From: robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9
Reply-To: robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed)
Organization: Home Animation Ltd.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 10:51:54 GMT

In a reply dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
|>In an article robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed) writes:
|>|In a reply dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
|>
|>I can't speak for anyone else, but my objective is a fair discourse with the
|>intent to change others views.  You can't change someone's view by burning
|>them at the stake.  But because of my concern about public airing of issues,
|>I am a little disturbed about reducing this discussion to private mail.  I
|>don't have anything to hide and I assume you don't.  Is there a reason why
|>you chose to move this off-line?
|
|I have replied to my mail and have not moved anything off line
|intentionally.  If I see it in the newsgroup I posted, pnw.general in
|I will reply. All replies to me so far have been in email. Unless I
|have made a mistake in my replies (possible), I have not seen anything
|else on the net.  Again it could be operator error, but is unintentional.
|
|>|Other minorities were abused on the basis of uncorrectable features
|>|such as skin colour, ethnic origin, or gender. This is not the case
|>|with homosexuals where a choice was made to live that lifestyle. The
|>|only exception, that I can think of (it's 2230 now), is religion and
|>|that has to do with ones choice of worship a right specifically dealt
|>|with in the constitution.
|>
|>Excuse me, but this argument is specious.  May I remind you that the freedom
|>of religion is not protected by the constitution per se, but by its first
|>amendment?  In fact, the core document says very little about citizen rights,
|>and several amendments have been added to clarify those rights, including the
|>13th (banning slavery), 14th (due process, etc.), 15th (protections based on
|>race, creed or previous servitude), 19th (women's right to vote), and 24th
|>(poll tax ban).  The Equal Rights Amendment, which failed ratification a
|>couple years ago, was pushed because of a widely held view that the
|>constitution fails to protect the rights of women.
|
|I think you are splitting hairs by not including the Bill of Rights
|as part of the Constitution. As amendments, does that not qualify for
|being part of the document? The Bill of Rights was added shortly
|after ratification to specifically protect certain rights that the
|states demanded be protected as a price for ratification of the
|original document.

Well, sort of.  New Hampshire ratified the Constitution (achieving the
necessary nine state acceptance) in 1788.  It was three years later, 1791, that
the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution.  I will grant you that the
amendments to the Constitution are as much a part of the document as the core
that was written in 1787, but my point was that the minorities which you
suggest should have equal rights without question did in fact have to fight for
their rights, and that their rights were not recognized until this defining
document was modified to include them.  Thus to say that there is any
difference between the freedoms of racial minorities and the freedom of
religion (i.e., one being "natural", the being proscribed) is specious--both
are afforded protections under our Constitution.

|>Thus, the notion that human rights are somehow apparent in some indelible
|>physical manifestation is not supported by the history of our constitution.
|>Repeatedly our country has passed laws to protect people, based on their
|>appearance, beliefs, and even their net worth (poll tax).
|
|You are wrong here, there are any number of references to natural
|rights made by many people from John Locke, to Rousseau, to Thomas
|Jefferson.  As far as the history of the constitution not specifically
|protecting rights, what do you think all the work on separate
|branches of government with specific powers was for? The idea was to
|ensure the right of the people to have control of their government
|and to not be tyrannized. The Bill of Rights was added, in part, to
|ensure that a tyranny of the majority did not come about.

The facts as I have stated them are plain.  I'm not suggesting that principles
of property rights and human rights had not been part of the popular discourse
of the day--the names you mention are among several that come to mind.  But the
fact that forces fought to change our Constitution over the course of its
evolution to elucidate these rights should make it clear that creed, freely
chosen, is no different a dividing concept than any indelible discriminator
among our citizenry.

|If a genetic basis was established, it would sure knock the wind out of a lot
|of arguments. And yes, since I am coming from a moral viewpoint, I would
|reevaluate my beliefs.

I'm glad to hear it, although considering the above arguments, I'm sorry that
it takes the proof of indelibility to justify equal treatment in your mind.

|>Your statement implied your belief that fight for rights (special or equal)
|>is being led by some cadre of homosexuals.  I was merely pointing out that
|>the opposition is much more broad based than that.
|
|If that is the way it was taken, it was unintentional.

|>I don't understand.  There are already people (like members of the OCA) who
|>are treating members of the homosexual community as a class.  Measure 9 would
|>have put specific wording in our constitution identifying homosexuals as a
|>class (and equating them with pedophiles and other law breakers).  And if I'm
|>not mistaken, the Multnomah County rule allows health coverage for all
|>unmarried partners, not just homosexual ones.  And as to a qualifications for
|>hiring directive, I believe state and local governments already have to abide
|>by EEOC rules, which provide those.  Not being intimate with the Portland
|>case, my guess is that those rules proved inadequate to deal with some
|>perceived problem.
|
|The OCA would not have an issue if pro-gay orders were not being issued by the
|state and local governments.

Be that as it may, you seem to profess a dismay for the government defining
homosexuals as a class, yet you opt for a solution that does the same thing.  I
can only conclude that the subject of "class" is not the real issue.  Whether
the class is granted additional rights or denied rights, the class is still
getting special treatment.

|If I had been in charge of writing the measure, it would have looked a lot
|more like Colorado's measure.

I can't speak to that.  I know nothing of the wording of the Colorado measure.

|I disagree with coverage for unmarried couples also.

And I take it you similarly object on moral grounds?  If so, this is another
case your publicly professed claim to "live and let live" seems to conflict
with your attitudes towards others.  In the case of Multnomah County health
coverage, I assume that like most health insurance, that coverage is paid for
by the enrollees, and adding unwed partners could only help the plan,
increasing the group size, thus reducing the risk.  Freedom of religion implies
freedom from religion, yet here you seem to be suggesting that your religious
or moral views would require you to interfere with other people's lives in ways
that have no bearing on your life.

Let's put it another way.  Would you object as strongly if a private health
care organization were to offer health plans that covered unmarried partners of
enrollees?  The only difference between these two examples is the governmental
basis of one of the groups.

|Since EEOC is already in place, what was the perceived problem except
|for possibly a desire for more votes from Northwest Portland (no I do
|not think everyone is gay in N.W PDX)

Again, not being a resident of Portland, I don't know the specifics of this
case, so I can't give you the perceived problem.  Perhaps someone else has more
information regarding the reason for the Portland hiring guidelines.

|>Does that imply that you would have no objection to a landlord denying access
|>to housing based on race or creed?  If so, I'd suggest that you re-examine
|>your human rights values in general.
|
|Yes, property is for the disposal of the owner.  If the owner wants to mess up
|his profits by discriminating [then] that's his business. The best way to
|protect someone's rights is to guarantee his right to property.

The fallacy in that argument is to assume that all human rights are somehow
connected to property rights [very Lockean], but I don't think that's what you
mean.  Without anti-discrimination laws, it's not clear that a property owner's
profits would suffer the abuse of their discrimination.  You may argue that
acquisition of property (i.e., real estate) is a way to circumvent such a
problem, and there is definitely truth in that.  But it takes time to do that,
and the financial steps may be very hard to climb.  And I think I'm getting far
afield of the topic.

|>So your interpretation of "special" is "explicitly delineated" rather than
|>"other than average."  If that's true, then to be consistent, you must believe
|>that members of minorities, women, and people with religious beliefs already
|>have "special" rights, because all of these groups are outlined in the
|>constitution.  Now, I must say that the intent of these constitutional
|>amendments and of the civil rights legislation that has been passed over the
|>last 25 years has been to remove "special" rights (interpreted as "other than
|>average," in this case being below average, or discriminatory).
|
|The constitution does not single out specific minorities. The
|thirteenth amendment eliminates slavery, not black slavery. Religion
|is protected in the first amendment across the board, not as a listing
|of specifically protected beliefs. Extending the vote to women
|enfranchised a gender that had no say in whether they would be women or not.

The Constitution speaks in broad terms like "on account of race, color or
previous condition of servitude" or "on account of sex."  Still, it delineates
these groups especially as deserving of equal rights (or "special rights" in
the parlance you currently adhere to).  What would make adding "on account of
sexual preference" any more "special"?

|The bad part of the civil rights legislation are the parts that single out
|specific groups.  Affirmative action is a program to try to gain equal
|results, not equal opportunity for instance.

But affirmative action, good or evil, is never intended to be permanent, though
laws in our system to tend to become institutionalized.  The intent of
affirmative action is to establish balance, from whence equal opportunity can
maintain it.  But we are drifting from the topic again.

|Homosexuality is not an unalienable right. You seem to have switched tacts
|here if unalienable = natural rights.

Homosexuality is not a right; it is a condition, just like sex, or creed, or
race.  Rights are things like life, liberty, property, the pursuit of
happiness.  The question here is whether sexual preference is a condition
meriting the application of unalienable rights.  I see no inconsistency in
that.  After all, we are all (i.e., everyone) endowed by our Creator with
certain unalienable rights, at least according to the Declaration of
Independence.

|Freedom of religion was not an altruistic gesture, but a recognition
|and desire
|1. allow people to worship as they pleased,

Sounds like altruism to me, i.e., the practice of unselfish concern for the
welfare of others.

|and 2. to prevent the kinds of wars that were being fought in Europe.
|
|I disagree about the majority view. I think most people do have a
|live and let live attitude toward homosexuals, But by acknowledging
|that those same people would not approve of their children becoming
|homosexuals, does that not imply moral disapproval?

Moral disapproval is one thing.  Denying equal rights based on that disapproval
is quite another.  We may hate the moral behavior of a criminal repeat offender
but that does NOT give us the right to deny them the due process of law under
our constitutional system.

|>|The legalization of homosexual marriages, the adoption of children by
|>|homosexual couples, and the sanctioning of homosexuality as a viable
|>|alternative to heterosexual lifestyles are a few of the social
|>|practices I would not want to see sanctioned by law.
|>
|>None of those are rights that are denied to other loving couples, and so none
|>of them are in any way "special" rights (meaning other than average rights).
|>What's "special" here is the concern some people are showing about how other
|>people choose to live their lives.  What right do you have to mandate how
|>someone else practices their religion in this country?  None (though in actual
|>fact the federal government has been taking various steps to limit the
|>practice of indigenous religions).  Why should you have any more right to
|>control who someone chooses to live with and to love?
|
|What is special is a legal acknowledgement of an immoral lifestyle.
|Comparing this issue with religion is not correct as one deals with
|how you worship God, the other deals with a lifestyle consciously
|chosen.
|I do not want to control how someone chooses to live or who they love.
|I do object to having an immoral behavior legally sanctioned.

Immorality is in the eye of the beholder and is generally based on religious
and ethical upbringing.  For example, some people view capital punishment as
immoral, a direct violation of the Christian commandment, "Thou shalt not
kill."  Yet many people view it according to the Old Testament maxim, "An
Eye for an Eye" and in the last few years several states have reinstituted the
death penalty.  Many of the founders of this country came here to escape
religious persecution by others who viewed their lifestyles as immoral; that
is, violating their moral principles.  To allow other than such a legal
acknowledgement in view of such differences of moral opinion is to cross the
line of separation of Church and State.

As to the question of worship vs. lifestyle, both are freely chosen, both have
philosophical, psychological and ethical implications and spirituality, and
both are subject to persecution.  You may see a difference, but I don't.

Finally, your pair of "I do"-s are in conflict.  To have the State sanction
(bad word, here I mean "to impose a sanction on; penalize") "immoral behavior,"
when the behavior involved is as fundamental in a person's life as sexual
preference, by denying such basic acknowledgements as inheritance, or next of
kin status, is to pervasively control how people choose to live.  The two are
inseparable.

|>|I accept gays by not wanting to disturb their privacy.
|>
|>This statement seems inconsistent with your previous avowal that homosexuals
|>should  be denied the institutions of marriage and adoption.  Both of these
|>restrictions are incursions into their private lives.
|
|Not sanctioning an immoral behavior with civil marriage does not
|prevent homosexuals from living together.

But it DOES impose lots of roadblocks into their private lives.  It does raise
complications in dealing with issues like insurance, or medical emergencies,
etc.

|Adoption exposes children to an immoral behavior and thus involves an
|innocent third party.

This is probably one of the key issues of the 9 campaign, the reason that 9 did
so well: the fear engendered of corrupting children.  Why else would the OCA
write the ballot measure to associate homosexuality with pedophilia?  It is the
only one of the four behaviors listed in the ballot title that is already
illegal in the State of Oregon--as it is most places.  There is no link between
homosexuality and pedophilia--in fact, most pedophiles would not think of
themselves as homosexual at all.  But it is an issue in which emotion clouds
reason very quickly.

And it is probably a lost cause for me to try to convince you otherwise.  But I
believe that a loving, dual partner relationship is always better for the
development of a child than a single parent, especially a dating parent, whose
changing "friends" thrust a lot of instability into a child's life.  And I
believe that those homosexual couples which have children want the best for
them, just like any other loving parents, and that the children of a gay or
lesbian couple are no more likely to become homosexual than the children of a
hetorsexual couple.  But even if I had the statistics sitting in front of me,
I'm sure it would be hard to convince most people who voted for Measure 9.
They find the homosexual lifestyle so repugnant that they are willing to
deny any data that conflicts with their belief.

|>Property rights are not absolute--never have been, never will.  But that's a
|>whole other discussion.
|
|I was replying not to what is but what should be.

|>I don't necessarily agree.  Discrimination against blacks is considerably less
|>overt after 30 years of civil rights laws, largely because they have mandated
|>the association between groups that have given them the chance to learn more
|>about each other and help dispel racial biases.  I'm not claiming that all the
|>problems are solved, but I will say that most of the remaining problems have
|>more to do with ignorance than anything else.
|
|Discrimination always has to do with ignorance.  When civil rights law is
|applied in the spirit of the 14th amendment requiring equal protection, that
|is good. This is a move toward equal opportunity, when civil rights law gets
|into the area of equal results, then it is bad. Brown vs Board of Education is
|an example of the former, affirmative action is an example of the latter.

As I said before, affirmative action is not the issue in this debate, since the
closeted lifestyle anti-homosexual sentiment has forced them to live has mostly
protected them from job discrimination which forcing them to live a lie.

|>It is true that viewpoints are hard to legislate, and I'm certainly not
|>arguing for more laws.  But likewise I will argue against any laws that would
|>deny others basic human rights, whether they be considered special or
|>otherwise.
|
|I agree

You agree with the first line or the whole statement?  But a vote for Measure 9
was a vote to deny others basic human rights.  I still don't understand how you
come to any other conclusion; how you can say you don't care what homosexuals
do in their private lives on the one hand, and vote to restrict their rights
with the other.

|>What do you mean about "official acceptance"?  Are these some special code
|>words?  I don't think our body of laws officially "accept" any lifestyles, but
|>they do attempt to provide some norm of acceptable behavior between people.
|>Does it really hurt you to allow couples to form a contract between themselves
|>that permits them to share insurance, their property, and to avoid probate
|>complications if one of them should die?  That's "officially" what a marriage
|>is.
|
|Homosexuality is immoral and does not warrant government acknowledgement.
|By sanctioning marriage between hetrosexual couples for instance, the
|government sanctions a hetrosexual lifestyle.

(Here's that sanction word again.)  Could you answer the "Does it really hurt
you..." question I posed above?  Is it that you find immorality so morally
repugnant that you can't tolerate being in the same state as it?  Well, no,
because you've acknowledged that you're willing to live and let live.  But I
keep coming back to the same conclusion: that you want to make it tougher for
homosexuals to live in this state.  That seems a little obvious in rereading
it, but it seems to tell me that you have no intention to live and let live.

|>I'm not going to attempt to prove this one way or the other, because it has
|>more to do with perceptions than actual facts.  I could spout facts 'til I'm
|>blue in the face, and it may make no difference to your viewpoint if you
|>perceive those facts differently than me.  All I'm asking is for you to
|>"walk a mile some one else's moccasins."
|
|You are right, different basic assumptions toward an issue will usually
|result in different conclusions.

I am reminded of a statement made at the end of the Portland City Club debate
regarding measure 9.  An older gentleman related a story from the New Testament
which I will attempt to repeat.  In the Gospel of St. Luke, a man asked Jesus
what he must do to gain eternal life.  Jesus in turn asked, "What is written in
the law?"  The man recited from Deuteronomy, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole strength, and
with thy whole mind; And thy neighbor as thyself."  And when asked, who is my
neighbor, Jesus gave as an example the story of the Good Samaritan.  Now the
inhabitants of the land of Samaria were considered outcasts by the Jews, much
like homosexuals in the eyes of the contemporary Christian right.  And the
lesson is to love them as yourselves.  That means treating them as you would
treat yourself, and not discriminating against them.  After all, Vengeance is
Mine, sayeth the Lord.
________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Reed			Home Animation Ltd.		503-656-8414
robert@slipknot.rain.com	5686 First Court, West Linn, OR 97068

Charlie Chaplin once anonymously entered a Charlie Chaplin look-alike
contest in Monte Carlo.  He came in third.
________________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: pnw.general