Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:49:24 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

This is actually getting sort of interesting. I mean, not the
specific issue about bathrooms, but what's lying underneath it.

Before I get into the next installment, let me say a couple of things.

First, it certainly looks to me as though the position of Travis, Missy,
and JasonZ, and maybe others I've missed, is that there really are no
political rights. For all three hold that if a majority holds some
"moral view," then it may pass a law enforcing that view. Political
rights are nothing if they aren't checks against majority tyranny
(at least that's the only thing they can be in a democracy). So,
the position amounts to the denial of political rights.

It's timely, don't you think, that I just issued a reprieve for
Jimbo?

The other thing I have to say is that I won't be able to continue
at this pace, since I'm about to get a lot busier. I'll try to keep
my hand in. And I hope others will take up some of the slack.

>From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>

>> I thought that it was fairly obvious why "the public" does not want
>> unisex bathrooms. It has to do with privacy, and with human sexuality.
>> Is there some kryptoreason that you are hinting at? What is it?
>> Is it something in the bible?
>The point is, should we segregate bathrooms just because "the public"
>wants it?  If so, then shouldn't we outlaw homosexuality if "the
>public" wants it?

Well, no.
If what the public "wants" denies someone equal protection, then
it has to have a better reason than "WE WANT IT."

>>Don't we all know why public restrooms are segregated by sex? Why is
>>Missy playing coy with us?
>No, we don't all know.  We think it has to do with public morals, the
>same reason why homosexuality is illegal.  What do you think?

If you mean, "Because certain things make people uncomfortable,"
then that's what I think too.

I have a somewhat different standard for "public morals."

People's discomfort is probably enough of a reason to segregate
bathrooms, since no one is denied equal treatment. But it isn't
a very good reason to deny some people the legal benefits of
marriage.

>What is the "badge of slavery" argument?  Do you mean to say that by
>segregating schools by race, we perpetuate the tradition of slavery???
>Assuming the schools are equal, this makes no sense!

The Court once ruled (probably mistakenly, in my opinion) that segregation
in the context of our nation's history consitutes a "badge of slavery."
The point was that everyone knew that segregation was in place
because blacks were considered an inferior race.

>But the people in Selma probably didn't think of it as racism.

Actually, they probably did.
But in any case, it WAS racism. Or is that what Travis is denying??

>Define bigotry, Jamie.

So what am I, the list's dictionary now?

Ok, ok.
As I'm using it, "bigotry" singles out a certain attitude that people
have, usually in crowds, toward other kinds of people. It's defining
quality is that it is a hatred or sense that the others are wicked
or immoral, without rational ground.

How's that?

I'd be willing to entertain other candidate definitions.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU