From: kooros@refuge.Colorado.EDU (Paul T. Kooros)
Subject: Amnd.2 Boycott is Counterproductive.
Summary: The "Boycott Colorado" movement should focus on fixing not punishing
Keywords: amendment 2
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:00:45 GMT

	IMHO, Coloradans seeking to advance the "Boycott Colorado" movement
are misguided.  They are contributing to a self-destructive anti-productive
movement which itself practices discrimination, targets for vengeance
harmless groups, and fails to target culprit groups.  The movement's focus
is on the collective punishment of "Colorado" (a practice forbidden governments
by the Geneva and Hague conventions), and offers joining individuals the
self-indulgent relief of their consciences.  This, rather than address
rectifying the situation.  Let me explain myself:

Analysis:
---------
	Amendment 2 failed in non-military, non-rural colorado.  This
includes Denver, Boulder, Loveland, Ft. Collins, and numerous other smaller
communities including most tourist areas, and (I think) all ski areas.
Amnd. 2 passed in Colorado due to the influence of rural and military
(e.g. Colorado Springs) Colorado.  Boycott measures against areas that
did not pass Amnd.2 are unfair and capricious.  Boycott measures, if any,
should be clearly directed at the areas passing Amnd.2, such as Colorado
beef and other agriculture, and Colorado Springs.
	Proponents of "Boycott Colorado" do not fully appreciate the
magnitude of social diversity in Colorado (from born-again farmers to Boulder
ex-hippie yuppies).  Colorado society has not reached a consensus about
what anti-discrimination rights should be, relevant to sexual orientation.
Such rights are not monolithic, they are composed of many categories:
housing, work, public accommodation, etc.  For example, some people, for
religious reasons, are not willing to "contribute to a sin" by providing
housing or accommodation for homosexuals, yet are perfectly willing to support
employment rights on the basis that "they are not having sex on the job." In
any non-homogeneous society there will be disagreement about anti-
discrimination rights in each of those areas.  I argue that homosexuals
experience passive discrimination in most of the nation, and that Colorado
is no more or less to blame than any other part of the country.  The whole
area of sexual orientation based rights is something that the whole country
must come to grips with.
	Along these same lines, many people are insulted by the boycott.
they see the boycott as a form of blackmail or extortion.  The boycott
threatens to do real economic damage to the state, this in a time of
economic troubles.  Independent minded people can only come to resent
the assaultive coercion represented by the boycott.  How would you feel if
someone else's political crusade threatened your job?  Most ordinary people
forget about idealism when they are personally threatened, whether they
agree with the ideal or not.  Such offending measures can only serve to
polarize political views, breaking the society farther apart rather than
bringing it together.
	Amendment 2 was reasonably well disguised in its "no special rights"
clothing.  The text of the amendment contains multiple scare-tactic catch
phrases, such as references to "quotas" and "preferential treatment".  It
is unreasonable to expect "typical" ordinary electors to extract the
hidden discriminatory clauses from a text that has many reasonable and fair
sounding clauses, *particularly* when the anti-amnd.2 movement failed to
adequately advertise this in the media (they stated it was discriminatory,
not how it was deceptive).  To this day, many people I talk to think Amnd.2
is an anti-quota law.  This indicates to me that there has been a failure
to communicate.  Perhaps the anti-amnd. 2 people were the same people that
were "too busy" fighting for the Democratic ticket.
	Threats of a boycott were not made prior to the election, therefore
it is unreasonable to press for one post-ex-facto.
	Many municipal entities participating in the boycott do not themselves
have anti-discrimination protection for homosexuals (e.g. Atlanta).  I
consider this to be a hypocrisy of the worst politically correct kind.  I
seriously doubt that any such municipality would have an easy time defeating
the very same Amendment on their own ballots, particularly if attacked
with similar lack of vigor.
	Amendments may only be made to the constitution in general elections
(I'm fairly sure), and thus cannot be overturned until Nov. 1994.  No amount
of boycott can change that.  Boycotts are generally effective against decision
capable bodies, like companies.  The 70's boycott of Nestle', against their
practices of selling non-nutritious baby formula in the 3rd world resulted in
their changing that practice.  Amnd.2 was not an executive action of the
Governor.  Roy Romer was strongly against it.  It is not within his power
to neutralize it, hence, the boycott is without purpose in this area.

Conclusion:
-----------
	By arbitrarily targeting harmless groups, and failing to target
more culpable groups, "Boycott Colorado" can only be ineffective and counter
productive, stimulating a backlash against its extortion.  The boycott
movement within Colorado largely comes from the harmless groups, and tends
to be most effective against those same harmless groups; this is
self-destructive.

	I can only imagine that people joining "Boycott Colorado" do so
primarily for the pacification of their consciences.  I suggest that
practicing political correctness for the purpose of feeling good is
a gross hypocrisy.  Instead of self-indulgently venting your anger at 
society, I suggest that you undertake the battle for the hearts and minds
of Coloradans.  Have you ever talked to a farmer or rancher about Amnd. 2?
I thought not.
Newsgroups: co.general