights to which they are entitled.