HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: The "Hate" Problem -- Amendment 2
Date: 17 Dec 1992 17:26:50 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
Distribution: co
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: hptrane.fc.hp.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Vince Dugar (v042517@stortek.com) wrote:
: But I, like others, had  to come
: down on one side or the other in order to cast a vote.

I would argue that your thinking shouldn't have have been, "gee, we need some
law to prevent gays from getting special rights, so I'll vote for just about
anything, no matter how flawed it is otherwise" but instead should have been
"this law is flawed, I won't vote for it - someone is going to have to come up
with something a whole lot better before I'll allow it into the constitution".

: I had read a summary
: put out before the election (from the League of Women Voters) which posed
: arguments from both sides of the issue.  It referred to existing law which
: could be used by a gay individual as protection against discrimination.

This is pure poppycock.  The amendment clearly states that such laws are now
unenforceable.  Once this amendment goes into effect, any law that otherwise
would have protected homosexuals becomes invalid.  Check my .signature if you
are unclear about the wording.  The word "enforce" is right there in black
and white (or whatever color your monitor is).  Existing laws that would have
protected homosexuals no longer can apply.  BTW, the only existing laws I am
aware of protect only against slander, libel, physical assault - ie, the normal
sorts of things that are always illegal.  If you were were fired without just
cause, there may have been some recourse as well.  But there were in fact no
laws to protect against discrimination in hiring practices or housing, except
in Denver, Boulder, and Aspen.

: My original input (start of this thread) was the misuse of the word "hate"
: to fuel the "No on 2" side of this issue.  I still see it and it continues
: to bother me.  Beliefs, not hate, directed my decision to support A2.

I agree; you will note I don't use that word.  I do use the word "ignorance"
to describe the act of voting on something you don't understand, and the word
"bigotry" to describe deliberately denying someone their civil rights because
you don't agree with their beliefs.

--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
Amendment 2 Is Legalized Discrimination - Shame On You, Colorado
--
"Neither the State of Colorado ... nor any of its municipalities ... shall ...
 enforce any ... ordinance ... whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual
 orientation ... shall ... be the basis of ... any ... claim of discrimination"
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 anecdote
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:45:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.144902.12824@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com> murray@rocky.raleigh.ibm.com (Charlie Murray) writes:
>In article <BzFG0r.7o5@boulder.parcplace.com>, imp@boulder.parcplace.com (Warner Losh) writes:
>|> 
>|> When it comes to our image accross the nation, it doesn't matter what
>|> amendment 2 says.  It is people's perceptions that count.  And people
>|> are perceiving Colorado very negatively right now....
>|> 
>
>I get the same reaction here in North Carolina.  Being a temporarily misplaced
>Coloradoan I was embarrassed by the outcome of amendment 2.  I don't like
>having to come to the defense of my state.  People here are wondering if
>Colorado has gone back to the dark ages.
>

I'm a temporarily displaced Coloradoan, too.

I wonder if all this attention on Colorado is obscuring something...
Isn't the kind of mindset that leads to the passage of Amendment 2's
something that is going on all over the place, and Colorado happens to
be the first place it led to results?  The same people responsible
for this are going to try it in California, and no doubt everywhere
else they can.

I think anyone who believes it can't happen in California is doing
a lot of wishful thinking.

-- 
John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com
===============================================================
There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: v042517@stortek.com (Vince Dugar)
Subject: Re: Laws of man and God
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.  Louisville, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:43:56 GMT

In article <Bz9JDw.9Lo@fc.sde.hp.com> marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com writes:
>Vince Dugar (v042517@stortek.com) wrote:
>: I don't separate my religious beliefs from my interactions with public 
>: life.  I guess this heads us toward that separation discussion.  For
>: me to separate the two, is like tearing a person in two and trying to
>: make sense of it.
>
>This is fine so long as this interaction does not interfere with other people's
>rights.  Clearly, if someone believed in a religion that encouraged ritual
>human sacrifice of unwilling subjects, you would oppose their "right" to
>practice that belief, since it interferes with the subject's right to life.

A pretty far-fetched example, but I understand your point.


>Here, discrimination violates one's civil rights, which are admittedly nebulous
>and poorly spelled out.  But to the extent that civil rights protections can
>and do exist, I must oppose your right to violate them in the name of your
>religious beliefs.

I'm afraid it is impossible to do anything in life that involves moral issues
without violating someone's "rights."  For example, abortion.  It's the
"woman's right" to abort because it's "her body"  vs.  the child's right
to life.  Somebody's "rights" are going to get violated here -- there is
no middle ground.  So again, put it to a vote, and let the majority decide.

Because some convictions are based on religious beliefs is no reason
to discount them.

Life goes on.


-- 
Vince Dugar                 | CIS: 71011,2657
Boulder, Colorado           | Opinions expressed are my own.
Vince_Dugar@stortek.com     | "Politically Incorrect, And Proud of it."
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: Re: Consenting Adults
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 03:45:45 GMT

astroman@cscns.com (Samuel Bryant) writes:
>...CO is a very progressive state
>and the people are very tolerant of different views...

This is mostly true, although somewhat erratically so.  I like to think
people try.

>...Atlanta city council
>is boycotting CO because they passed a law which makes homosexuals and
>heterosexuals equal..

The antecedent of "they" is vague here.

If you are saying that CO passed a law which makes homosexuals and hetero-
sexuals equal, you are dead wrong (and we've been over that quite a few
times in the last month and a half).

>But CO also has repealed old sodomy laws between consenting adults. 

This is true, and often overlooked...the repeal was quite a while back
(?1972?).

>Georgia just upheld their sodomy laws and will jail any consenting adults
>who practice it...

Yes, and Georgia isn't the only state which has (a) anti-sodomy laws and
(b) people screeching to boycott Colorado.  The list includes Tennessee,
Georgia, and South Carolina--states where homosexual acts are crimes.

Amendment 2 is a red flag because of the second half...an explicit step
backwards.  Just because other states have bad, old laws on the books
doesn't mitigate the effect of, the statement made by, Amendment 2.
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado USA
   ...Mr. Natural says, "Use the right tool for the job."
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: The "Hate" Problem -- Amendment 2
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:00:09 GMT

Perry A. Branch (perrier@teal.csn.org) wrote:
: In response to Greg Woods, Vince Dugar writes:
: >So does this bring us to an impasse?  Aren't laws that support special
: >rights (don't get hung on those words) for gays *forcing beliefs*?  I
: 
: I'm curious what laws you are talking about.   There currently no laws in
: the Colorado that give homosexuals special rights.  If you use those words,
: I expect you to qualify them.

Indeed, homosexuals now have a "special right".  They have the "right" to have
all future claims of discrimination tossed out by the court as
unconstitutional.  No other class of persons has this "right"; everyone else
is forced to actually go through a trial and possibly have their discrimination
lawsuit ruled on.  Homosexuals are spared the possibility of winning such a
lawsuit.  Furthermore, if any other group wants to add new anti-discrimination
ordinances to the local books, they have to actually lobby city councils, bring
it up for public vote, or whatever.  Homosexuals have the "right" to have any
such attempt be forbidden by the constitution.

--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
Amendment 2 Is Legalized Discrimination - Shame On You, Colorado
--
"Neither the State of Colorado ... nor any of its municipalities ... shall ...
 enforce any ... ordinance ... whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual
 orientation ... shall ... be the basis of ... any ... claim of discrimination"
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: astroman@cscns.com (Samuel Bryant)
Subject: Consenting Adults
Keywords: gays, Atlanta
Organization: Community_News_Service
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:22:21 GMT

Why all the fuss about Amendment 2 in CO.  CO is a very progressive state
and the people are very tolerant of different views.  Atlanta city council
is boycotting CO because they passed a law which makes homosexuals and
heterosexuals equal.. No special minority status for sexual preference. 
But CO also has repealed old sodomy laws between consenting adults. 
Georgia just upheld their sodomy laws and will jail any consenting adults
who practice it.  Between gay men or a married couple.  Atlanta city
council and others are a bunch of political hypocrits!!!


astroman@cscns.com

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: v042517@stortek.com (Vince Dugar)
Subject: Re: The "Hate" Problem -- Amendment 2
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.  Louisville, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:03:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.221003.29866@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
VD>I was referring to the potential laws that could be passed -- hence the
VD>reason for amendment 2 support.
>
>Is this a tacit acknowledgement that "special rights" for gays you mentioned
>don't really exist?

Yes.

>
>Sure, Amendment 2 would prevent some hypothetical "special gay rights" law.
>But moving from the hypothetical to the CURRENT REALITY, Amendment 2 also
>dictates that gays, but not straights, are forbidden to seek legal recourse
>for certain forms of discrimination.  Amendment 2 is explicitly a
>"special prohibition-of-rights" law, FOR GAYS ONLY.  Can you deny this?

I am not entirely happy with all of the wording of Amentment 2 -- in 
particular, the "descrimination" phrase.  But I, like others, had  to come
down on one side or the other in order to cast a vote.  I had read a summary
put out before the election (from the League of Women Voters) which posed
arguments from both sides of the issue.  It referred to existing law which
could be used by a gay individual as protection against discrimination.
Given all this, I made my choice.  

My original input (start of this thread) was the misuse of the word "hate"
to fuel the "No on 2" side of this issue.  I still see it and it continues
to bother me.  Beliefs, not hate, directed my decision to support A2.

I'm not sure where we go from here.  It is a troublesome trend I see where
instead of more unity among people, we are getting less.  Factions are
everywhere, and it's becoming a battle of "who is more imposed upon -- me
or you?"  

What *is* clear to me, though, is that the Chrisitian principals I believe
in have always proven true.  They are all based on love -- first for God --
then for one another.  With love there can still be disagreement, but 
no harm or violence would follow.


-- 
Vince Dugar                 | CIS: 71011,2657
Boulder, Colorado           | Opinions expressed are my own.
Vince_Dugar@stortek.com     | "Politically Incorrect, And Proud of it."
Newsgroups: co.politics,boulder.general
From: thomasd@tps.COM (Thomas W. Day)
Subject: Amendment 2 and the Denver/Boulder Anti-discrimination laws
Organization: Telectronics Pacing Systems
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:30:42 GMT

Does anyone have the exact text for Amendment 2, as entered in the Colorado 
constitution and the text of the Denver and Boulder laws that protected gay 
rights?
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: The "Hate" Problem -- Amendment 2
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:03:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.182842.27468@ncar.ucar.edu> kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman) writes:
>>>The only law I'm aware of that singles out gays (not straights) for 
>>>special *treatment* of any kind is the new Amendment 2, which 
>>>explicitly *forbids* certain rights to gays, but not straights.

>>The point is slightly moot: Gays are far more likely to suffer 
>>from this from of discrimination, so they benefit preferentially
>>from such laws.

>Since women are more likely to suffer from rape, can we say that
>laws against rape are "special rights" for females?  

In general, I wouldn't consider legal protection from some particular
offense a "right", special or not. It's certainly what we pay our
government to do, but that's a different matter. I've noticed people
throwing around the word, "right", a great deal in connection with
things that aren't really rights (for example, the "right" to sue
in civil court over discrimination.) Last time I checked, rights were
something inherent in the individual.

>Can we say women "benefit preferentially from such laws"?

I think it is trivially obvious that women benefit preferentially
from laws against rape. However, I don't see this as a problem.
(If it were the only illegal form of violent crime, I might
object...) I don't see this as giving women superior (i.e. unequal)
protection of the law, since there are similar laws which preferentially
benefit men (who are statistically more likely to be victims of 
homocide, assault and battery, etc...)

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.politics,boulder.general,co.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation: where did it go?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:54:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.141602.15246@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com> murray@bullwinkle.raleigh.ibm.com (Charlie Murray) writes:
>You said it.  Last week I posted an article describing how Boulder is
>becoming too white and affluent, and I got only one response which
>basically asked "What's wrong with that?".  I feel, the Boulder that I
>know and love is fading away.

Although I'm a recent imigrant (although certainly not an affluent
one), my impression was that Boulder had been rich, white and affluent
for some time. Certainly the downtown area and the Pearl Street Mall
is nothing but and the university has (for some time, even before the
current admissions police) a very large number of rich, affluent 
Californians as stundets. Actually, moving here from Berkeley (a 
roughly similarly sized college city) I was amazed by the lack of
cheap, un-affluent (whatever the word would be) resturants, etc...
It seems the status quo is to spend more, for higher quality: Certainly
a sign of long-term affluence.

Further, I seem to recall some discussion of the subject here, largely
placing the blame on the city's government and its (very expensive)
growth-limiting and ecologically-sensitive policies. 

>Excuse my personal feelings, but having been born and raised in Colorado
>(along with my parents and grandparents), I sometimes feel that the
>character of the state, and towns like Boulder are being destroyed.

I'm not sure about Boulder, but I hope this isn't the case: I'm
far more comfortable with the current character of Colorado than
that of California. (One reason why I was happy to move here...)

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: murray@rocky.raleigh.ibm.com (Charlie Murray)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 anecdote
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:49:02 GMT
Organization: IBM, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

In article <BzFG0r.7o5@boulder.parcplace.com>, imp@boulder.parcplace.com (Warner Losh) writes:
|> I was on the phone the other day with a friend out in California.  He
|> had earlier told me that he and a bunch of his friends were going to
|> come out here to do some skiing (this was in October or so).  I was
|> all excited about seeing my friend again.  However, in this phone
|> conversation, he told me "Yah, we're going to Utah instead of
|> Colorado.  Seems that Colorado is turning into a fascist state, and we
|> don't want to support that."
|> 
|> When it comes to our image accross the nation, it doesn't matter what
|> amendment 2 says.  It is people's perceptions that count.  And people
|> are perceiving Colorado very negatively right now....
|> 
|> Warner
|> -- 
|> Warner Losh		imp@boulder.parcplace.COM	ParcPlace Boulder
|> I've almost finished my brute force solution to subtlety.

I get the same reaction here in North Carolina.  Being a temporarily misplaced
Coloradoan I was embarrassed by the outcome of amendment 2.  I don't like
having to come to the defense of my state.  People here are wondering if
Colorado has gone back to the dark ages.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
  Charlie Murray           CompuServe:  73707,1752
  Consulting at IBM        Internet:    73707.1752@compuserve.com

  NOTE:  If sending email use the addresses given in this .sig,
         not the one in the header of this message.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.discuss
From: fowlerc@boulder.colorado.edu (John C. Fowler)
Subject: Re: BOYCOTT COLORADO! postcards
Originator: fowlerc@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: fowlerc@boulder.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 15:54:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.004649.8702@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> mills@spot.Colorado.EDU (MILLS MICHAEL J) writes:
>    Please support the boycott of all of Colorado by purchasing fabulous 
>"Boycott Colorado!  The HATE State"  postcards
>   Send $1 per 5 cards plus $1.50 postage and handling to:
>      Project VisAbility
>      P.O. Box 1823
>      Boulder, CO

Just one problem: if we're boycotting Colorado, then we can't buy them
from you.  If we aren't then we don't need them.

Maybe you ought to move your headquarters to California...

-- 
John C. Fowler, fowlerc@boulder.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.discuss
From: mills@spot.Colorado.EDU (MILLS MICHAEL J)
Subject: BOYCOTT COLORADO! postcards
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:46:49 GMT

    Please support the boycott of all of Colorado by purchasing fabulous 
"Boycott Colorado!  The HATE State"  postcards, designed after our 
state license plates.  On the back the caption reads, "On November 3, 
1992, Colorado became the first state in the nation to add legalized 
discrimination against Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals to its constitution.
Colorado Governors' office (303) 866-2471
Colorado Department of Tourism (800)433-2656"

   Send $1 per 5 cards plus $1.50 postage and handling to:

      Project VisAbility
      P.O. Box 1823
      Boulder, CO
      80306
      USA

Buy as many as you like and make sure all your friends get the word!
We need your help so this legislative backpedaling doesn't spread to
other states... like yours!
    -Mike Mills
     mills@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.info
From: MILLS MICHAEL J <mills@spot.Colorado.EDU>
Subject: BOYCOTT COLORADO! postcards
Followup-To: amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu
Originator: doherty@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:26:22 GMT

    Please support the boycott of all of Colorado by purchasing fabulous 
"Boycott Colorado!  The HATE State"  postcards, designed after our 
state license plates.  On the back the caption reads, "On November 3, 
1992, Colorado became the first state in the nation to add legalized 
discrimination against Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals to its constitution.
Colorado Governors' office (303) 866-2471
Colorado Department of Tourism (800)433-2656"

   Send $1 per 5 cards plus $1.50 postage and handling to:

      Project VisAbility
      P.O. Box 1823
      Boulder, CO
      80306
      USA

Buy as many as you like and make sure all your friends get the word!
We need your help so this legislative backpedaling doesn't spread to
other states... like yours!
    -Mike Mills
     mills@spot.colorado.edu

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrections, new info, and requests for info: amend2-info@cs.colorado.edu
Administrative comments                     : amend2-mod@cs.colorado.edu
General Discussion                          : amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu
Boulder/Denver area local meetings/events   : amend2-local@cs.colorado.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to a list, send mail to Majordomo@cs.colorado.edu, with
        subscribe <list-name>
in the BODY of the message.  For multiple lists, use multiple lines.

Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.info
From: RMVLUG_4@FLINT.MINES.COLORADO.EDU (FRANK BERNDT)
Subject: Mayor Webb Denies Boycott
Followup-To: amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu
Originator: doherty@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:56:32 GMT


The OUT FRONT
Colorado's Gay Community Forum
12/09/92

Mayor Denies Boycott Effect 
Denver Mayor Wellington Webb said today on ABC TV's Good Morning America
program that the effect of a global boycott of Colorado due to passage of
the state's anti-homosexual Amendment 2 has had little effect on the state.
 Webb said "initially, in the first 9 to 10 days, we had numerous phone
calls and cancellations of a couple of conventions." 
  Mayor Webb also said on Good Morning America that he intended to protect
gays and lesbians from discrimination regardless of Amendment 2, denying an
analogy with South Africa and Apartheid saying that in Colorado the
Governor and the mayors of cities with anti-discrimination laws were on the
side of gays and lesbians.  
  Boycott Colorado, Inc. President Tim Creekmore countered Webb's claim to
be empowered to override Amendment 2, pointing out that once Amendment 2
goes into affect, "the government would become accomplices in
discrimination and bigotry."  Creekmore emphasized the fact that
discrimination against gays and lesbians in the workplace, housing and
lending is very real in Colorado. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrections, new info, and requests for info: amend2-info@cs.colorado.edu
Administrative comments                     : amend2-mod@cs.colorado.edu
General Discussion                          : amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu
Boulder/Denver area local meetings/events   : amend2-local@cs.colorado.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to a list, send mail to Majordomo@cs.colorado.edu, with
        subscribe <list-name>
in the BODY of the message.  For multiple lists, use multiple lines.

Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.info