Gays Lose Fight to Call Athletic Event Olympics : Justices Say USOC May Limit Use of Title Even if Action Discriminates Against Homosexuals

In a setback for homosexual activists, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the U.S. Olympic Committee may bar a San Francisco group from sponsoring an athletic event called the Gay Olympics.

By a 5-4 vote, the justices held that the committee has exclusive commercial use of the word Olympic and can enforce that right even if it does so in a way that tends to discriminate against gays.

“The USOC’s choice of how to enforce its exclusive right to use the word Olympic is simply not a government decision,” Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. said in writing for the court.

The U.S. Olympic Committee has permitted sponsors of contests for handicapped children, the police and others to call their games “Olympics.”

In San Francisco, the reaction to the ruling was immediate.

“I think the Supreme Court has permanently sullied the meaning of the First Amendment, and it appears that it protects only the powerful,” gay activist Dr. Tom Waddell said in a statement read by his attorney outside the federal courthouse.

Former Olympic Athlete

Waddell, a former Olympic athlete who came in sixth in the decathlon in 1968 games in Mexico City, organized the international sports event in 1981 to promote a better image for homosexuals.

His attorney said Waddell can no longer press the issue because he is bedridden with AIDS. However, newly elected Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said at Thursday’s press conference that she would introduce legislation in Congress to revoke the USOC’s exclusive right to the Olympics term. And state Assemblyman Art Agnos (D-San Francisco) accused the court of becoming a “bully instead of referee in this fight.”

The case focused on the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, which gave the USOC the authority to govern the commercial or other use of the Olympics label.

In December, 1981, USOC Executive Director F. Donald Miller cited the law in telling Waddell that his group, San Francisco Arts and Athletics Inc., could not use the word Olympics for the sports event it planned.

Waddell and his attorneys contended that, under the First Amendment, the USOC had no right to claim a word that it said is “generic” and has ancient roots.

However, the federal courts at all levels disagreed with him. A gay athletic contest was held in 1986, but under the name of Gay Games II.

Claims Called ‘Meritless’

Powell, who cast the key vote last June to uphold an anti-sodomy law in Georgia, dismissed as “meritless” the claims put forth by the gay activists.

The USOC has “carefully cultivated” the image of the modern games and is entitled to the sole use of the words and symbols that go with it, Powell said.

USOC President Robert Helmick said he hoped the ruling would “clarify, once and for all, that we have legal exclusive right to the Olympic trademarks.”

Although seven justices agreed with Helmick’s view, two of them--Harry A. Blackmun and Sandra Day O’Connor--said in separate statements that they would have required the USOC to answer charges that it discriminated against the gay group in withholding use of the name.

Two others--Justices William J. Brennan Jr. and Thurgood Marshall--dissented entirely in the case (San Francisco Arts and Athletics vs. USOC, 86-270).

New Shield for Police

In other actions, the court:

--Gave law enforcement officers a new shield from lawsuits when they search a home. Even though a court may later conclude that their search was illegal, the officers may not be sued if they543253364the entrance was justified (Anderson vs. Creighton, 85-1520).

--Upheld a 1984 law in which Congress sought to save the government $455 million by declaring that the income of all members of families on welfare must be counted in determining their level of benefits. By a 6-3 vote, the justices said this decision was “rational” and the courts had no business interfering with it (Bowen vs. Gilliard, 86-509).