HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rickc@agora.rain.com (Rick Coates)
Newsgroups: or.general
Subject: Re: Measure 9 Voter's Pamphlet Argument
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:27:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: agora.Bw4rL7.B2K
Organization: Open Communications Forum

charlesw@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Charles Wilson) writes:

>In article <1992Oct13.193337.24309@gasco.com> dlc@gasco.com (Darci L. Chapman) writes:
>>dave@kentrox.uucp (Dave Read) writes:
>>> john@n7kbt.rain.com (John Opalko) writes:
>>
>>And more importantly, what about freedom *from* religion?
>>
>>If you're a practicing Christian or whatever, nothing currently stops you
>>from practicing those beliefs *for yourself*. But I don't think we should
>>necessarily impose those beliefs on everybody else or teach that those
>>are the only correct beliefs.
>>
>>>>-Darci->

>Boy, you sound just as bigoted and hateful as measure 9 supporters.  
>Maybe you should consider drafting your own version of measure 9.  Change
>one or two of the words above and you _have_ measure 9:

>And more importantly, what about freedom *from* homosexuality?

Good grief!  If you mean "freedom from homosexuality" means that you
will never have to see a lesbian or gay man, then no, you will not have
freedom from homosexuality, anymore than freedom from christianity
means that I will never have to see or hear about a christian, or
christian holidays, etc.

>If you're a practicing homosexual or whatever, nothing currently stops you
>from practicing those beliefs *for yourself*. But I don't think we should
>necessarily impose those beliefs on everybody else or teach that those
>are the only correct beliefs.

(What about if you're a *perfect* homosexual and don't need any more practice?)

Seriously, I don't see gay, lesbian and bisexual people imposing on
anyone, unless you consider simple existence and tolerance for
diversity an imposition.

And if you find tolerance for diversity too burdensome, the US is not the
country for you.  Try Japan, they are much more 'pure' and proud of it.

>Think about it!!

Good idea.

Rick

rickc@agora.rain.com
From: merlyn@ora.com (Randal L. Schwartz)
Newsgroups: or.general
Subject: Re: Measure 9 Voter's Pamphlet Argument
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:36:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: romulus.MERLYN.92Oct13123621
	<12711@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> <1992Oct13.184907.16395@reed.edu>
Organization: Stonehenge Consulting Services; Portland, Oregon, USA

In article <1992Oct13.184907.16395@reed.edu> sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:
   Offering your daughters for sex to people (especially honored guests)
   was common, and occurs in other Biblical passages.

Now *there's* something worth putting into the State Constitution.

Anyone for a petition drive to get it on the '94 ballot?

(Just kidding, I think.)

Just another native Oregonian (one of the few, apparently),
--
Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095
merlyn@reed.edu (guest account) merlyn@ora.com (better for permanent record)
cute quote: "Welcome to Portland, Oregon -- home of the California Raisins!"
From: sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape)
Newsgroups: or.general
Subject: Re: Measure 9 Voter's Pamphlet Argument
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:12:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Oct13.191213.18014
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon

In article <10533@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.193655.9785@reed.edu> sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:
>
>>The story of Soddom & Gomorrah, oft cited by crusaders as proof that
>>God disapproves of homosexuality, suggests some additional, not oft
>>cited, Biblical values.

>Actualy this seems more to be a couple of "undercover investigators"
>sent to see if the sin of the cities is really as bad as God thinks
>it is (see Gen 18:20-22).  The rescue of Lot seems to be almost an
>afterthought.

Completely wrong.  God has decided to destroy Soddom, but agreed (to
Abraham) that he will not "destroy the righteous with the wicked."
The angels are sent to determine which citizens of Soddom are "the
righteous" and they find Lot.  The rescue is not an afterthought; it
is central to the plot and the theme of how God protects those who
obey Hebraic laws and customs.  And what do you mean "to see if {it}
is really as bad as God thinks it is"??  Recall what "God" means,
please: God doesn't send "agents" to see if he's wrong.

>So Lot offered his daughters.  So what?  That indicates a gross error 
>(to say the least) on his part.  However nothing in this account 
>indicates that he was right in doing so.  This is a simple account of 
>what happened, not a statement of what is right and wrong.

I just finished posting another reply to this point.  Offering
daughters & wives to others for sex is customary among the Biblical
tribes of Israel. I would think that it would disqualify Lot as a
member of "the righteous." 

-- 
Liberate the Weirdoes and You Liberate the Squares
Xref: sparky or.general:632 pdx.general:1237
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: or.general,pdx.general
Subject: Re: Measure 9 Voter's Pamphlet Argument
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:00:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Oct13.210048.27324
Reply-To: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <1992Oct12.142824.359@kentrox.uucp> dave@kentrox.uucp (Dave
Read) writes about the satirical Yes on 9 argument:
>Oh yeah, it's a scream.  I can't wait to see whose religious beliefs they're
>going to mock next - Jews? Muslims? Hindus?

This is a case of "if the shoe fits.." 

The point being made is that no one takes the laws of the Old
Testament literally, and thus any attempt to legislate part of the old
laws (in particular, the injunction in Leviticus against
homosexuality) is ludicrous unless you legislate *all* of those laws,
including those against mixed fabric wearing, oyster eating, et al.

The OCAs stand against homosexuality has very little to do with
Christianity. It is a position of hatred and bigotry.
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/   Delicious & Nutritious breakfast cereals shot from guns!
Xref: sparky or.general:604 pdx.general:1206
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: or.general,pdx.general
Subject: Re: Measure 9 Voter's Pamphlet Argument
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:16:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Oct11.191655.6066
Reply-To: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <1992Oct11.180928.23689@onion.rain.com> jeff@onion.rain.com (Jeff Beadles) writes:
>I've heard (second-hand) that the article was submitted by some no-on-9
>group that wanted to prove how absurd the measure is.

I can verify this, first hand. The Family Alliance of God is a real
PAC, however, and has the exact same legal status as the OCA.

Look for petitions for too more constitutional amendments soon. One
would place the entire book of Leviticus into the constitution, the
other would place bits of the bible relevant to family values in.
Things like "if your brother dies, it is your duty to impregnate your
brother's wife". This stuff is important to teach our children.
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/                                        All things are true
Newsgroups: or.test
From: mjohnson@mjohnson.mentorg.com (Mark Johnson)
Subject: test
Originator: mjohnson@mjohnson
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 01:15:25 GMT
Organization: Mentor Graphics 
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 


This is just a test.

                Mark A. Johnson    --    Mentor Graphics Corp.
       mark_johnson@mentorg.com          8005 S.W. Boeckman Road
                  (503)685-1321          Wilsonville, OR 97070-7777
                                         

-- 
                Mark A. Johnson    --    Mentor Graphics Corp.
       mark_johnson@mentorg.com          8005 S.W. Boeckman Road
                  (503)685-1321          Wilsonville, OR 97070-7777
From: julie@cutler.com
Newsgroups: or.test
Subject: just a test
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:48:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: cutler.1992Oct8.184855.303
Organization: Cutler & Company, Inc., Medford OR (503) 770-9000

This is just a test 1...2...3
		Julie
Newsgroups: or.test
From: congle@ssd.intel.com (Congle Pham)
Subject: test
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Distribution: or
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:23:06 GMT



this is the test
From: markm@ogicse.ogi.edu (Mark Morrissey)
Newsgroups: or.politics
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in Oregon
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:32:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.43776
Distribution: na
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR

[As usual, the alt.* groups stripped out as we don't do alt.* here.  sigh]

In article <1992Oct7.132632.1990@genie.slhs.udel.edu> nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>
>Am I missing some technical use of language, or is the amendment
>just the equivalent of saying "we can have a law allowing us to
>be as nasty as we want without admitting it"?

You hit this nail right on the head, Nancy.  This constitutional amendment
doesn't go into specifics regarding *HOW* to achieve its goals.  According
to the ACLU, it will be up to individual persons working at various levels
of government or acting as a watchdog group (can you say 'OCA'?) to 
determine what the implementation of the law will be.

In actual practice, you will get liberal interpretations and also
strictly fundamentalist Christian interpretations.  Some people will
be mean spirited in its application and some will not.

--mark
--
Mark Morrissey           One Hatred to rule them all.  One Hatred to find them.
markm@cse.ogi.edu        One Hatred to bring them all and in the darkness bind
                         them.  In the land of Bigotry where the Shadows lie.
From: larrym@bolus.tv.tek.com (Larry Morandi)
Newsgroups: or.politics
Subject: Question about Quayle's statement in Voters' Pamphlet
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:49:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: tvnews.1992Oct16.014956.5845
Distribution: or
Organization: Tektronix TV Products
Originator: larrym@bolus.tv.tek.com

The second paragraph of Dan Quayle's statement in the Oregon Voters'
Pamphlet has me quite confused.  It opens with the following sentence:

"The America of the cede Century, like the America of our forefathers, will
grow stronger through the hard work, integrity and responsibility of its
people."

(I understand that at least one state representative contacted the Secretary
of States office to verify that this is not a typo in the pamphlet, it is
exactly as the statement was delivered to the state.)

My dictionary (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1979)
defines "cede" as "1. To surrender possession of officially or formally. 2.
To yield; grant.  -- See Synonyms at relinquish."

What is the century surrendering possession of or yielding to or
relinquishing?  Does anyone understand what Mr. Quayle is trying to say
here? 

Larry Morandi
larrym@tv.tv.tek.com
Newsgroups: or.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
From: patbob@sequent.com (Patrick White)
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in Oregon
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 20:22:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.180704.6214@scic.intel.com> sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley) writes:
>                PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
>...
>    (3) State, regional and local governments and their
>departments, agencies and other entities, including
>specifically the State Department of Higher Education and the
>public schools, shall assist in setting a standard for
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Oregon's youth that recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia,
>sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and
>perverse and that these behaviors are to be discouraged and
		   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>avoided.

	Sounds like they want the schools to teach kids to "discourage" others
from pursuing these orientations.  Or maybe they just want the schools to
create an educational environment that discourages such orientations
(censorship, book banning, psychological help, public ridicule, etc.).

	The *really* neat part about this admendment is the one about if part
is declared unconstitutional, the rest still stands.


-- 
Pat White (patbob@sequent.com | patbob@techbook.com, work: (503) 578-3463)
From: prk@cie.uoregon.edu (Peter R. Knox)
Newsgroups: or.politics
Subject: Mainstream Oregon
Date: 14 Oct 92 07:18:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: nntp.1992Oct14.071817.11089
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange

Mainstream Oregon
1742 Skyline Blvd
Eugene, OR 97403
Jeff Osanka, President

For too long we were silent as the OCA pursued the politics of division. 
We believed Oregonians would reject their attempts to extend their
prejudice.  The OCA's victory in Springfield has shaken us out of our
complacency.  We must act now to persuade mainstream Oregonians to reject
the OCA's BNallot Measure 9.

As Republicans we share a special resesponsibility.  The OCA has chosen to
insinuate itself into our party.  Many Oregonians now automatically equate
Republicans and the OCA.

In fact, mainstream Republicans oppose the OCA nd especially Ballot
Measure 9.

* Mainstream Republicans believe, like Barbara Bush,m that abortion and
homosexuality are personal matters that should be left out fo the
Republican Party Platform.

* Mainstream Republicasns believe, like the Associated Oregon Industries
(the premier business lobbying group in Oregon), that discrimination
initiaves like Measure 9 are bad for business and that "government has
enough to do without regulating the personal behavior of individuals in
the privacy of thir own homes and lives -- provided that personal behavior
inflicts no harm on others."

*{Mainstream Repoublicans believe, as Americans, that family values are a
matter of trust, and they trust families to make difficult ppersonal choices.

Mainstream Oregon was orghanized to represent those no longer interested
in the gridlocked politics of the left or the right.  We represent
traditional conservatives and moderates who accept thir individual
differences in order to support basic Republican principles of less
government.  We oppose all those who want to increase government
bureaucracy and intervention.

We urge all mainstream Oregonians to speak out and work to defeat Ballot
Measure 9.

Authorized by Mainstream oregon, 1742 Skyline Blvd, Eugene, OR 97403
Xref: sparky or.politics:236 talk.politics.misc:50021 alt.politics.libertarian:648
From: gerrit@sequent.com (Gerrit Huizenga)
Newsgroups: or.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in Oregon
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:16:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Oct7.181621.4432
Distribution: na
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.

nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) points out the fairly obvious
self-contradicting justification in the proposed OR ballot measure 9
for allowing one group of people to arbitrarily discriminate against
another group without really doing a good job of describing the
oppressed group.

The sad part is that the "top lawyer" from the Heritage Foundation (the
most influential political think tank in the U.S. having a significant role
in forming domestic and foregin policy during the Reagan Presidency) has
evaluated the measure and claims that it is self-consistent and does
not infringe on the U.S. Constitution.

Of course, there was an interesting article in the Oregonian in which a
whole bunch of lawyers tried to analyze the measure.  They decided
that they didn't understand what the implication might be, didn't
understand how it would be interpreted and didn't understand how
someone could write such a piece of crap (I'm being a bit liberal in
the interpretation of what they actually said, but that's the one line
summary of a one page article).  The entire measure is so vague and
so self-inconsistent from a legal standpoint that it might be hard to
throw it out simply because it is hard to agree what it supports or
what it violates.  It could be used as the basis for denial of free
speech (book banning/censorship, restriction of right to assemble).

It is hard to see how this would not be used as a poison arrow to aim
at any dissentor who might be gay or who might have made some pro-gay
statement.

While pollster statistics are typically not to be trusted, it appears
that this measure will still have a large proportion of supporters.  The
reason (my opinion)?  So many people feel it is invalid that they aren't
going to bother voting NO on it.  It is important that this measure be
soundly defeated to send a message to the OCA that hate and bigotry is
not supported by this state (I hope!) and that civil rights should not
be denied to *any* citizen, regardless of sexual orientation, religious
preference, race, country of origin, disability, etc.

gerrit
Xref: sparky or.politics:233 talk.politics.misc:49934 alt.politics.libertarian:627
From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Newsgroups: or.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in Oregon
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:26:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: genie.1992Oct7.132632.1990
Distribution: na
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <1992Oct6.180704.6214@scic.intel.com> sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.173515.19852@SSD.intel.com> chrisbro@ssd.intel.com (Chris Browne) writes:
>>	Does anyone have a copy of measure 9 that I could read?  I would like to 
>>know what the wording is.
>----------
>
>                PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
>
>Be It Enacted by the People of the State Of Oregon:
>    Paragraph 1. The constitution of the State of Oregon is amended
>by creating a new section to be added to and made a part of
>Article 1 and to read:
>    Section 41 (1) This state shall not recognize any
>categorical provision such as "sexual orientation,""sexual
>preference," and similiar phrases that includes homosexuality,
>pedophilia, sadism or masochism.  Quotas, minority status,
>affirmative action, or any similar concepts, shall not apply
>to these forms of conduct, nor shall government promote these
>behaviors.
>    (2) State, regional and local government and their
>properties and monies shall not be used to promote, encourage,
>or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or macochism.
>    (3) State, regional and local governments and their
>departments, agencies and other entities, including
>specifically the State Department of Higher Education and the
>public schools, shall assist in setting a standard for
>Oregon's youth that recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia,
>sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and
>perverse and that these behaviors are to be discouraged and
>avoided.
>    (4) It shall be considered that it is the intent of the
>people in enacting this section that if any part thereof is
>held unconstitutional, the remaining parts shall be held in
>force.

Isn't the first section in contradiction with the second and third?
How can the state be sure it isn't supporting something that it
can't recognize? How can it discourage something that it can't
recognize? 

Am I missing some technical use of language, or is the amendment
just the equivalent of saying "we can have a law allowing us to
be as nasty as we want without admitting it"?

                              Nancy Lebovitz
From: mikep@sequent.com (Michael A. Prescott)
Newsgroups: or.politics
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Summary: What is marriage?
Keywords: marriage relationships gay rights
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:16:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: sequent.1992Oct14.201644.23556
Followup-To: or.politics
Distribution: or
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.


Steve,

You scared me there for a few minutes!  I thought we were going to fully
agree on something. ;^)

I'm glad to hear you are voting no on 9.  In this case, the issue is too
big to worry about your reasoning why; we need the vote.  I do think you
are letting your right wing show a bit on the gay rights and activism
issue though.  Activism is a time honored tradition when denial of rights 
and discrimination are present in this country's history.

The bit about the purpose of marriage being children leaves me a little
raw, however.  My wife and I chose to get married because we truly loved
each other and wanted to demonstrate our commitment to the whole world.
We also chose not to have children.  I have a child from a previous
marriage that does live with us, however.  Of course, a seventeen year
old can convince *anyone* not to want more children.  I also seem to 
remember our marriage vows as not containing too many (none--that's
not very many, huh?) references to children.  It did talk a lot about
respect, honor, love, cherish, support (is this too feel goody yet) and
things like that, however.  It even mentioned how marriage was symbolic
of the relationship between Christ and the church, but again; no kids.

I believe I understand a bit about wanting to demonstrate the love that
I have for my wife, and how it *might* feel if the laws of the land 
said, "Nope.  Not now, not ever."  I also know a couple of people that
clearly love each other, are commited to each other, and demonstrate
more of the positive aspects of love and family than most folks I have
ever known.  They also happen to be lesbian.  

Sorry, I believe that marriage has a higher purpose than children.  It
can also provide a foundation that children can be raised on.  It doesn't
guarantee success, though.  My friends are also raising their son in an
environmnet of love and acceptance, not unlike what I only try to achieve
with my boy.  Why can't we recognize them as the family they are?

Mike
"Straight but not narrow.  *Please* vote no on 9!"

-- 
Mike Prescott                                           mikep@sequent.com
Distributed Computing Services                             (503) 578-3059
Newsgroups: or.politics,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian
From: johne@or.credence.com (John Ewing)
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in Oregon
Organization: Credence Systems Corp. Beaverton, OR
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 16:02:53 GMT


In article <1079@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.203848.17999@atlastele.com> bcapps@atlastele.com
>(Brent Capps) writes:
>>There are only 5 people in this country whose opinion matters on whether
>>or not Measure 9 is constitutional, and they all sit at the US Supreme Court.
>>No one else's opinion matters.  The Constitution *is* what a majority of the
>>Supreme Court *says* it is.
>
>I don't mean to pick on Brent here, because a lot of people feel this way,
>but this attitude really irks me.  Take a look at the oath of office for
>the President and Congress.  They pledge to support and uphold *the*
>Constitution, not the Supreme Court's interpretation of it.  State office
>holders pledge to uphold both the U.S. Constitution and their state
>constitution.  I'm not saying that the courts aren't important or that they
>should be ignored, but the executive has a duty to know and understand the
>Constitution, and if he (I'm using "he" to mean he or she) believes he is
>called on to do something unConstitution by an unConstitutional law, he
>doesn't have to wait for the Supreme Court to rule.  He has a duty not to
>do it.  And even after the Supreme Court rules, the executive still has a
>duty to uphold the Constitution.  He can't do something the Supreme Court
>say is unConstitutional, but he isn't so bound if they rule that it is
>Constitutional.  There is nothing that says that he can take a higher
>standard, a broader view of our Rights.  Just because they say it is
>Constitutional, he is not forced to agree, and he still has a duty not to
>act unConstitutionally as he understands it.
>
>Likewise, the legislature or Congress has a duty not to propose or pass
>unConstitutional laws.  They are oath bound not to do so.  They should not
>just pass whatever they like and leave the question of Constitutionality up
>to the courts.
>
>In both cases I think the oath of office is largely ignored.  Congress, the
>President, and state office holders ignor their responsibilities and leave
>the Constitution to the courts.  This is not the way it is supposed to be.
>But until we start holding our elected officials accountable, it won't
>change.


That was a great response, and how true!!!  More people should understand
this.  Thank-you very much for posting this bit of sanity.


John Ewing (johne@or.credence.com)