THE Supreme Court's decision to delete part of the Colorado state Constitution is absurd. The Court itself is absurd.

I refer, of course, to the decision to nullify an amendment to the constitution, which the people of Colorado legally adopted, that says homosexuals may not be singled out as a privileged class.

No areas of American political life have become more muddled than the concepts of rights and discrimination. If we were wise, which we aren't, we'd repeal all laws about discrimination except those which apply to black Americans.

This exception is defensible. Black Americans, first as slaves, and later as nonslaves, have been systematically denied by law the rights to which all Americans are entitled. The historical record is clear. That record justIfies the government treating black Americans as a special category likely to be denied their rights on racial grounds.

No other category of Americans can make that claim. There has, is and wlll be private discrimination but none except black Americans have been denied rights by law on such a long and consistent basis. Moreover, discrimination does not necessarily involve a violation of rights.

A right can be said to be that to which one has a just claim. The best summary of rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, which we call the Bill of
Rights. These rights, incidentally, apply to all Americans whatever their race, creed, ethnic back ground or sexual orientation.

But rights have nothing to do with economics, private association or social approval. That's where the confusion comes in. It is impossible to have a right that necessitates the violation of someone else's right. Most rights involve nothing more than being left alone. A right to free speech means nothing more than that - a right to speak without someone restraining or preventing you. It does not imply that someone has to listen, provide you with a soapbox or agree with what you say.

If you say you have a right to a job, you are saying someone else is obligated to provide you with a job. That means someone else must be denied their right to choose his own employees. So a job cannot be a right. Neither is a house, medical care or social approval. All of these may be desirable, but they are not rights.

Homosexuals today have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals in every state in the union. What homosexuals want is privileged status. They want privileges heterosexuals don't have. They want the government to mandate social approval. They want the government to deny to others the freedom of association. They want the standing to sue if they don't get the job or promotion they want.

None of those are rights and, therefore, should not be the concern of the courts. There is a difference between courts and legislators. Courts rule, or they are supposed to anyway, on already existing law. They do not, or at least should not, have the power to make laws.

Legislators do that, and making laws is making moral and philosophical decisions about day-to-day affairs. If a state legislature wishes to legalize homosexual marriages, for example, it can do so, and the federal courts should not interfere. That is a moral and philosophical decision that, in our system, is made by the democratic process, citizens acting through their elected legislators. If a state legislature wishes to refuse to recognize homosexual marriages, the same applies.

No one has a right to have his marriage recognized as a legal contract by the state. That is simply a policy matter. Polygamous marriages are not recognized; marriages between adults and mniors in most states are not recognized. More important, government should never force mere mores on people. That's what, however, the federal courts are doing.

Charley Reese writes for the Orlando Sentinel.

This article was reprinted as an opinion column in the June 4, 1996 San Mateo County Times (San Mateo, California).