HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: "upholding" the amendment
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:47:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.234453@eklektix.com> rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>>>>The Governor is not trying to get the Amendment declared unconstitutional,
>>>>nor can he legally do any such thing. His job is to enforce the laws of
>>>>the State, regardless of his opinions about them. In fact, he and the
>>>>Attroney General are _required_ to defend Amendment 2 in court.

>Neither the Governor nor the Attorney General are required to "defend" laws
>which are in violation of the US Constitution.  Therefore, if they believe
>this to be the case, they may seek rulings to clarify the situation.

The federal courts do not _ever_ issue advisory rulings. They have no
jurisdiction to "clarify the situation", only to rule of real "cases
and controversies" (e.g. where there is a real conflict between parties
and/or real harm and been done to someone.) Unless Romer wants to
assert a somemwhat archaic, pre-Civil War power (for local officials
to interpert the US Constitution on their own), he is sworn to 
uphold the laws and the Constitution of the State of Colorado,
even if he has quite reasonable moral objections. (By the way,
I'd _love_ to see him take the quite radical/reactionary policy
of ruling on constitutionality... But this isn't at all in keeping
with his liberal, pro-government politics...) 

In fact, the court challenge against Amendment 2 names Romer and the
DA as the defendants: They are supposed to enforce the law, so they
are the ones sued over the law's validity.
 
                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: youngm@mica.Colorado.EDU (Matthew Young)
Subject: National Amendment 2 Newsgroup
Originator: youngm@mica
Reply-To: youngm@mica.Colorado.EDU (Matthew Young)
Organization: Center for Study of Earth from Space, U of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:31:13 GMT


Amendment 2 is of national concern.  What can we do to enlarge
this discussion to include thinking people from the rest of the 
U.S.?  Can, say, people from Oregon read the newsgroups currently
dedicated to Amendment 2?  How can we bring these groups to everyone's
attention?

mY
From: ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu (Phil Tripp)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:27:17 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

In article <1992Nov18.061846.8394@mercury.cair.du.edu> rschoenh@diana.cair.du.edu (RICK SCHOENHALS ) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov16.184807.19440@mercury.cair.du.edu>
>ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu (Phil Tripp) writes:
>
>	lotsa stuff deleted...
>
>>Ok, my ulterior motive for this post: peaceful, non-violent,
>>negotiated, inclusive, intelligent resolution of this problem.

>>government parent figure telling me how to think.  Just because
>>I can discriminate against a homosexual, doesn't mean I or
>>anyone else will.  In fact, knowing myself, I would not
>>discriminate against someone based solely on their having a
>>certain sexual orientation.
>
>This is all well and fine, Phil.  But previously, you said you
>voted *FOR* amendment 2--which, to me, means you already have
>discriminated based on sexual orientation.  Your vote did not

Rick, where in what post did I ever state how I voted on anyone or
anything?  How do you spell slander?


-- 
Phil Tripp, Computing and Information Resources, U of Denver, Denver, CO, USA
ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: Atlanta, SF Boycott Colorado
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:37:14 GMT

Matthew Young (youngm@mica.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: 
: Just wanted to report that Atlanta (a conservative city!) has
: launched a boycott against Colorado.  San Francisco is working
: on a measure.  Los Angeles and NYC will probably adopt the 
: Atlanta model.

Gee, I wonder if that means the Braves, Giants, Dodgers, and Mets won't be
playing the Rockies?

--
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,co.politics.amend2.discuss
From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:26:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.215706.13236@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu (Suzanne Morine) writes:
>The problem is that legalizing it sends a message of approval, especially
>since it was legalized by a popular vote.  Anti-gay people can feel more
>comfortable "dissing" gays now - even out in the open.  This isn't just from
>a lessened fear of jail/fines; they know the majority has no problem with
>what they're doing.

While I can believe some people might believe that "the majority has no
problem", I am not sure this is really true. I don't think homophobes
passed Amendment 2. I think it was mostly people who were deluded into
thinking that voting NO on 2 would automatically grant special privileges
to homosexuals. They thought that by voting YES they were voting against
special privileges when in fact they were voting for legalized discrimination.

--Greg
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:37:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.061846.8394@mercury.cair.du.edu> rschoenh@diana.cair.du.edu (RICK SCHOENHALS ) writes:
>I don't mean this as a flame, I just don't understand how
>we can say we're against discrimination then pass an amendment that
>allows discrimination. 

OK, you're asking a philosophical question, so let me give a philosophical
answer. I'll start by saying that this is a bigger issue than Amendment 2.
I voted against #2. But I do think it is possible to be against something
and also be against passing laws to regulate it. Perhaps some people
don't feel that affirmative action type stuff is the way to eliminate
discrimination. That doesn't necessarily mean that all such people
are racists or in favor of discrimination. I happen to oppose many,
but not all, AA programs because they *force* employers to consider
the race of applicants, which is what we are supposed to be moving AWAY
from, and it also creates a "guilty until proven innocent" scenario
where statistics alone can convict a company of discrimination. I don't
think this viewpoint makes me a racist or implies that if I were hiring
someone, I would discriminate on that basis.

I voted against #2 because, although I'd like to see the government get
out of the business of telling us who we can hire or rent to, it seems
clear to me at least that opening up one particular group to be a
target for discrimination is not the way to go about this. I do feel
that the sponsors of Amendment 2 (although probably not everyone who
voted for it) are largely motivated by a desire to suppress the
lifestyles of homosexuals and I strongly oppose such narrow-mindedness.

>Saying we wouldn't discriminate isn't enough.

Maybe not, but that also doesn't mean that getting the government involved
is the only alternative to doing nothing. 

--Greg
Xref: sparky co.politics:2284 co.politics.amend2.discuss:111
From: smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu (Suzanne Morine)
Newsgroups: co.politics,co.politics.amend2.discuss
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:25:50 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:

>In article <1992Nov16.215706.13236@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu (Suzanne Morine) writes:
>>The problem is that legalizing it sends a message of approval, especially
>>since it was legalized by a popular vote.  Anti-gay people can feel more
>>comfortable "dissing" gays now - even out in the open.  This isn't just from
>>a lessened fear of jail/fines; they know the majority has no problem with
>>what they're doing.

>While I can believe some people might believe that "the majority has no
>problem", I am not sure this is really true. I don't think homophobes
>passed Amendment 2. I think it was mostly people who were deluded into
>thinking that voting NO on 2 would automatically grant special privileges
>to homosexuals. They thought that by voting YES they were voting against
>special privileges when in fact they were voting for legalized discrimination.

The thing that convinces me that people have no problem with
discrimination against gay people is the TV commercials.  People saw
TV commercials (including one with CFV's Kevin Tebedo himself) focus on
how Amendment 2 would make it legal to dismiss someone from their job
simply because they're gay.  And the anti-2 signs said that 2 is
discrimination.

People should have checked out these claims, simply as a matter of
course in deciding how to vote.  I hope it's reasonable to assume
they did.  And the amendment was one of the shortest ones to read
of the ballot initiatives.

I'm sure anti-gay bias kept some people holding their eyes and ears
tightly shut to anything the "No on 2" people said/did, but even there
you have it: anti-gay bias.

--
--Suzanne Morine          smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu
--"Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the same effort
--of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on a bicycle."  Helen Keller
--
From: jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: Amendment 2 (was: What happened to all the refe)
Date: 15 Nov 92 01:48:32 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

In article <1992Nov14.203155.25754@ncar.ucar.edu> rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski) writes:
>2) Catholic priest.  It is my understanding that the Pope says homosexuality is
>wrong.  Since he is by definition infallible, this would seem to make such a
>trait undesirable for the priesthood.
>
Of course the pope is the same airhead that went to Mexico (and lots of
other parts of the world, including overpopulated africa) and told them
contraceptives are wrong.

Now tell me that HE hasn't been playing with his "Home Lobotomy Kit (TM)"...
-- 
 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: youngm@mica.Colorado.EDU (Matthew Young)
Subject: Atlanta, SF Boycott Colorado
Originator: youngm@mica
Reply-To: youngm@mica.Colorado.EDU (Matthew Young)
Organization: Center for Study of Earth from Space, U of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:29:48 GMT


Just wanted to report that Atlanta (a conservative city!) has
launched a boycott against Colorado.  San Francisco is working
on a measure.  Los Angeles and NYC will probably adopt the 
Atlanta model.

Does anyone know the implications of these boycotts?  Will the 
cities suspend government business with Colorado, or will Colorado 
be placed on a chamber of commerce black-list, or what?

mY
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: Re: Atlanta, SF Boycott Colorado
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:49:20 GMT

youngm@mica.Colorado.EDU (Matthew Young) writes:
>Just wanted to report that Atlanta (a conservative city!) has
>launched a boycott against Colorado.  San Francisco is working
>on a measure...[LA, NYC thinking about it]...

OK, count SFO and Atlanta as one for principle and one for greed.

(Boycotts may be effective statements, but they're also damned good
business, if your competition is on the receiving end of the boycott
and you aren't.)
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	...Simpler is better.
From: ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu (Phil Tripp)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:34:29 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

In article <1992Nov18.061846.8394@mercury.cair.du.edu> rschoenh@diana.cair.du.edu (RICK SCHOENHALS ) writes:
>
>	lotsa stuff about how Rick thinks I voted deleted...

Privacy in voting is an American tradition 
and a good one at that.  To all others who think they know how I voted 
on any candidate or issue: you DON'T!  Take your hurried conclusions
and drop them in the nearest toilet where they belong.

I respect voting privacy; I don't ask obnoxious questions like,
"Well, how did you vote on such and such?"

Another thing that should be kept private is sex.  It's no-
body else's business any way, neither the government's nor the
neighbor's as long as no one's freedom or rights are violated.

Do you get the hint I'm a little pissed?  This is exactly the kind
of sound-biting, conclusion-jumping crap I was hoping to avoid.  Anyone 
else like to try to reduce me or any other human being to a few sentences?  
My message to those is brief: Please reconsider.

>allows discrimination.  How close must discrimination hit to home
>before we act against it?  Saying we wouldn't discriminate isn't

Having lived in Korean and Hawaii, I have experienced discrimination
firsthand and have dealt with it.  I did not let those experiences 
prejudice me against the Koreans nor Hawaii.  I have great admiration
and respect for the Korean people, and I would love to live in Hawaii.
I was able to keep from getting hung up on the
discrimination and developed an understanding of it.  I learned from
the experiences as they gave be a valuable insight into prejudice.

I once again implore anyone considering drawing some conclusion about
me or who I am to not try it.  You do not know me.  Do not attempt to
simplify a person to a few thoughts, ideas or impressions.

>A private vote isn't enough, nor is a personal feeling of treating
>people fairly.  Our public acts are required to reduce fear and
>increase understanding.  I hope you will join me in this.

What sort of public acts do you have in mind, Rick?  :-) sorry,
could not resist.  Actually, I disagree.  I think it is enough
for me to treat people fairly, as individuals.  However, given
certain circumstances, I would not hesitate to act (publicly or
privately) when compelled to according to my own internalized code
of ethics, not because it happens to be politically correct or in
vogue.


-- 
Phil Tripp, Computing and Information Resources, U of Denver, Denver, CO, USA
ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: youngm@mica.Colorado.EDU (Matthew Young)
Subject: Okay to Beat Up Gays?
Originator: youngm@mica
Reply-To: youngm@mica.Colorado.EDU (Matthew Young)
Organization: Center for Study of Earth from Space, U of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:16:58 GMT


"Say, me an' th' boys were jus' wonderin', is beatin' up one
of them faggots discrim'natory?"  

Maybee its okay to at least push them around a little...


mY



PS--Satire!

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu (Chuck D'Ambra)
Subject: Re: Why is it so easy to amend our constitution?
Reply-To: chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu
Organization: The Big Cracker
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:10:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.070706@eklektix.com>, rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
|> Watching all the brouhaha over Amendment 2, I've been thinking back to
|> something a friend asked shortly before the election:  "Why is all this
|> crap going into the constitution?"  Take the bear-hunt thing as an extreme
|> example: regardless of your position on the issue, why does a hand-slap for
|> the Division of Wildlife get written into the constitution??  And on the
|> other side, why is a measure as controversial as 2--and as fundamental in
|> its implications for both civil rights and law-making--passed by a simple
|> majority.

Excellent point.  However, the bear hunt question (#10) was one of the few
(only?) ballot initiatives this year that did not propose an amendment to the
state constitution.  It simply changed, as you say, "ordinary law."

--------------------
Chuck D'Ambra
chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu
Newsgroups: co.politics,co.politics.amend2.discuss
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: 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, 20 Nov 1992 00:42:23 GMT

Van Martin (vanm@col.hp.com) wrote:
:   Perhaps we think that the pig-farmer out in Wellington
:   cannot be nearly as well-informed as I, an intelligent engineer/
:   scientist/journalist/et al since they don't have access to all the
:   latest hype, drivel and trivia like I do.

No, it appears to me you are both equally misinformed and misguided.

:   a church in Minneapolis, Minnesota was fined $15,000 and
:   assessed $20,000 in damages, payable to homosexuals who complained
:   that, under a "gay rights" ordinance, that the church denied their
:   club the "right" to meet in church facilities

Given that the "church facilities" were in fact state owned university
buildings, this seems entirely reasonable to me.

:   As a white male under 40 no handicaps (except a lack of
:   unthinking tolerance) I see no laws that will allow me to demand
:   that the government spend its time and taxpayer dollars on my claim
:   of discrimination.  I am one of the masses that has less civil
:   rights, the the homosexual community.

Nonsense.  You are Christian, so you are protected there (not just the First
Amendment, which protects you from government interference; you are also
protected under some laws against discrimination in housing and employment).
If you are single (or married), you are protected against discrimination based
on your marital status in most places.  If you are left-handed, you have the
right to try to pass laws that outlaw discrimination on that basis.  Only
homosexuals have now had the right to pass anti-discrimination laws removed
from them.

:   This wasn't very cogent.

That's not surprising.

--
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.amend2.discuss
From: bernstei@caesar.cs.colorado.edu (Michael Bernstein)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:10:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.153906.1631@neocad.com> bill@neocad.com (Bill Bentley) 
writes:

BB>To quote another post:
BB>  What does concern me is the foisting of someone's bedroom habits on
BB>  my church (a church in Minneapolis, Minnesota was fined $15,000 and
BB>  assessed $20,000 in damages, payable to homosexuals who complained
BB>  that, under a "gay rights" ordinance, that the church denied their
BB>  club the "right" to meet in church facilities).
BB>~
BB>Some protection for Christians.

The Constitution says that Congress shall make no law regarding
the establishment of religion (exact text, anyone?).  And people are
protected under US law in that they can practice any religion they
please (within the constraints of law, so human sacrifice is right out).

BB>About married people, I have never seen or heard any law that protects or
BB>singles out "married people" as a group to protect.

Tax laws give breaks to married couples.  If you're married, you have special
prerogatives in chosing treatment for a hospitalized husband or wife.  The
law recognizes "common property" of a married couple.  I'm sure any lawyer
could give you a lot more examples.

BB>1) Should a person who is renting out a bedroom in his/her own house have
BB>   the right to not rent out that room to a person who is a gay. Before you
BB>   answer, what if the owner was gay and the person who wanted the room a
BB>   pastor of a church that is strongly againest the gay lifestyle???

The Boulder law currently threatened by Amendment 2 only regulates the
renting of apartments 4 units or larger.  If it's your own home, you of
course have the right to discriminate -- on the basis of sexuality, religion,
hair color, or physical beauty.

BB>2) Should a church have the right to not hire a gay person for the reason
BB>   that the church does not believe in the gay lifestyle??

Why should a church be any different from other employers?  

Michael Bernstein

"You will be able to appreciate its beauty when it has destroyed your mind."

                -- Dirk Grunwald on Scheme
Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.discuss
From: bernstei@caesar.cs.colorado.edu (Michael Bernstein)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2, strangely enough
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:38:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.191221.12189@col.hp.com> vanm@col.hp.com (Van Martin) 
writes:

VM> "The Overhauling of Straight America Waging Peace Part Two" by
VM>  Marshall T.  Kirk and Erastes Pill in the Nov.  1987 "Guide
VM>  Magazine" pp.  9-14 is pretty informative as to how the homosexual
VM>  activists plan (and are succeeding) to make homosexuality like
VM>  eating ice cream - she likes vanilla, I like strawberry.

And in what important way is sexual preference *not* like preference in
ice cream?

Michael Bernstein

Making leaps of faith down the class hierarchy.
Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.discuss
From: wilde@cs.colorado.edu (Nick Wilde)
Subject: Re: Support the boycott (was Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado)
Followup-To: co.politics.amend2.discuss
Organization: Just enough to get by...
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:44:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.184447.111980@zeus.calpoly.edu>,
dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) wrote:
> 
> My reply to this is the following:
> 	   It's very possible that the reason the large towns
> 	and ski areas took such strong action against CO2, and
> 	voted against it is BECAUSE they feared a boycott.  I'm
> 	not sure I'm ready to just put down their support of
> 	gay rights to "cosmpolitan sophistication."  I suspect
> 	they were looking after #1.
> 	   Now what happens if no boycott materializes?  That's
> 	right.  These fair-weather gay rights supporters vanish.
> 	I support the boycott.


Frankly, this kind of gross over generalization about the motives
of people you know nothing about p*sses me off almost as much
as the hated amendment #2 itself.

Who the hell are you to presume you know why I voted the way
I did ?

-Nick
Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.info
From: gina@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Gina Cherry)
Subject: Half on civil rights complaints based on sexual orientation
Followup-To: amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:38:26 GMT


From the Daily Camera, Nov. 14, 1992

Complaints of discirmination based on sexual orientation account for nearly 
half the civil rights allegations filed in Denver since February 1991,
but such complaints will be groundless with the passage of Amendment 2
last week.

The city's Human Rights Office reports that gay-rights issues
accounted for 33 of the 75 discrimination complaints filed since the
city extended its laws to include claims based on sexual orientation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.info