Ruling on Law Targeting Gays

Re “Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Targeting Gays,” May 21:

I am proud to be a citizen in a country that has safeguards to protect my civil rights against an onslaught of hostility and hatred. The Supreme Court has upheld the rights of gays and lesbians to equal treatment under the Constitution--civil rights, not the special rights that those opposed to the decision have accused us of pursuing.

I thank those six honest, insightful justices for their decision and our Founding Fathers, who had the foresight to compose a document that could withstand the whims of the most ardent gay rights and civil rights opponents.

MARGARET A. ROBINSON

Lesbian and Gay Democrats in Orange County, Santa Ana

* Regarding Justice Antonin Scalia’s terse rebuttal of the Supreme Court’s majority decision in favor of protecting gay rights: He and Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William Rehnquist should spend some time in the Holocaust Museum and see what can result from a real breakdown in social mores. Sometimes the will of the masses needs to be checked and we should all be grateful that wisdom and justice prevailed here.

NATALIE PROFANT

Pasadena

* The Times (editorial, May 22) is in good company--both you and the Supreme Court have gotten it backward. The amendment does not, in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s words “classify homosexuals”; what it did was ban the creation of local ordinances which classify homosexuals setting them out for special treatment. Classification, which in Justice Kennedy’s eyes is anathema, should be anathema whether it be for preferred treatment or for discrimination.

This is what Colorado’s Amendment 2 tried to do; it did not, as your editorial claims, repeal any constitutional protection.

JACK ISKEN

Encino

* California should hang its head in shame for its role in supporting Colorado’s Amendment 2, which was struck down by a decisive 6-3 margin. Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren disgraced the state by choosing to file a “friend of the court” brief supporting Colorado’s position.

Thankfully, the rule of law has prevailed, and an unconscionable--and unconstitutional--attempt to legislate discrimination has failed.

Despite what Justice Scalia stated in his minority opinion, the initiative did not seek to bar homosexuals from creating a special or preferential class for themselves; rather, it sought to codify discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

KEVIN MARTIN

Los Angeles

* The Supreme Court struck down Amendment 2, which was apparently flawed because it prevented a grant of special rights to homosexuals. Colorado voters said no to special rights, and the Supreme Court said no doesn’t mean no in Colorado. One thing the celebrating homophiles say is this decision supports the notion that you “can’t legislate morality.” The problem is that statement is false. All law is based on moral judgments.

There is for example no basis for antidiscrimination laws other than moral judgment; that it is wrong to discriminate based on race, creed, color, etc.

I think voters should be concerned about those who brag about their determination to transform society through government action, but like to project themselves as our great defenders of liberty.

RANDY HALL

Lancaster

* Douglas Kmiec’s deeming of the Supreme Court’s ruling on gay rights as “irrational” (Commentary, May 22), is not only irrational, but illogical. In pulling the “race card” to prove his point, Kmiec ignores the fact that in this country’s history, only very recently has race been considered “an objectively impermissible ground” for employment and housing discrimination.

MARK ELIAS

Santa Ana