Play all audios:
WASHINGTON — 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). MORE TO READ