From: holcomb@sylvester.cgd.ucar.edu (Katherine Holcomb)
Subject: Colorado 2
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:40:40 GMT

I have pondered for quite a while whether I should post to this newsgroup,
since I am hetero and read it only sporadically, mostly for the discussions 
about civil rights (in which I am keenly interested), but finally decided to
make a few comments about the current situation in Colorado.  The traffic
on this group is fairly heavy and I was swamped with articles when I 
resubscribed, so some things I mention may be repetitive--my apologies if so.

A boycott is probably an appropriate response, although I am not certain how
much effect it will have unless large numbers of sympathetic heteros join.
The argument about "hurting the people one wants to help" was also applied
toward sanctions against South Africa, but sanctions did seem to help in that
case.  However, first of all, the normal fluctuations in tourism in Colorado
are probably fairly large, and this past summer set a record for tourism, so
I am dubious that a boycott would have a large effect. It could be symbolically
important, nevertheless.  If conventions would be cancelled in large numbers,
that would probably be felt more keenly.  Denver proper was quite lukewarm in
opposition to the amendment, and its suburban counties, with the noteable
exception of Boulder County, favored the amendment.  

Moreover, the situation here is different from the MLK holiday in Arizona.
That was cancelled mostly by a small group of recalcitrant state officials.  
Unfortunately, the amendment was approved by approximately 54% of the voters
in Colorado, whereas most state officials here were strongly against it.  Thus 
something must be done that would sink into the consciousnesses of the Joe
Averages of the state, including those in rural areas.  

Efforts at education might actually be effective.  The religious right
has a strong presence here (especially in the Colorado Springs area), but
I do not believe that the majority of those who approved the amendment did
so from religious motivations.  The sponsors of the amendment went to great
lengths to persuade people here that homosexuals are seeking "special
privileges"-- their radio ads repeated this message over and over.  Postings
I have seen on local newsgroups, and a few casual conversations with some
acquaintances, have indicated to me that many people bought this line.
That is, they thought they were voting just to prevent GLB people from achieving
"minority" status (i.e. on a par with racial minorities) or claiming 
affirmative action or job quotas.  Surely you know what a hot-button issue
"quotas" are, and also I have noticed in the past that many heteros are 
adamantly opposed to any such programs for GLB.  This message thus already had
a receptive audience.  I do not believe that such people *think* they are
bigots (even though they are).  They might be amenable to education.  Polls
indicated the amendment would lose, which indicates that many people may have
lied to the pollsters about how they actually planned to vote, which may 
indicate some shame on their part.

Of course, there is a core group which cannot be persuaded.  It is terrifying
to me that 45% of the voters in Oregon approved of a law which, from my reading
of it, seemed to stop just barely short of advocating imprisonment of all GLB 
people. 

However, the Colorado amendment has a nasty little kicker at the 
very end (which Joe Average may not have bothered to read--the amendment was 
long and confusingly worded) which prohibits anyone from claiming 
*discrimination* based on GLB lifestyle (*not* just sexual preference, i.e.
heteros could still claim discrimination on account of sexual preference). 
I might also note that *anyone* becomes vulnerable, since now discrimination
on account of GLB preference is legal, so that all an employer has to say is
"I'm firing you because you are gay," and there is no recourse--how can anyone
prove he or she *isn't* gay or lesbian?   There are plenty of married G/L/B's.

The good thing is that this may make the amendment vulnerable to the 14th
Amendment of the US Constitution.  I believe this is the approach that will
be pursued.  My understanding is that federal courts have been hostile to
discrimination lawsuits over sexual preference, especially with the Reagan-Bush
judiciary, but this may have a chance because it seems to be (at least to those
of us who try to think rationally :^) so blatantly in conflict with the 14th,
which specifically states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the law."

I will read this newsgroup at least for the next several days to follow the
discussions about Amendment 2, but there are a lot of people who *do*
care but just don't have time to read.  I realize this is a GLB newsgroup, so
perhaps it is presumptious of me to post, but please, no flames-- this issue is 
of intense importance to me, not only because of basic human justice and rights 
& decency, but because I am certain that I am the *next* target of the "fundies"
--I am a single, professional, *pro-choice* feminist, i.e. in their view 
I am a nympho-lesbo-castrating-baby-killing-dyke-whore-witch-radical-feminist.
(The Iowa equal rights amendment was defeated on the same day that Amendment 2
was passed, also at least partly due to the activities of the religious right.)

-kah

My opinions only.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Holcomb                      |  You don't need a weatherman 
Climate and Global Dynamics Division   |  to know which way the wind blows
NCAR, Boulder, CO                      |                -Bob Dylan