From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Fam
Date: 18 Dec 1992 23:58:20 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> 
> I see no wording here that indicates that anything in this Amendment depends
> on what Gay Rights groups do or do not claim.   The Amendment talks about
> what policies the Colorado Government shall institute.   It says nothing
> about what they shall institute depending on what Gay Rights Groups claim.

Jon, I don't know why I'm bothering, but then again, certain people (they
know who they are) have been extremely patient with me, so what the hell...

> I also see no reason why anything that Gay Rights Groups do or do not claim
> is going to "obsolete" anything.   The CFV made up their own version of
> what gays want, and used that in their propaganda.   I see no evidence
> that they are about to change their claims about what Gays want based on
> something trivial, like what Gays actually *do* want.

Yes, CFV made up their own version.  Yes, they used that in their propaganda.
And YES, a lot of people bought it.  And yes, they are certainly unlikely 
to change their claims about what Gays want. That's the whole point, if 
you would listen and not have it so clear in your mind what I'm saying 
before I say it.  
 
> But let me give you another opportunity to make good on your claim.   I'll
> ask you again:
> 
> 	"Exactly which portion of the wording of the Colorado Amendment
> 	would becoem obsolete?"
> 
> Don't quote the whole thing.   Tell us exactly which part would be "killed"
> by Gays making some declaration.

Let me spell it out AGAIN.  Maybe this time you'll actually read it, without 
already "knowing" what I'm going to say.  (maybe not)  Excuse the sarcasm, 
also...

The religious right claims that gays want "minority status", in the sense that 
they want quotas similar to race quotas.  Because of the analogy that is often 
made between gays and blacks, a lot of people believe it.  Before I heard 
people here deny it, *I* believed it.  This puts the  religious right in a 
great position to exploit the situation, and the unknown.  Write an amendment
that denies what people see as a likely want (quotas) and tack on the 
end the freedom to discriminate based on sexual orientation.  And what have
you got?  Col#2.  What else have you got?  basically the same amendment that 
is likely to be presented in more states.  So how do you diffuse the situation, 
and kill the wording of the amendment, that will be coming up in more states?
Make it clear to all, the more demonstrative the better, that this is
*not* a goal of the gay-rights movement.  In fact, if the gay-rights movement,  
when they march on Washington next year, present some legislation that 
says "no quotas based on sexual orientation", what would the religious right
be left with?  Nothing, except to come right out and say that the only point 
of the amendments is to discriminate.  And most people will want no part of 
that, and they'll get voted down overwhelmingly.  Get the picture? 

Walter