Colorado’s Gay Rights Ban Stayed : Courts: Judge delays controversial Amendment 2 from taking effect until he can decide whether to issue a permanent order.

A Colorado judge on Thursday temporarily prevented a new state law banning protective status for homosexuals from going into effect until he decides today whether to issue a permanent order.

The action capped four days of testimony to determine whether Amendment 2, which would have taken effect today, should be blocked pending a full trial on its constitutionality.

The action by Denver District Court Judge Jeffrey Bayless added suspense to the case, which is being closely watched by civil rights attorneys, gays and lesbians nationwide and conservative Christian activists who sponsored the law.

Amendment 2, which was approved by voters on Nov. 3 by a margin of 53% to 47%, prohibits state and local governments from passing gay-rights laws, and repeals such ordinances already adopted by the cities of Denver, Aspen and Boulder.

Those three cities and nine gay-rights advocates asked for the preliminary injunction. To stay the law, Bayless must find that Colorado homosexuals are in danger of “real, immediate and irreparable” injury and that opponents of the measure have a reasonable chance of winning their lawsuit on constitutional grounds, attorneys in the case have said.

During the weeklong court battle, many other questions were raised: What were the motives of the sponsors of the law? Will Amendment 2 allow heterosexuals to file discrimination claims but not homosexuals? Will the measure encourage violence against homosexuals?

More than a dozen witnesses testified, including gay and lesbian residents of the state, who told of personal experiences with discrimination.

Among them was a Denver police officer who told of harassment by fellow officers and of “suspicious delays” in responses to calls for assistance in life-threatening situations since it became known she was a lesbian in 1988.

If Amendment 2 is upheld, “I fear for my safety, being a lesbian officer,” said Angela Romero, 43, a 16-year veteran of the force. “I think there are some officers who would jeopardize my life.”

In closing arguments, plaintiffs’ attorney Jean Dubofsky said the law relegates homosexuals to second-class status and puts them in immediate danger of being fired, evicted and denied insurance benefits because of their sexual orientation.

“Amendment 2 will embody in this state’s constitution the right to discriminate . . . and chills freedom of expression,” Dubofsky said.

Assistant Atty. Gen. John Dailey asked Bayless to base his decision on the voters’ intent, which he said was simply to remove special protections not available to the general public.

The most important issue that should be considered, Dailey said, is “whether Amendment 2 violates the U.S. Constitution.” He contended that it does not.

Greg Eurich, another attorney for the plaintiffs, charged that Amendment 2 was crafted and pushed by the group Colorado For Family Values in order to target gay and lesbian people for discrimination under the guise of protecting family values.

Eurich said the group tried to influence voters by spreading myths and stereotypes about homosexuals, including assertions that they choose their lifestyle and are responsible for a high rate of sex crimes.

Documents used by Colorado for Family Values included “religious justifications for the systematic discrimination” of homosexuals and suggested that gays and lesbians could be redeemed if they embraced religion, said psychologist John Gonsiorek, a witness for the plaintiffs.

To rebut those claims, state attorneys called Joseph Nicolosi, an Encino, Calif., psychologist who has focused his practice on treating people “unhappy with their homosexual orientation.”

“Homosexuality is not a sexual problem, it’s an identity problem,” Nicolosi said. “The unhappiness or symptoms associated with homosexuality are not due to society’s homophobia, but arise from the condition itself.”

A key witness for the state, Paul Talmey, a pollster in Boulder, said a statewide survey he conducted in December found that only 6% of Coloradans agreed that homosexuals were more likely to sexually molest children. The majority said homosexuals were not different from heterosexuals except for their choice of sex partners, Talmey said.

“The results showed that the vast majority of those who voted in the election are not prejudiced against homosexuals,” Talmey said. A majority apparently voted for the law, he believed, because they disliked “expansion of civil rights laws.”

Under cross-examination, Talmey acknowledged that his own pre-election polls indicated that the amendment would fail. “I considered that a great embarrassment,” he said.

Legal experts say the case is the first test of whether a state can justify prohibiting its agencies and local governments from adopting anti-discrimination policies that protect gays and lesbians.

“The judge’s decision . . . will be important in establishing how the religious right approaches these initiatives in other states and in setting precedent for other courts reviewing similar measures,” said Mary Newcombe, an attorney for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund in Los Angeles.