To deny human rights, to treat another in an undignified way, to humiliate, to cause harm, psychologically or physically, to another by virtue of their sexual orientation is never justified. Just because I and many others believe mistreatment of any citizen is never justified it does not mean that we think gays and lesbian merit special class status.

Because homosexuals have sometimes been mistreated in the history of our state does it mean that, as an entire class of people, homosexuals deserve protected class status the same as color, race, handicaps, gender or national origin? The answer is no and it has nothing to do with discrimination. Sexual orientation simply does not qualify under the criteria established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Gays and lesbians are a special interest group and not a true minority.

Shortly after the 1964 Civil Rights Act the court began to issue (and reaffirm) a series of civil rights decisions which soon added limitations to the process of seeking suspect class status. This was done in the interest of ensuring that the status remain open only to the disadvantaged, politically powerless classes that truly needed government protection.

The court clearly demonstrated that protection should only be open to those classes that had experienced a history of lack of ability to obtain adequate income, education, cultural opportunity, had obvious distinguishing characteristics and were politically powerless. It would be difficult to argue that gays and lesbians fit into any of these categories much less all of them which would be required under the court’s limitations

So, in the opinions of many our citizens gays and lesbians do not qualify, but there are more troubling implications to this issue. When the voter looks at question (1) on the ballot Nov. 8 the voter will see a one-sentence, 27-word, question, but what they will be really voting on is a 12- page bill of close to 6,000 words where the term “sexual orientation” has been inserted into the law in numerous places. Most of our citizens will never have the opportunity to see this entire piece of legislation or know the potential implications of it on our society in the future.

And lastly, another troubling part of the legislation is that it defines the term “sexual orientation” as “a person’s actual or perceived heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expression.” “Actual or perceived?” What does that mean? Actual or perceived by whom? “Gender identity or expression?” What does that mean? Who knows? Maybe the attorney who wrote it knows, but most of us will not until Maine starts enforcing the new law and that will be too late.

Please vote yes on Question 1 on Nov. 8. Let’s veto this legislation and put the issue to rest at least for the time being. History tells us that the question will be back again.

Dean Clukey is a Republican state

senator from Houlton.