From: grubin@virga.ucar.edu (Rick Grubin)
Subject: Re: BOYCOTT: Boycott Colorado
Followup-To: rec.skiing
Organization: Research Applications Program/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:28:52 GMT



Steve Hultquist <ssh@vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>'Tis time for me to comment.

And hopefully you will accept responses.

>Whether you come to Colorado or not this year is not my concern.  You have
>every right to withhold your hard-earned funds from any organization or
>community that operates counter to your values (I often do it myself).
>However, before you jump to the conclusion that 53% of Colorado's voters are
>hate-filled bigots, I'd encourage you to read the Amendment for yourself.  If,
>after reading the Amendment, you think that it is hateful, bigotted, and a
>clear violation of your values, I hope you will express that to those that you
>will boycott (otherwise, they'll never know!).

>On the other hand, if, after reading the Amendment, you come to the conclusion
>that it is *not* hateful, bigotted, and against your values, I trust you are
>committed to speak with your pocketbook as willingly as you were to boycott.
>After all, if you can't, your integrity is in question!

Fair enough.  It should be read before judgement is made by an individual
as to their feelings.  So let's have a look at the wording (typos are mine,
apologies for the length included):

        AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE II OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION TO
PROHIBIT THE STATE OF COLORADO AND ANY OF ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS
FROM ADOPTING OR ENFORCING ANY LAW OR POLICY WHIHC PROVIDES THAT
HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION, CONDUCT OR RELATIONSHIPS
CONSTITUTES OR ENTITLES A PERSON TO CLAIM ANY MINORITY OR PROTECTED
STATUS, QUOTA PREFERENCES, OR DISCRIMINATION.

        The proposed initiative Amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Colorado (of which when fixed, shall be made or constituded a
part) is as follows:

PROPOSED INITIATIVE AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUION OF THE STATE OF
COLORADO:
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:
        Article 2, of the Colorado Constition is amended by the
addition of Section 30, which shall state as follows:
        NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL
ORIENTATION.    Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its
branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political
subdivisions, municipalities, or school districts, shall enact, adopt
or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby
homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or
relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or
entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minorty
status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of
discrimination.  This section of the Constitition shall be in all
respects self-executing.

        The summary prepared by the Board is as follows:
        This measure prohibits the state and its political
subdivisions, municiplalities, and school districts from enacting,
adopting, or enforcing any law or policy which provides that
homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices, or
relationships are the basis of or entitle any person or class of
persons to have or to claim minority status, protexted status, quota
preferences, or discrimination.

        The ballot title and submission clause as designated and fixed
by the Board is as follows:

        SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE II FO THE COLORADO
CONSTITUTION TO PROHIBIT THE STATE OFF COLORADO AND ANY OF ITS
POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS FROM ADOPTING OR ENFORCING ANY LAW OR POLICY
WHICH PROVIDES THAT HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION,
CONDUCT, OR RELATIOHSIPS CONSTITUTES OR ENTITLES A PERSON TO CLAIM ANY
MINORITY OR PROTECTED STATUS, QUOTA PREFERENCES, OR DISCRIMINATION?


>I have read the Amendment multiple times and read the historical evidence.  I
>have also read the perspective of a number of major civil rights leaders on
>this particular Amendment (and the issue of minority status for homosexuals).
>I hope you will, too, and then that you will draw your own conclusions.

I have read this too, Steve, and here are my conclusions/opinions:

As stated, the amendment does mention the issue of MINORITY or PROTECTED
STATUS for persons that are homosexual, lesbian or bisexual (in terms of
sexual orientation), and the amendment seeks to prohibit the state or any
cities within it from adopting or enforcing laws giving such a status to
gays and lesbians.  That may be OK, depending on your point of view.

Now notice that the wording also says the state or any cities within it
may not enact laws that allow a gay/lesbian person to CLAIM ANY DISCRIMINATION.
Steve, you make no mention of this fact in your posting.  Are you ignoring
it or did you not notice it during the multiple times you read the wording
of the amemdment?  This amendment disallows a person to have recourse should
they believe they were discriminated against because of their choice of
sexual orientation *is gay or lesbian*.  Apparently you can still claim
discrimination if your sexual orientation isn't gay or lesbian.

If you are a heterosexual, you can make such claims, this right already
exists.  But in Colorado, if you're gay/lesbian, you do not have these
same rights.  Steve, in my opinion, this alone should give a person cause 
to rethink their position on this matter.

This amendment also disallows cities which are home-rule to enact or to
enforce existing laws about this.  May I suggest you read the Boulder city
law regarding this?  It is carefully worded so that any person, heterosexual
or homosexual, may not be discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.
This law, from my reading and interpretation (others may differ), provides
the same thing for *everyone*.  In my opinion, amendment 2 clearly does not,
it disallows something for a specific group of people.

>I have a deep compassion for homosexuals.  I care very deeply about the people
>that I meet every day.  I am neither hateful nor bigotted.  However, I care
>deeply enough about those people currently under civil rights protection that I
>cannot in good conscience support minority status for homosexuals.  Please
>don't base your decision on name-calling and heresay.  Get the information
>directly from the law!

I think I am in agreement with you, Steve, that granting a minority or
protected status to gays and lesbians isn't necessary, allowing for a strict
interpretation of what constitutes a minority (are you born one, do you
become one, or ??  I don't know enough here to say with conviction, so for
sake of argument until I learn more or others can teach us more, let's say
I agree with you on this).  But just like your good conscience, I can't
support a law that says if I'm gay or lesbian and you choose to discriminate
against me for whatever reason for which a heterosexual has recourse, and
I don't have recourse.  This (to me) clearly prevents *everyone* from having
the same rights.  I think this is wrong, Steve.

I don't think I'm basing this on hearsay or name-calling.  I think it is
rational.  You may not agree.  Now that we've presented the wording of
the amendment, others may draw their own conclusions.

--
Rick Grubin     grubin@ncar.ucar.edu