HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aja@col.hp.com (Al Anderson)
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:20:56 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella) writes:
> Van Martin (vanm@col.hp.com) wrote:
> 
> :   It is amazing how peaceful CFV was
> 
> Taking away the civil rights of 10% (current guesstimate) of Colorado's
> citizens is your idea of peaceful?

First some Facts.
# 1.   3-4% is a more correct nunber  (Political Guesstimates are always 
                                       inflated by 2x or more)
# 2. Nobody LOST anything except: The Future Possibility of "Extra Rights for
     gays".
# 3. As far as I can tell no one from CFV has threatened the life of anyone gay.
# 4. Amend #2 LOST ONLY in the counties of Denver, Boulder, and Pitkin.  If
     there had not been a lorge NO vote in those counties Ament #2 would have
     passed by an even bigger margin.

Now for some Opinions.

The gay population and their supporters, seem to be the biggest cry-babies and
whiners to ever seek media attention.  

Barbara Strisand and others who wish to boycott Colorado should feel free to do
so...     (This may be an added side benefit to those of us who want to keep 
Hollywood in California, not in the wilderness areas of western Colorado.)

The so-called "Right Wing Christians" probably outnumber the Gays who would
otherwise visit (be Tourists), or move and get jobs here (be Residents), anyway.

With so many other things on the "Political Plate" (hundreds of things), why is
this issue being treated as a "High Priority" by the media anyway ???  If you 
want to boycott something, boycott the media that doesn't share your opinions.

Al (Proud to Be an American - and not ashamed of Colorado) Anderson
Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatalit
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:09:06 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Department

In article 21257@col.hp.com, vanm@col.hp.com (Van Martin) writes:
>
> The "Update" in 11-Nov-92's Gazette was a touching remembrance of
>a troubled Marty Booker.  There are some statements that, again, are
>a mis-representation of Amendment 2's purpose and CFV's goals.
>....  CFV
>is an organization formed in reaction to the homosexual activist 
>movement in Colorado to combat one-sided appeals in Legislature.
>
> Contrary to the reporter's coverage of this campaign and issue, there
>is another (majority) opinion in Colorado that homosexual behavior
>doth not a specially-protected group make.  As a petition-carrier and
>voter I do not look down my nose at the homosexual population, yet the
>articles I read in the paper give me the impression that the author
>and the "media-lite" very much look down their noses at we narrow-
>minded, pinch-nosed conservatives
>
>Van Martin		
>vanm@col.hp.com
>
>All ideas expressed here are my own, 
>though you ought to consider that I am right
>
No, I WILL NOT consider that you are right.  Nor will I consider you are wrong.
However, if CFV's REAL intent was to not provide PROTECTED status to homosexuals
it should have stated JUST that without the provisions providing for "discrimination
on the basis of sexual ORIENTATION."  Furthermore, you state that "homosexual behavior
doth not a specially-protected group make," but the wording in the legislation states
sexual "ORIENTATION."  If you and CFV truely believe that it is not an orientation,
but a choice, you should have stated that in your legislation proposal and petition.
The fact that you did not leads me to belive that there was MUCH more than just
protected-group status in mind!!!

If I've misquoted here, please let me know!!

---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Newsgroups: co.politics,co.general,boulder.general
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: "upholding" the amendment
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:44:53 GMT

[going back a couple of followups]
>>>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.

cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH) writes:
>The Gov. is not forsworn to uphold Amendment 2 until some time in Jan., when
>it becomes law.

(Please, don't use "forsworn"!  It doesn't mean what you think.  I'll
assume that you meant "sworn".)

The statement is true, in the sense that there isn't anything to "uphold"
until the Amendment becomes law.  In the meantime, if there's any good
reason to think it's unconstitutional (which there is), it's his job to get
any necessary court action moving.
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	...Simpler is better.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: rschoenh@diana.cair.du.edu (RICK SCHOENHALS )
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2
Date: 18 Nov 92 06:18:46 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado


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
remove any existing "special rights".  It did however, make it
legal to fire someone based on homosexual orientation.  You say
you wouldn't discriminate this way, but you voted to make it 
legal.  I have to ask how you will feel when your neighbor, your
best friend, your mother or father, your brothers or sisters, or
even your sons or daughters get fired from a job because he/she is
gay?  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.  How close must discrimination hit to home
before we act against it?  Saying we wouldn't discriminate isn't
enough.

I, too, want a peaceful, intelligent settlement to all of the 
incredible ill will out there on both sides of the issue.  But,
we need more than words, we need to act on and to demonstrate
our ideals.  Laws will not protect everyone they're meant to
protect but that doesn't mean we should abandon them as a means
of establishing our standards. This issue won't be settled until
all people feel reasonably free from the fear of discrimination.
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.

--
Rick Schoenhals
rschoenh@athena.cair.du.edu
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: Why is it so easy to amend our constitution?
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:07:06 GMT

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.

The US Constitution doesn't work that way, and with good reason:  It's a
more fundamental set of laws, exercising control and putting bounds on a
much larger body of lesser laws.  So it's made harder to tinker with.

What I'm suggesting is that it seems a lot more sensible to let ballot
initiatives be of two sorts:
	- those which would be bound by the existing state constitution
	  and could only affect existing "ordinary" laws, and which could
	  pass by simple majority
	- those which could amend the state constitution and would require
	  more substantial voter approval (say 2/3 == 2:1 approval)
The legal side of the chaos over #2 seems to me to stem from being able to
make a fundamental (sic) change by a slim majority--it makes "tyranny of
the majority" changes too easy to achieve, and too subject to a fickle
electorate.  (I'd bet that if you held another vote tomorrow on #2, it
would fail by a larger margin than it just passed two weeks ago.)

We don't want to make citizen initiatives impossible to pass, which is why
I'm not just suggesting that we change to 2/3 on everything and be done.
But we do need stronger agreement before we make very basic changes.

I admit to feeling pretty stupid, after all the time I've lived in
Colorado, only now wondering why amendments work this way and why our state
constitution is so delicate.
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	...Simpler is better.
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: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:52:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.195441.13297@col.hp.com> vanm@col.hp.com (Van Martin) writes:
>woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
>> I think [#2 was passed by] 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.
>
>  IMO the population-at-large voted
>  for/against Amendment 2 based on their opinion of homosexuality as a
>  legitimate minority requiring singled-out protection by State law.

Thank you for proving my point. You still think Amendment 2 was
about special privileges. It wasn't. Yes, there is wording in #2 that
prohibits special privileges, but the homosexuals never had any special
privileges to begin with, so that is a red herring. That's exactly what 
I'm talking about. The "special privileges" stuff was a smokescreen to
hide the fact that what #2 really does is make it illegal to protect
homosexuals from discrimination. This is not a "special privilege",
it is a basic civil right which has now been denied to homosexuals,
and homosexuals alone.

>  You chose the PC word homophobe to describe anyone who, with full
>  knowledge of the whole Amendment, voted yes.

No, I didn't. The only reference I made to homophobes was to say that
they did not constitute a majority of those who voted for #2.

>  What does concern me is the foisting of someone's bedroom habits on
>  my church

The Boulder, Denver and (I think) Aspen laws all exempt churches. This
is another straw man.

>  Amendment 2 did not create a law that said "Thou Shalt Discriminate
>  Against Homosexuals," it only said "Thou Shalt Not Single Out The
>  Homosexuals for Special Dispensation Under Our Illustrious Legal
>  System."

Absolutely wrong. What #2 says is that homosexuals in fact *are* going
to be treated differently than anyone else under our legal system. They
are denied the right to sue for discrimination. A right that all the rest
of us, including young white males, still have.

>  Leave what goes on in the bedroom, in the bedroom and out of the
>  courtroom.

Exactly the reason to be AGAINST #2.

--Greg
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: Re: Support the boycott (was Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado)
Summary: It's not a war.  We need help, not more conflict.
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 00:54:54 GMT

niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>And it's easy for people who aren't affected by Amendment #2 to claim
>that people should be more moderate.

This was in response to a posting from someone in Colorado.
It is naive in the extreme to think that ANYone in Colorado is UNaffected
by Amendment #2.

The boycott is the immediate knee-jerk response.  It might help; it could
also hurt.  In any case, although it's simple, it hardly seems like a very
effective way to solve the problem.

...
>One wonders if the Allies should not have invaded Germany for fear of
>alienating the Germans who were anti-Nazi.

This is not a war.  Conclusions drawn based on analogies between the
Amendment 2 conflict and war may or may not make sense; mostly they will
serve to cloud the issues with emotionalism.

This is a civil conflict within Colorado.  We understand that the effects
are far-reaching; certainly the matter affects many people outside of
Colorado.  But the *main* effort to set things right again will still have
to come from within Colorado.  There are two possibilities for how we can
un-do Amendment 2:
	- Have it overturned because it violates the US Constitution.
	- Pass an initiative within Colorado to reverse it.
There are efforts under way for both of these..but both will require time,
effort, and money from folks in Colorado.  (The constitutional challenge
will require substantial legal help.  A successful citizen initiative to
overturn will require a serious campaign...one [lesser] reason #2 passed
is that the campaign against it was simply inadequate against the onslaught
of the slick/slimy pro-#2 campaign.)

>What *would* you have people do?

Find ways to *help* us with one or both of the above approaches.  Work with
those of us inside Colorado who are working on the problem, instead of
working against the whole state.  Support organizations which are working
to overturn the amendment.  For example, if you're a DeadHead, get over to
rec.music.gdead and check out the "DeadHeads Against Discrimination" effort;
they can use help and they need it NOW.  If you feel you can get behind the
ACLU, check to see how you can help them.

Help us figure out how to educate people.  A campaign like the one that
brought us #2 relies on ignorance, and the fears begotten of that ignor-
ance.
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	...Simpler is better.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: wallsj@CS.ColoState.EDU (jeffrey joel walls)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:35:30 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department

In article <1992Nov15.223215.1256@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>
>Well, the Colorado amendment really pisses me off.
>
>As you say, boycotts work.  And I strongly encourage you to
>consider whether a boycott will be more threatening to the
>livelihood of gay, lesbian, and bisexual Coloradans than
>the amendment is.  

 When considering whether a boycott will be effective or not, you
 should first decide what you want to occur in response to the
 boycott.  Also, you should determine if the boycott will in fact,
 hurt the people it is designed to hurt.  First of all, I assume
 that you want Amendment 2 to be taken off the books.  Well, that
 will only happen by some high court decision or by another vote.
 If you boycott the state of Colorado, the citizens might vote in
 support of the amendment again simply because you chose to boycott
 them in the first place.  Childish, sure, but it could happen.
 I assure you that there are plenty of Texas skiiers that will happily 
 ski the slopes without all of the congestion.  There are also plenty 
 of people that could care less about the amendment, and they are going 
 to spend their money here.  In other words, what I'm saying is that 
 a boycott will not be effective in Colorado, IMO.

    Secondly, what do you think will happen to the gay and lesbian
community *if* the boycott is successful.  There will be MUCH MUCH
more hate towards them because the businesses will feel that they
were responsible for the boycott, which put them out of work.  That
would definitely NOT be a solution!

    Sure, a boycott is an easy response to a complicated problem, but
until you sit down and think of all the repercussions from your boycott,
things can only get worse, and more hate will be generated.  

    Please tell my friends that are now out of work and on welfare that
boycotts work.  I think they'd disagree with you.  

Jeff (against #2, but against boycott)


+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|       Colorado State University       | 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Jeff Walls - wallsj@CS.ColoState.Edu  |
| 2520 Baxter Place                     |
| Fort Collins, CO  80526               |
| (303) 226-2411                        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


Newsgroups: co.politics
From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Subject: Re: ?? Colorado Boycott ??
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:00:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.055933.17706@colorado.edu> youngm@mica.Colorado.EDU (Matthew Young) writes:
>I cannot think of a more civil (effective) way of protesting than 
>an economic boycott.  It is unfortunate that such a boycott may 
>hurt the wrong people.

Unfortunate??? It makes the whole thing into a travesty and a joke
if the wrong people are targeted. Reminds me of the third grade
teacher who would punish everybody when she didn't know who had
done something, to make sure that the guilty party had to suffer.
Never mind that the 95% of innocents had to suffer too. That didn't
make sense then and it still doesn't. There are more effective 
methods than a statewide boycott, as appealing as that is on
an emotional level. Contributing to the groups that are fighting
this in the courts would be more directly effective, and not hurt
the wrong people. There are a number of gay rights groups involved,
and also the ACLU of Colorado.

--Greg
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: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:03:30 GMT

Suzanne Morine (smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: 
: 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.

For the record, I personally never saw any pro-2 ad on TV, nor did I ever hear
any on the radio.  In saw only one "Yes On 2" sign in Fort Collins (not that I
went around looking).  On the other hand, I saw and heard plenty of "No" ads.
The only pro-2 material I ever saw was in the "Letters To The Editor" section
of the newspaper - mostly people just repeating the contents of the pamphlet
Van whatshisname has been quoting from of late - the bullsh*t about the
qualifications for special protection, the church in Minneapolis or wherever,
and Paul Cameron's bizarre claims that gays are 17 times more likely to die in
traffic accidents.  That, and the brochures Paul passed out while speaking at
a local church.  Meanwhile, "No" literature seemed ubiquitous to me.

Based on this limited data, I'd say most of the pro-2 vote came from people
who already belonged to the groups the CFV targeted (ie, fundamentalist
churches) and their main source of "information" was direct from CFV (after
passing through Cameron's distortion filter).

--
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: mev@fc.hp.com (Mike Vermeulen)
Subject: Re: Why is it so easy to amend our constitution?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:25:18 GMT

: 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??

The bear hunt referendum was a change to the Colorado Revised Statues (CRS)
and not to the constitution.  Amendment 6 was also a change to (CRS) and not
to the constituion.

Your point is well taken however, as the other referendum all affected the
constitution.  In my opinion, there are two reasons why these things are being
put in to the constitution:
    + The CRS may be changed by the legislature, and the constitution may not.
    + The issue is affected by something that is already written in the
      constitution, thus this is where some change needs to be made
      (e.g. prohibitions against gambling were in the constitution, hence all
      the gambling referendum needed to change something there).

My speculation is that with the passing of amendments #1 and #8, we will see
more fiscal choices being made explicit in the constitution (i.e. rather than
ask the voters for a one-time spending authorization, why not amend some of the
provisions that were part of amendment #1 to make a particular authorization
more permanent).

--mev

Xref: sparky co.politics:2155 soc.motss:48105 rec.skiing:7619
From: kpm@druhi.ATT.COM (Kevin Malloy (DoD #106))
Newsgroups: co.politics,soc.motss,rec.skiing
Subject: Re: BOYCOTT Purgatory-Durango  (NOT!)
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:38:41 GMT

in article <Nov16.234155.61924@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU (keith freedman) says:
> Xref: drutx rec.skiing:16202 co.general:2054
> Nntp-Posting-Host: oldfield.cs.colostate.edu
> 
> In article 3985@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov, puckett@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Jim Puckett) writes:
>>It has come to the attention of this office that those responsible for the
>>nasty, nasty Amendment actually reside in Durango, CO during the month
>>of January. Week of the 9th-17th, I think.
>>
>>SHOW 'EM YOU CARE! BOYCOTT PURGATORY-DURANGO!!
>>
>>jim p.
>>
> If I understand correctly, you are asking people to boycott purgatory because some
> people with no morals vacation there?! 

Please, please.  Durango voted _strongly_ AGAINST amendment #2, and San Juan
county (where Purgatory is) also voted no (although not as strongly).  
Perhaps pickets during the fascist ski week would be in order?  Maybe asking
area businesses to put up signs saying "Colorado SAFE SPACE" or "HATE-FREE
ZONE" signs would be better.

I think that in-your-face stuff against the right-wing fundamentalist zealots
is the thing to do, but, at least we here in Colorado should not punish
areas of the state that voted _no_.  (National organizations can do what they
wish w.r.t. boycotting Colorado, IMHO).

  					    Kevin

Kevin Malloy  kpm@druhi.att.com  AT&T Bell Labs, Denver  (303) 538-3511
633 E. 11th Ave.					 1991 BMW K75RT	  
Denver, CO  80203	_NOT_ a 2nd Class Coloradoan!	       DoD #106
(303) 830-2937	 With liberty and justice for all, NO EXCEPTIONS!
Newsgroups: co.politics,co.general,boulder.general