CAMPUS CORRESPONDENCE : Colorado’s Shameful Anti-Gay Act Must Be Overturned

It’s easy to condemn discrimination overseas. It’s harder to confront it in your own back yard. Just ask Colorado’s governor.

In 1985, Roy Romer, then state treasurer, “divested” $100 million of Colorado’s money invested in companies doing business in South Africa. That would help send the message that Colorado deplored apartheid, Romer said.

Romer, as governor of Colorado, rightfully denounced passage of Amendment 2, which writes discrimination into the state constitution. But this time his indignation is half-hearted.

Since the vote, civil-rights groups nationwide have organized an economic boycott of Colorado. Barbra Streisand, Whoopi Goldberg and Jonathan Demme, among other entertainment figures, have endorsed the idea and won’t spend Christmas in Colorado ski country. Other critics include the National Education Assn., the Coalition of Labor Union Women, the National Council for Social Studies and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which last week canceled plans to hold its annual meeting in Colorado Springs next year.

So far, a handful of other organizations have canceled their convention plans in Colorado. Philadelphia, New York City, Atlanta, San Francisco and Seattle have voted to take their business elsewhere or condemned the Colorado vote. And Los Angeles will not reimburse city employees for official trips to the state.

All this, according to an economist at the University of Colorado, will likely hurt. Arizona, for example, lost an estimated $500 million in tourist business after it rejected legislation establishing a holiday to honor the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. The economic pain that Colorado may feel will probably not approach Arizona’s loss, because of business commitments made long before the vote on Amendment 2. But state officials are worried about a spreading boycott, which has already cost the state about $10 million.

And Coloradans shouldn’t kid ourselves about what happened on Election Day--they knew what they were doing. Colorado for Family Values, a right-wing, fundamentalist Christian group, prattled about the need to ban “special rights” for homosexuals. Ostensibly, Amendment 2 prohibits “protected-class status”--affirmative action--for homosexuals.

This was a ruse. Gays don’t want affirmative action. They never sought “protected-class status.”

What, then, is Amendment 2’s point? It’s in the amendment’s fine print: Gays or lesbians may be fired or denied housing because of their sex preference, and they may not challenge this discrimination. Also, Colorado’s three municipal equal-rights ordinances are null and void.

How could Colorado voters approve such outright discrimination? Homophobia played a part. Confusion about “special rights” also contributed. Many Coloradans are conservative. And many oppose affirmative action of any kind. These are the sentiments that Colorado for Family Values rode to victory.

Meanwhile, conservatives say democracy mandates that Romer implement the law: The people supported Amendment 2 and the politicians must respect them. Discrimination, they contend, has nothing to do with it. Lamentably, such spurious browbeating works. Romer says he will uphold Amendment 2.

Admittedly, Romer is in a difficult situation: Should he, as governor, condone a boycott that economically punishes his state? Of course, that would be political suicide for him. But there is another way.

Coloradans need to be reminded that they cannot discriminate against unpopular minorities with impunity. To drive home this point, Romer should lead a crusade to overturn Amendment 2. To be sure, there would be a political price to pay. But restoring Colorado’s reputation as a state where discrimination is forbidden would not only be good business; it would also be the kind of leadership that put Romer in the forefront in the fight against apartheid.