From: gsbg9079@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (G. Scott Braley)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] HOMOPHOBIA ON THE BALLOT IN OREGON
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:09:03 GMT

>From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
>Subject:  HOMOPHOBIA ON THE BALLOT IN OREGON

>From: George Gundrey <ggundrey>

>/* ---------- "HOMOPHOBIA ON THE BALLOT IN OREGON" ---------- */

>     They've already qualified the initiative for the November
>ballot. Now, Oregonians face an all-out battle this fall for the
>verv heart and soul of our state.

>     If they achieve victory at the polls in November, this would
>be the first time in United States history that a state
>Constitution was amended to take rights away from a group of
>citizens.

Well, strictly speaking, this is not true.  The government routinely takes rights away from
people.  Criminals in particular.  Also, many states still have anti-homosexual laws on the
books.  What is new is that the OCA is trying to put a new one on the rolls, and not get one
removed.

>     During the Springfield campaign, campaign volunteers were
>harassed verbally and on one occasion, shots were fired over
>their heads to scare them away from a neighborhood.

>     Already, the office of the Campaign for a Hate Free Oregon
>was been broken into, pillaged and ransacked. The criminals who
>broke into our office stole equipment, our computer data base,
>personal rolodexes and phone books, OCA background files. They
>dumped files, ransacked personal belongings, and covered the
>office with copiertoner. Police say the break-in looks "like a
>vendetta."

>     Already, since the break-in, Campaign volunteers and donors
>have received harassing phone calls, including such things as 3
>a.m. calls with Nazi death camp music played over the receiver.

>     Already, our Campaign spokesperson, Ellen Lowe, a grandmother
>and member of the faith community, has received two death threats.
>And, she isn't the only Campaign volunteer who has received such
>threats.

These are all bad things, and I honestly sympathize.  Noone on any side of any issue should
be using terror tactics to promote their agenda.

>     The OCA's broad based agenda goes far beyond the smashing of
>lesbian and gay rights. It includes an end to welfare, the
>outlawing of abortion, and eliminating initiatives such as
>childcare programs, parental leave and divestiture of state funds
>from South Africa. The dismantling of every gain we achieved
>during the civil rights movement.

Well, this seems just a bit overstated.  "Every gain we achieved...?"  Who is we?  I'm pretty
sure the OCA isn't trying to take the vote away from non-whites, for instance.  I also have
not heard of any attempts to eliminate childcare and parental leave programs altogether, but
maybe I just missed those.

>     OCA spokespeople are already discussing which state workers
>will lose their jobs and which books will be taken off library
>shelves.

Not to sound trite, but so what?  Clinton is talking about who will lose their jobs in the 
federal govt just because they happen to not support him.  And since censorship is one of the
goals of the OCA, I am not at all suprised that they would already have some books in mind.

>     The OCA may seem like a radical fringe group to many of us,
>but when they attacked the lesbian and gay community in Oregon in
>1988, they won.

But then, lesbian and gay group seem like radical fringe groups to some people too.  It's all
kind of relative.  Some conservative groups are outraged about progressive initiatives too.

>     Playing on fear, and relying on a media campaign packed with
>outright lies, the OCA led Oregonians into overturning the Order.

I would be interested in hearing what some of the lies are.  I haven't seen any of their
media campaign, so I can't respond.

>     Some people believe the OCA won in 1988 because many fair
>minded Oregonians just didn't take the OCA seriously. we cannot
>make that mistake again.

Or maybe lots of people agree with the OCA.  One of the drawbacks of a democracy- if the 
general population doesn't agree with you, you lose.

>*   We are conducting a dynamic grassroots outreach
>    campaign.

>*   We are mobilizing Oregon to say NO to bigotry, NO to fear,
>    and  NO to the OCA initiative.

So are they.

>    To answer the OCA's distortions with reality.

Again, they think _you_ are distorting, they are answering with reality.

>    In the past months, we've built the base of our coalition.
>We will expose the OCA's tactics and defeat their lies with a
>hard hitting Campaign targeted toward a crushing vote in
>November.

That's what they are saying.

>     By the OCA's latest financial reports, they have raised well
>over a quarter of a million dollars in the last four months!

That means that _someone_ must agree with them.

>     Every Oregonian we reach through our voter ID and persuasive
>canvassing will be a more informed voter in November.

Persuasive or pervasive ?   :)

I have been hearing a good bit about this issue from the anti-OCA side.  I hate rhetoric, so
I tend to rip into it a bit.  However, I would be interested in hearing more about this 
issue, as well as some responses from pro-OCA folks.

BTW, I know these are "imported" articles.  I am not trying to attack Mr. Kadie (sp?).

					-Scott

-- 
*****************************************************************************
*  F.B.I.B.M.--The most feared merger  *  gsbg9079@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu         *
*****************************************************************************


Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion