HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... RESULTS
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:43:14 GMT

In article <BxB5DB.LBB@fc.sde.hp.com> marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com writes:
>David Fuzzy Wells (wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
>: 
>: I was happy to hear of all the conventions that are being moved due to
>: this ammendment.  I also hope that Apple has the guts to fight against
>: Ammendment 2 or at least move away to a state that doesn't promote
>: hatred.  (They posted large ads in the Springs paper for No on 2)  Most
>: Silicon Valley companies that are moving to Colorado have protection for
>: gay employees in their charters and were obviously disturbed as to the
>: passing of Ammendment 2.
>
>I am not sure this is the right answer.

First, he was only "happy". It's not a matter of a 'right answer'.

>When discrimination is legal, do we
>really want to encourage companies that have a place for gay people to leave?
>Or discourage such companies from locating here?  Do we really want to stock
>Colorado with companies that will in fact discriminate against gays?

It is, unfortuntely, a double edged sword, not unlike South Africa. Do 
we boycott S.A. because of human rights violations and make the very
people we're tyring to protect suffer?  Fortunately, the pressure that
boycotting sends can be very loud and it is generally not long lived. It is
also a great way to send a powerful message. In short, like some vaccinces,
it can make you sick as a dog for a while, but it will keep you from dying.


>As for the ski areas, it seems to me that at least one of them voted "no" on
>the amendment.

Boycotting them is not because they're bad, it's because they just happen
to participate in the CO economy.


Rest of letter deleted but very agreeable.

-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: co.general
From: millerje@CS.ColoState.EDU (Jeff Miller)
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... RESULTS
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 17:10:32 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

In article <1992Nov5.023150.6717@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow - CU Computing Network Services) writes:
>cdash@moet.cs.colorado.edu (Charles Shub) writes:
>
>>some of us are still out of state and at least one of us would like to know
>>what happened with the referenda and the amendments.
>
>>what passed and what failed?  (with so many of them, a descriptive
>>title might be better than a mere number)
>
>>if you want to mail, please mail to cdash@cs.uiowa.edu not the
>>automagically generated address..
>


Hmm...these results conflict with the 4 Nov Fort Collins Coloradoan.
I will place their results (with % reporting) below each response.

>----------------------------------------------
>
>Referendum A: (rights of crime victims)
>	YES: 30%
>	NO:  30%
yes 80%, no 20%, 87% reporting

>Referendum B: (obsolete provisions in state constitution)
>	YES: 65%
>	NO:  35%
>
yes 77%, no 23%, 100% reporting

Referendum C (Gaming, local vote)
>	YES: 58%
>	NO:  42%
yes 75%, no 25%, 100% reporting

>Source: Colorado Daily


The rest of the results were only about 80% reporting

-- 
 _____________________________________________________________________________
|                                                                             |
| "Nuke the unborn gay whales!" |  millerje@cs.colostate.edu  |  Jeff Miller  |
|_____________________________________________________________________________|
From: aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: YA Safeway Slam
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:29:51 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

In <1992Nov8.175513.1150@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:

>aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:

>>I know I've seen some pretty suspect items at Kings.  I suspect it is
>>common in all food stores.  My belief is that this is merely the result
>>of capitalism...

>Of course, we all know how well communism keeps the stores stocked with a
>variety of fresh, wholesome food...

I didn't say capitalism was bad, but it needs to be tempered.  Anything
taken to extremes is usually bad, as is "pure capitalism".  (If it worked
we wouldn't need ANY regulations, eh?)

This is not even a lack of regulations, but a lack of inspection/enforcement.
The stores know they won't get caught, and probably won't suffer greatly
if they do.

This is one place where the press serves a valid function, pointing out
"micro" problems that the goverment is too big to deal with.

One good story on TV about this stuff probably keeps most stores on their
toes for a while.  Thus, we some of that sensationalistic journalism
like "9 wants to know".  In moderation, of course...

>'Though I _do_ wish that the FDA would lighten up about things like cheese-
>making, and that our lawmakers would stop looking at wine as a sinful luxury.

I thought that was a political thing (i.e., the tariffs on European
wine & cheese), trade-war type stuff.  Not the FDA's doing.  ???
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

"But if he was dying he wouldn't bother to carve "Aaaaargh", he'd just say it."
Newsgroups: co.general
From: jill@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Jill Lundquist)
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... RESULTS
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:03:24 GMT

In article <BxBHsM.1yp@csn.org> jls2@teal.csn.org (Jeff Stoner) writes:
>Attention all Colorado gay and bisexual people on the net: it's time to
>fight or find another state to live in--and I have, until this week, found
>Colorado one of the best places in this country to live in and had planned
>to spend many more years there.

I was thinking about leaving the state asap, too, until one of
my coworkers pointed out that "Colorado is too beautiful to leave
to the fundamentalists."

Anybody have suggestions on what groups to get in touch with to
fight amendment 2?  I didn't think I would be politically active
again for another few years, but you have to do what you have 
to do.


-- 
Jill Lundquist		jill@cs.colorado.edu		DoD #882

When hell freezes over, grab the ice skates.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: cgk@mitre.org (Chriss Koch)
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... RESULTS
Followup-To: co.general
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:07:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.214917.28857@mercury.cair.du.edu>,
ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu (Phil Tripp) wrote:
> 
> It is really a matter of special rights and privileges.  Colorado
> voters have decided not to grant special rights to homosexuals.  It
> doesn't mean anyone hates anyone.  Heterosexuals don't have such
> rights.  If a heterosexual has her or his rights trampled upon only
> because she or he is a heterosexual, what legal recourse would she or
> he have?  None.  There are no special rights for heterosexuals to
> protect them from discrimination based on sexual preference or
> lifestyle.

This is a perfect example of how the semantics of this issue have been
twisted by it's proponents in their campaign to gain voter support.

Most people oppose granting any person (or group of people) special
rights or protection under the law.  We all want to be equal.

Most people with an iota of cultural awareness disapprove of any sort
of discrimination towards a person (or group of people).

When it is recognized that a segment of society is being discriminated
against, it usually isn't enough to just say, "STOP."  Sadly, such
discrimination has to be made illegal.

I didn't study the laws of Boulder, Denver or Aspen, but I believed it
when I was told that those laws protected _anyone_ (homosexual _or_
heterosexual) from discrimination on the basis of who their partner
is.

Amendment 2 has made it illegal in the state of Colorado for a person
who is gay, lesbian, or homosexual to claim discrimination on the
basis of who their partner is.

Homosexuals didn't have special rights before the passage of Amendment
2.  But now that Amendment 2 has passed, the law specifically excludes
them from claiming certain rights.  This same law doesn't even mention
heterosexuals, so they can continue to legally claim discrimination.

Now, who is more likely to be discriminated against, a homosexual or a
heterosexual?

The passage of Amendment 2 is an extremely humiliating setback for the
people of Colorado.
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics,co.politics.amend2.discuss
From: glenn@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (GLENN ROBERT ALAN)
Subject: Re: Request for Comments: co.ocs, co.politics.amend2.{info,discuss}
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:18:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.215939.21329@colorado.edu> gina@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Gina Cherry) writes:
 
>We have been receiving requests for information about Amendment 2 from all over
>the country.  Since co.politics and co.general are local groups, we thought it
>was appropriate to create a newsgroup with national distribution. We are not
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Does this newsgroup have national distribution?  According to the machine I
post news from, this newsgroup has only statewide distribution.

>trying to move the discussion from co.politics, but to make it accessible to
>more people. I believe that Amendment 2 does have national implications, 
>since many other states are now requesting information from CFV about how to
>pass their own amendment.
>
>Gina

I totally agree.  Amendment 2 is a very serious issue, and has far-reaching
ramifications as far as liberty and protection from discrimination go in
this country.  Not only for the approximately 200,000 - 300,000 coloradans
directly affected, but for all Americans, gay or straight.  I do believe
this group needs national distribution to be effective, though, if it doesn't
already have it.  I see no reason the existence of this group should
preclude discussion of the issue on other newsgroups.

-Robert Glenn

My opinions are not those of CU boulder.
From: wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:48:16 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

This is one of those times in which you have to read the entire ammendment
and not just the dinky little portion on the ballot (which you only had
5 minutes to vote on...eeck!).  But even the "bad" part of Ammendment 2 can
be found on the ballot itself...hidden away in a sentence that is meant to
overwhelm and confuse you (which obviously it did).

Once again:  "(prevent any law) which provides that (gays...their actions,
lifestyles..etc)....entitles a person to claim any minority or protected   
status <THIS IS GOOD>, quota preferences <STILL FINE>, or discrimination
<BUZZZZZZZZT  WRONG!  THANKS FOR PLAYING!>."

That last word is where CFV (boo, hiss!) overstepped its bounds.  This means
that I can fire you for being gay.  Simple.  No deep thought required.

"So why are you firing me, Mr. CFV?"
"Cause you're a fag."
"Whew!  And I thought I might be doing a bad job."

BTW:  The national news (ABC, at least) finally got around to looking at this
ammendment on its news last night (Thursday, 5 NOV).
Newsgroups: co.general
From: jyoder@nyx.cs.du.edu (Chris Yoder)
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics,boulder.general
Subject: Reproductive Freedom
Summary: Reproductive Freedom
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:44:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.


	Why must reproductive freedom be maintained?
--
   jyoder@nyx.cs.du.edu  aka Chris Yoder | yoder_c@maui.hsc.colorado.edu
***HATE is !(a family value); Repeal Amen2.***
** Hail Eris, All Hail Discordia ** Voice: +1 303 270 7350
--If voting could change anything, it would be illegal.
From: rschoenh@diana.cair.du.edu (RICK SCHOENHALS )
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... RESULTS
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:00:17 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado


In article <1992Nov5.214917.28857@mercury.cair.du.edu> ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu (Phil Tripp) writes:

>You know, everyone is calling this a hate issue, etc.  I don't see
>it that way at all.  It is really a matter of special rights and
>privileges.  Colorado voters have decided not to grant special rights
>to homosexuals.  It doesn't mean anyone hates anyone.  

I disagree.  Pre-Election polls showed Amendment 2 clearly failing and
yet it passed by a comfortable margin.  This suggests to me that
people knew that this amendment was bigoted.  I know how the 
white supremecists, skinheads, and "Archie Bunker"-types voted on
this issue.  I certainly would not want to be an accomplice to their
agenda.  If there was any political agenda attached to the defeat of
Amendment 2, I find it much easier to embrace than the one attached
to it by the people who would support it.

Bigotry = Hate.

--
Rick Schoenhals
rschoenh@athena.cair.du.edu
Newsgroups: co.general
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: so much for #2, but now time for '94: the "cloven hoof" amendment
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:20:45 GMT

dd> Dick Dunn

dd> We have made only one step.  Let us not stop there.  The passage of
    Amendment 2 last week is not the end of the road; there is much more to be
    done.

  [Ban the folks who break the Biblical laws on which foods to eat.]

  Let's not get hysterical and engage in baseless hyperbole, OK? 

  I don't understand these reactions to the passage of Amendment 2. I voted
  against it too, but (probably) not for the same reasons as others. However,
  I do not see its passage as spelling imminent doom for all sorts of groups
  of people. One way to look at it is that its passage is analogous to the
  massive rejection of religious right-wing "stealth" candidates by voters.
  Voters got tired of these jerks, just as they got tired of folks like Queer
  Nation, ACT-UP, etc. Basically, a call to jettison the extremists and come
  back to a more-reasonable position. The calls for gay rights have been get-
  ting louder and louder these last few years, and I suspect a lot of people
  are getting fed up with them. How many more groups/people can be classified
  as "victims" or "oppressed" before we all fit into those categories? True,
  there are too many homophobes out there who see the passage of 2 as a in-
  dication of public support for them, however, I also see its passage as 
  voters telling gays that they're (the voters) are tired of all the hullaba-
  loo by the militant gay factions.

  Anyone else see it this way, rather than a license for gay-bashers?

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: co.general
From: jill@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Jill Lundquist)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:27:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.143812.8402@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>jv> Jan Vilhuber
>
>jv> YOU still have all the rights endowed to you by the United States Consti-
>    tution. Gays no longer do. (And that was AM2's fault).
>
>  The USC doesn't endow rights. It limits the federal government's power.

No, the body of the Constitution doesn't endow rights.  I haven't
read the whole document from beginning to end in quite a while,
but I would swear that I seem to remember *something* about the
first ten amendments to the Constitution enumerating quite a few
rights...

-- 
Jill Lundquist		jill@cs.colorado.edu		DoD #882

When hell freezes over, grab the ice skates.
Xref: sparky co.general:1728 co.politics:1819 boulder.general:1013
From: jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber)
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics,boulder.general
Subject: Re: Help Preserve Civil Rights in Colorado
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:51:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

In article <1992Nov11.050423.2667@ncar.ucar.edu> rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski) writes:
>gina@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Gina Cherry) writes:
>Goodness!  Boycotts...lawsuits...contact this guy...contact that guy.  An
>amendment was passed which says homosexuals may not receive protected status
>as a minority group.  So what?  I would say there's been entirely too much
>"I've been discriminated against, gimme my due" going around lately anyway.
>So the group who got the amendment on the ballot is a bunch of scumbags.  It
>seems to me that the *content* of the amendment is what should be of primary
>concern, not the *organization* that got it on the ballot.
>
I agree totally with you, where you say, that the content is what
matters. And that is where I end agreeing with you. If you read
the amendment, you'd see that it has precious little to do with not giving
gays protected status as a minority. All it does is take away the civil
rights of a certain population group. Nothing more.

>2) Amendment 7 (vouchers) was defeated handily, meaning the existing rot in
>the public schools is going to do nothing but fester.
>
The problem with this is, that there is enough money there to go around
for schools. We just have to make sure somehow, that it gets to schools
instead of into someone's pocket. And vouchers were not the solution. I
go to a private school, and I don't think anything that is called private
should want state money.
I WOULD have liked to see the sales-tax increase by 1c for schools pass
though.

It seems, Jim, you are more concerned with yourself than with the general
principle of discrimination. Shame on you.

-- 
 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Date: 10 Nov 92 03:34:29 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

jill@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Jill Lundquist) writes:

>No, the body of the Constitution doesn't endow rights.  I haven't
>read the whole document from beginning to end in quite a while,
>but I would swear that I seem to remember *something* about the
>first ten amendments to the Constitution enumerating quite a few
>rights...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press, or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The first amendment to the constitution prevents congress from abridging
certain rights.  Jefferson and others believed that a "right" is NOT something
a government gives people, it is something that a government cannot take away
from people.  Hence the statement that the USC does not grant rights, it
limits the powers of government.

Now I ask, which of the rights *protected by the United States constitution*
are denied gays and lesbians as a result of No. 2?  Employment and housing
are *not* constitutional rights.  The Soviet constitution guarenteed everyone
a job, but the Soviet constitution didn't work out very well.

Just for the record, I voted against 2 because it takes sovereignty away
from local governments.  However, I get P.O'ed when people use the phrase
"constitutional right" like it was a comma.


Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: co.general
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... RESULTS
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:43:57 GMT

David Fuzzy Wells (wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: 
: I was happy to hear of all the conventions that are being moved due to
: this ammendment.  I also hope that Apple has the guts to fight against
: Ammendment 2 or at least move away to a state that doesn't promote
: hatred.  (They posted large ads in the Springs paper for No on 2)  Most
: Silicon Valley companies that are moving to Colorado have protection for
: gay employees in their charters and were obviously disturbed as to the
: passing of Ammendment 2.

I am not sure this is the right answer.  When discrimination is legal, do we
really want to encourage companies that have a place for gay people to leave?
Or discourage such companies from locating here?  Do we really want to stock
Colorado with companies that will in fact discriminate against gays?

As for the ski areas, it seems to me that at least one of them voted "no" on
the amendment.

To those who speak of amendment 2 only denying gays "special rights", please
define that term, and show me where it appears in the amendment.  Ha, ha, trick
question: the term has no legal definition, and it does not appear in the text
of the amendment.

What does appear, however, is the phrase "claim of discrimination", in the
context of "things being homosexual does not entitle you to".  This now makes
homosexuality the only thing in the entire universe that is constitutionally
prohibited from being protected by anti-discrimination legislation.  This type
of legislation already protects on the basis of race, it already protects on
the basis of marital status, it already protects on the basis on religious
beliefs.  If left-handed people wanted to be protected against discrimination,
they are welcome to try to have legislation passed to protect on the basis
of handedness.  Homosexuals have no become the only class in the history of the
United States that is not allowed to gain protection.

In what sense is this not discriminatory?

--
Amendment 2 - Shame On You, Colorado
--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
a disgusted resident of the first state in history of the union
to enact a constitutional amendment that explicitly legalizes discrimination
against a particular minority
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: morreale@laplata.scd.ucar.edu (Peter Morreale)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:58:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.052912.12681@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
(...)
> Remember, by the way, that
> no court, not even the Supremes, can ammend the US constitution.  An
> ammendment must be approved both by congress and a national vote. 

Actually the constitution is quite specific about this.  It (an
amendment) must be approved by Congress, and ratified by the states
legislatures.  There is no national vote for amendments.

-PWM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter W. Morreale                  email:  morreale@ncar.ucar.edu
Nat'l Center for Atmos Research    voice:  (303) 497-1293
Scientific Computing Division     
Consulting Office
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... RESULTS
Date: 7 Nov 92 23:13:59 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

Regarding whether people knew what #2 was or not...  Anything pushed
by a group called "Colorado for Family Values" should *instantly* send off
warning bells to anyone with thinking ability.  One almost need not read
the actual amendment to understand the intent.

Values should not be legislated.
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

      "And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped"
Newsgroups: co.general