Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 5 Nov 92 11:42:48 GMT
Organization: EDS Unigraphics, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: taghavi

In article <1992Nov4.204156.29353@menudo.uh.edu>, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> In <1992Nov4.163113.27613@athena.cs.uga.edu> carr@athena.cs.uga.edu writes:
> 
>> Colorado's Amendment 2, which makes it illegal to pass any legislation in
>> the state protecting gays & lesbians from harassment (or protecting their
>> right not to be fired because of their identity), FAILED.
> 
>   First, this must be a typo.  If I read this right, it is still legal to
> pass legislation protecting gays and lesbians.  You should be happy about
> such a thing.
> 
>> Iowa's ERA FAILED.
>> 
>> Tampa repealed an ordinance protecting lesbians & gays from harassment.
>> 
>> This is a sad day. To all you Creton men out there who are going to reply
>> about how lesbians & gays don't need protection, think about this: Every
>> day, in every city, gays & lesbians are yelled at, beaten up and fired from
>> their jobs - not because they've done anything TO their attackers, but
>> merely because they exist. They must hide their identity's merely in the
>> hopes of keeping their jobs - the only route to self-support & self-esteem
>> in our capitalist society.
> 
>   Gays and lesbians deserve protection.  Heterosexual white males deserve
> protection.  Jewish Afro-Italians deserve protection.  Why single out a 
> particular group?  The Constitution as is should serve to protect ALL indi-
> viduals.  The problem lies not in the law, but how it is applied -- a fault
> which would not be repaired by more legislation.

......
>   I do not support special treatment for groups simply because they feel 
> oppressed (and yes, often the oppresion is real).  ALL people *deserve* EQUAL
> protection and opportunity.  I support the removal of restrictive laws (whites
> only, gays in the military) but not the imposition of presciptive ones (20% 
> minority involvment required).  We cannot create a color-gender-sexual orient-
> ation-blind society by creating laws and practices that *highlight* those 
> differences.



  I think you've hit the nail right on the head. In the last few years,
we've seen laws that purport to "preserve the rights" of some such group being
turned into laws that oppress some other grou instead. Certainly there are
millions of fathers and husbands who have discovered (the hard way) that
laws which claimed to protect women's rights have been used to _remove_
the rights of men, especially in regards to family. While anyone can get
behind the concept of equal rights, the practice of giving rights
to special groups at the expense of removing them from someone else
will result in an electorate that's reluctant to grant ANY group
special protections.



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|      If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he'ld be ASSASSINATED!      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Xref: sparky soc.women:18821 alt.abortion.inequity:4837 talk.abortion:46613 alt.feminism:3703 soc.men:18652