First, “benefit” is subjective – many view any special consideration as ultimately harmful to equal standing by said beneficiary.

Second, by definition, anything that “benefits” one group over another, is discriminatory.

End of story.

And here's the money quote from Cara's first story (emphasis mine):

[V]alery Pech Orr, the co-owner of the Colorado company Adarand Constructors, which won a U.S. Supreme Court case in the mid-1990s that overturned some affirmative action rules related to federal highway contracts.

…

“The core of this issue is this is about fairness – what is fair in the eyes of the government,” she told Colorado Confidential.

“It's not about affirmative action, it's about the fact that racial preferences have become discriminatory. When you give preferences to one group, you will discriminate against another whole group.

“As I woman, I will not accept that I'm disadvantaged. I just want to compete equally in the eyes of my government.”

So, as Ms Magazine reports, if this is really just a strategy for Connerly to promote the building and construction sector in which he has great monetary interest, Ms. Orr may want to reconsider her statement in our original story about this ballot measure promoting “fairness.”

Who's fairness? Sounds like Amendment 31 has nothing to do with protecting equal opportunity for women and minorities. Unless they own construction firms.

And here’s the money quote from Cara’s first story (emphasis mine):

[V]alery Pech Orr, the co-owner of the Colorado company Adarand Constructors, which won a U.S. Supreme Court case in the mid-1990s that overturned some affirmative action rules related to federal highway contracts.

…

“The core of this issue is this is about fairness – what is fair in the eyes of the government,” she told Colorado Confidential.

“It’s not about affirmative action, it’s about the fact that racial preferences have become discriminatory. When you give preferences to one group, you will discriminate against another whole group.

“As I woman, I will not accept that I’m disadvantaged. I just want to compete equally in the eyes of my government.”

So, as Ms Magazine reports, if this is really just a strategy for Connerly to promote the building and construction sector in which he has great monetary interest, Ms. Orr may want to reconsider her statement in our original story about this ballot measure promoting “fairness.”

Who’s fairness? Sounds like Amendment 31 has nothing to do with protecting equal opportunity for women and minorities. Unless they own construction firms.