From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:58:27 GMT

In article <CORWIN+.93Jan6110234@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
>In article <C0F4sH.n1K@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer) writes:
>   In article <1993Jan05.220654.33157@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>   >In article <C0EF49.DJz@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer) writes:

>   >|> Ok, let's say it was written to appeal to bigotry. How does it
>   >|> legislate bigotry? Does it force anyone to discriminate against
>   >|> homosexuals? 

>   >No, but it allows them to discriminate.  It prevents any law from
>   >being passed that makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of
>   >a person's sexual orientation.  It's as simple as that.  So anyone
>   >charged with discriminating against someone because they are 
>   >homosexual can get out of it because the state constitution says
>   >that such laws are not legal.  

>   This is true. However, it still does not constitute legislating
>   bigotry any more than, say, re-legalizing drugs legislates heroin use.

>This analogy is incorrect.  The Colorado law removed the ability of
>gay men and lesbians to seek recourse for discrimination.  A better
>analogy would be if society made drug treatment illegal (and kept
>criminalization of drug use).

No, your analogy is wrong.  His point is that allowing someone to do
something is not the same as encouraging it.

>Your argument is also ignorant of the facts.  Incidents of
>discrimination are already occuring in Colorado.  Hate-crimes against
>gays and lesbians have also nearly doubled.  There are people in
>Colorado that have taken the passage of Amendment 2 to mean that
>bigotry and violence based on a persons real or peceived sexual
>orientation is alright.

No.  Hate-crimes are not discrimination.  They are acts of violence that
are illegal, with or without Amendment 2.

>For example, from the Village Voice (12/15):
>"... Despite Maybor Webb's assurances, lesbians and gay men in Denver are
>already suffering from the new law's effects.  One 17-year-old lesbian lost
>her job when she came out to her employers days after the vote.  Another
>Denver resident was told he's no longer welcome at his doctor's, now that the
>law permits discrimination based on sexual orientation.  And attacks on
>homosexuals have doubled.  Nearly every gay or lesbian bar in the city has
>been disrupted by bigots who beat patrons in the parking lot or break the
>windows of their cars. [...]

>In an earlier article, you claimed:

>>Show me how white, straight males have more than equal protection _before 
>>the law_. I agree that straight males have advantages based on some
>>people's attitudes and customs, but I am talking about _legal_
>>advantages. 

>In Colorado, gays and lesbians are less equal, before the law.  They
>cannot seek recourse for hate-crimes committed against them.  They
>cannot seek recourse for discrimination is public services, jobs, or
>housing.  

Neither can straight people.  

(Actually, this isn't true, because Amendment 2 only outlawed the
protection of homosexuals, which is why it will probably be struck
down, as a violation of the equal protection clause.)

But I suspect that an amendment which said "No law protecting people
from discrimination based on sexual orientation shall be allowed" would
elicit the same response from you.

>People that murder gay men and lesbians are routinely found "not-guilty" or
>guilty of a lesser charge by many juries throughout this country.  A
>defense of "attempted seduction" by the victim toward his murderer is
>often enough for the jury to justify the action.  This type of _legal_
>discrimination is pervasive in our socity.  In Colorado, it is now
>part of their constitution.

Huh?  This is random gibberish.  Amendment 2 has *nothing* to do with
this.  Neither do anti-discrimination laws.  This may be a sign of
hatred towards gays, but is irrelevant to the discussion.

>"We do not have an anti-gay policy... The problems Boy Scouts are
>having are with people trying to get in - the gay community, the
>homosexuals, the atheists."
>Burford Hill, Western Regional Director, Boy Scouts of America. 
>5 June 1992, San Francisco Chronicle

I never understood why someone would *want* to join an organization like
the Boy Scouts that made it clear that it didn't want them.  Actually, I
never understood why someone would want to join the Boy Scouts.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Xref: sparky alt.politics.correct:6151 soc.culture.african.american:13785