HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ljlucas@lookout.it.uswc.uswest.com (Lori Lucas)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2.
Organization: U S WEST Information Technologies
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:29:23 GMT

It seems to me that one thing that will come out of Amendment 2 passing is that Boulder and Denver are home-rule cities.  What right do people in the rest of   the state have to tell us what additional laws we can vote into existence in
our cities as long as those laws don't conflict with EXISTING state or federal
law?

If people don't like the covenent rule in a particular subdivision, they don't
move in.  If the don't like the laws in one city, they don't have to live there.It's not like Boulder and Denver are the only cities for miles away.  Lafayette, Louisville, Niwot and Longmont are right next to Boulder; Denver has several
suburbs right around it.  he Boulder paper said that the City of Boulder will
be initiating a lawsuit about the constitutionality of 2.  Are any over the 
other cities planning a similar move?

				Lori Lucas
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics,co.ocs,co.politics.amend2.discuss
From: tim@refuge.Colorado.EDU (Tim Hunter)
Subject: Request for Comments: co.ocs, co.politics.amend2.{info,discuss}
Followup-To: sender
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:44:55 GMT

I'm one of the news admins at the University of Colorado, and I have
recently been asked to create the following new newsgroups.  I went
ahead and created them, but it's been pointed out to me that I really
should have consulted with the net community at large before firing
off a newgroup message.  Please give me your opinions on the following
groups - if the majority of people who respond think that one or more
of these groups is a bad idea, I will remove them.  Thanks for your
input.

co.ocs - a discussion group for the faculty, staff, and students of
	the optoelectronic computing centers at the university of
	colorado and colorado state university.  there is no
	intermediate distribution between the "cu.*" news tree and the
	"co.*" news tree that will allow folks at both universities to
	read the group.


co.politics.amend2.{info,discuss} - most of the discussion on the
	general newsgroups for co, boulder, and cu, in addition to the
	co.politics newsgroup has been the recent passage of amendment
	2.  These newsgroups are intended to provide a specific place
	to discuss the issues surrounding amendment 2 and to get clear
	information about the amendment and it's legal implications.
	The info group is moderated, and will attempt to present both
	sides of the issue fairly.  The moderators are:

		jules@cs.colorado.edu	(Julie DiBiase)
		blough@cs.colorado.edu	(Eric Blough)
		gina@cs.colorado.edu	(Gina Cherry)

Tim
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hunter                              phone: (303) 492-6096
Usenet Administrator                    internet: tim@boulder.colorado.edu
UnixOps/Computing & Networking Services bitnet:   tim%boulder@colorado.BITNET
University of Colorado, Boulder         uucp: ...!{ncar|nbires}!boulder!tim
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: co.general
From: ggray@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu (Glenn Gray)
Subject: -->92 BUICK PARK AVE. for sale
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:00:00 GMT
Organization: Rocky Mountain High School

92 Buick Park Avenue Ultra, 4 dr., champagne beige, leather, anti-lock brakes, 
air bag, cruise, dual control auto climate AC w/ rear seat vents, Concert 
Sound, memory driver's seat & mirrors, keyless remote entry system.  Power 
windows, seat, locks, antenna, trunk pull-down.  Death in family.  Must sell. 
16k miles.  $22,200.

--
*************************************************************************
*******                      GLENN F. GRAY                        *******
*******       3201 Norwood Ct., Fort Collins, CO 80525-2919       *******
*******   O:(303)226-5626x52  H:(303)226-3906  Fx:(303)226-6573   *******
*******          Internet: ggray@lobo.rmhs.colorado.edu           *******
*************************************************************************
From: wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:46:37 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

This is one of those times in which you have to read the entire ammendment
and not just the dinky little portion on the ballot (which you only had
5 minutes to vote on...eeck!).  But even the "bad" part of Ammendment 2 can
be found on the ballot itself...hidden away in a sentence that is meant to
overwhelm and confuse you (which obviously it did).

Once again:  "(prevent any law) which provides that (gays...their actions,
lifestyles..etc)....entitles a person to claim any minority or protected   
status <THIS IS GOOD>, quota preferences <STILL FINE>, or discrimination
<BUZZZZZZZZT  WRONG!  THANKS FOR PLAYING!>."

That last word is where CFV (boo, hiss!) overstepped its bounds.  This means
that I can fire you for being gay.  Simple.  No deep thought required.

"So why are you firing me, Mr. CFV?"
"Cause you're a fag."
"Whew!  And I thought I might be doing a bad job."

BTW:  The national news (ABC, at least) finally got around to looking at this
ammendment on its news last night (Thursday, 5 NOV).
From: randy@kcin.alphacdc.com (Randy S. Welch)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:17:05 GMT
	<1992Nov8.173235.356@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<1992Nov8.212424.9214@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<1992Nov9.072711.1708@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Distribution: co
Organization: Randy's own unix box..

In article <1992Nov9.072711.1708@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> zstewart@nyx.cs.du.edu (Zhahai Stewart) writes:
[...]

   But likely to be reversed, eventually.  CFV is running scared, because
   overall, folks are getting more tolerant.  They had to strike now (they
   would have lost five years from now, they would have carried even
   Boulder 10 years ago).  And they had to use a deceptive campaign about
   bogus "special rights" in order to win even in 1992; an honest campaign
   would have lost.

Has anybody noticed how *QUIET* CFV has been after this, they hardly talk
to the press, that should say something.

-randy
-- 
Randy Welch   also known as..       (home) randy@kcin.alphacdc.com
Boulder, CO                           or   randy%kcin@csn.org
"MS-DOS is to computing as the      (uucp) {csn,scicom}!kcin!randy
 black plague was to Europe" - NH
Newsgroups: co.general
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:34:14 GMT

In article <BxAyny.JIM@fc.sde.hp.com> jason@fc.sde.hp.com (Jason Goldman) writes:
>
>The thing that bothers me is that the situation can occur where I (I'm 
>heterosexual) can be fired.  Now I ask my boss why he fired me.  He says,
>"I thought you were a fag."  Unlike being black or Jewish, I can't easily
>prove my sexual preference one way or the other.  In any case, under
>amendment two, I have *no* recourse for discrimination.  The issue is not
>whether I am gay or not, but rather it is an acceptable reason to discriminate.  

Yep. That's about the size of it.

I'm sorry to hear that the possibility of *you* getting fired is THE
thing that bothers you.




-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
From: imp@solbourne.com (Warner Losh)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Date: 10 Nov 1992 10:38:40 -0700
Organization: ParcPlace Boulder
Distribution: co
NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin-gw.solbourne.com

In article <1992Nov10.033429.13324@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes: 
>Hence the statement that the USC does not grant rights, it
>limits the powers of government.

The practical effect of the USC does guarantee us those rights.  It is
worded in such a way that the government is limited, yet the effect is
the same.

>Now I ask, which of the rights *protected by the United States constitution*
>are denied gays and lesbians as a result of No. 2?

The Fourteenth Amendment grants equal protection for all citizens of
the US.  Amendment 2 specifically denies homosexuals this equal
protection by allowing people to discriminate against them w/o any
legal recourse on the injured party's part.

>Employment and housing are *not* constitutional rights.  The Soviet
>constitution guarenteed [sic] everyone a job, but the Soviet
>constitution didn't work out very well. 

I don't buy this.  Can you post a reference to a court case that this
was decided in?  Can someone else post a reference to a case where it
was established?  I recall from my civics class in HS that this was a
basic right, but I no longer have my books to look up the specific
cases that established this.

Warner
-- 
Warner Losh		imp@parcplace.COM	ParcPlace Boulder
I've almost finished my brute force solution to subtlety.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: lpj@col.hp.com (Laura Johnson)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:04:38 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

ahendric@slate.mines.colorado.edu (HENDRICKER ALAN DAVID ) writes:
> This scenario occurred in New York.  Two females who were renting a room
> and looking for a roommate turned down a woman, simply because she was
> homosexual and they would not feel comfortable around her.  Well, after
> some lawsuits, the roommates ended up paying something like 3k in fines and
> months of sensitivity classes etc.  
> 
> 
>  
No, they did not. They were ordered to do so, but a court of appeals 
determined that the anti-discrimination ordinance was not intended to
apply to roommates. 



-- 
Laura Johnson
lpj@hpctdls.col.hp.com
Opinions expressed are my own, but may be licensed for a nominal fee.
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:57:08 GMT

wl> Warner Losh
gs> Gary Strand

gs> The USC doesn't endow rights. It limits the federal government's power.

wl> This is flat out wrong.  Almost all of the amendments to the USC grant
    specific or general rights to the people.  The original body of the USC
    didn't say word one about citizen's rights, but the USC as it stands today
    says quite a bit about it.

  Show me in the following where the government grants rights to US citizens:

  1) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
     prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
     speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
     assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  2) A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
     State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
     infringed.

  3) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
     and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
     violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
     supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
     place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  4) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
     cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

  5) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
     construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  6) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
     nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
     respectively, or to the people.
 
  7) The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied
     or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

  8) The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or
     older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or
     any state on account of age.
===============================================================================

  There's big difference between saying "I won't do X", and "I give you -X".
  Please learn it.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: co.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:25:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.011507.13739@colorado.edu> devin@frodo.Colorado.EDU (Sonja Orlavski) writes:
>: Amendment two in short was about whether or not homosexuals should be given
>: minority status, and the "benefits" that go along with such.

>*laughs*
>Not to sound judgemental, but have you read the amendment?  CAN you read?

Actually, have _you_ read the amendment? Or just the summary on the
ballot? The ballot summary of, for example, amendment 6 clearly
shows that the summaries may relfect political bais (In the case of
6, the mention of taxes was left to the last sentence, in the hopes
that people would focus on claims of education reform.) There is no
reason to think the ballot summary of amendment 2 was completely
accurate. I've seen people quoting and debating the text of the
summary, as if it were the actual amendment. It might be interesting
to see what the amendment really says.

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder
From: tjreynol@zephyr.cair.du.edu (five left and cut!)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... RESULTS
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:04:04 GMT
Organization: University of Denver

In article <1992Nov5.214917.28857@mercury.cair.du.edu> ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu (Phil Tripp) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.194221.9157@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells) writes:
>>>Results of Colorado Amdendment Ballot questions:
>>>----------------------------------------------
>>>Amendment 2: (homosexual rights)
>>>	YES: 54%	(a sad comment on our state, IMHO)
>>>	NO:  46%	
>>
>>I was happy to hear of all the conventions that are being moved due to
>>this ammendment.  I also hope that Apple has the guts to fight against
>>Ammendment 2 or at least move away to a state that doesn't promote
>>hatred.

Colorado does not promote hatred.

>You know, everyone is calling this a hate issue, etc.  I don't see
>it that way at all.  It is really a matter of special rights and
>privileges.  Colorado voters have decided not to grant special rights
>to homosexuals.  It doesn't mean anyone hates anyone.  Heterosexuals
>don't have such rights.  If a heterosexual has her or his rights
>trampled upon only because she or he is a heterosexual, what legal
>recourse would she or he have?  None.  There are no special rights for
>heterosexuals to protect them from discrimination based on sexual
>preference or lifestyle.

Do the existing (I guess they're gone now) discrimination protection
laws specif that only homosexuals may not be discriminated against
based on 'sexual orientation'? Or do they say that noone may be 
discriminated against? Seems to me it's just as illegal to discriminate
against a white person as a black or green person. I don't see why 
legislation passed to protect homosexuals wouldn't also protect hets.
if it were indeed protecting against discrimination 'based on sexual 
orientation'. 

>My guess is most of those who voted "Yes" on Amendment 2 do not hate
>homosexuals and do not condone discrimination or persecution directed
>toward homosexuals.  The voters just do not see any need or reason to
>give special rights to homosexuals, rights which heterosexuals do not
>have.

I suspect that heterosexuals would have had the same rights, but the 
need for them would seem to be next to nil.

>-- 
>Phil Tripp, Computing and Information Resources, U of Denver, Denver, CO, USA
>ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu


Tim
I could, of course, be completely wrong.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: So I can be fired?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:40:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.185940.5344@craycos.com> sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>>No, in contrast, criminal courts are required to provide a lawyer
>>at public expense to defendant who wants one. A can be accused of
>>armed robbery and never have to pay a cent in legal fees. 

>Provided he can't afford one, of course. Since discrimination suits
>under the Denver/Boulder/Aspen ordinances involve employers and
>landlords who rent multi-unit dwellings, one assumes that the defendants
>won't be paupers. Also please note that since these are municipal
>ordinances, they'll be tried in municipal courts - we're not talking 
>about lengthy appeals to the federal judiciary here. 

I believe the defendant is the sole person to decide if he can
afford a lawyer or not. Someone who was quite rich could (I think)
say he didn't have any money to spare and get a public defender. 
(Usually a stupid choice, given the quality of public defenders, but...)
Another part of the civil versus criminal courts is the presumption
of guilt: In a criminal court, one is innocent until proven guilty
beyond any reasonable doubt. In a civil court, there only has to be
a "preponderance of evidence" against the defendant. (E.g. if the
jury thought he was _probably_ guilty, but couldn't say for sure,
he would be found innocent in a criminal court and guilty in a 
civil court.) Also, civil courts only offer a trial by jury in
case that involve a substantial amount of money.

>>>>Since the rights of the accused, and the rights of the employer/landlord
>>>>are also involved, this argument doesn't go very far. 
>>
>>>ACCUSED??????
>>>Of *what*, pray tell?
>>
>>Of discriminating. What else were we talking about?
>
>Excuse me, your statement was that "the rights of the accused, and the
>rights of the employer/landlord are involved." That, to me at least,
>implies that you're talking about two different folks. Perhaps the
>English language has changed recently... 

I guess I should have phrased that a little more carefully: The
rights of the defendant as someone accused of a crime and the
rights of the defendant as a employer/landlord are involved.
The same person, but two seperate sources of rights.

                                    Frank Crary
                                    CU Boulder
From: kguinn@diana.cair.du.edu (Kip J. Guinn)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:22:07 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Telephone Services

In article <1992Nov8.204200.7492@mercury.cair.du.edu> elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:
>
>It's quite clear to me that the anti 2 people are the bigots and
>stereotypers in this case. They are labeling anyone who voted for 2 as
>hating gays. I voted for 2 and could care less what you do in bed and
>certinly don't hate anyone. I just see my rights slowly dissolving
>away because everyone else is getting special protection. I think
>people are damn tired of it!
>
>
Hmmmmm....  Your rights "...are slowly dissolving away because everyone
else is getting special protection..."

I would really appreciate some concrete examples of this, please.  It
seems like such an absurd statement.  

Kip
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics,boulder.general
From: gina@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Gina Cherry)
Subject: Help Preserve Civil Rights in Colorado
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:09:13 GMT

From: gina@rintintin.colorado.edu (Gina Cherry)
Subject: Help Preserve Civil Rights in Colorado
Followup-To: amend2-mod.cs.colorado.edu
Distribution: usa

As many of you probably know, on Tuesday, Colorado voted in an
amendment to their state constitution which revokes any existing
gay/lesbian/bisexual civil rights legislation and prohibits the
drafting of any new legislation.  The amendment was spearheaded by a
right-wing organization inappropriately self-named Colorado Family
Values (CFV).  It is our understanding that they have no intention of
stopping their hate campaign here; they intended to push for
legislation with a stronger discriminatory flavor here in Colorado and
surrounding states.

What can you do?

1. Stay informed... two mail/news groups have been created in response 
   to this discriminatory amendment. 

   amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu / co.politics.amend2.discuss
	  ... for people who are discussing the implications 
          and issues surrounding the passing of amendment 2.

   amend2-info@cs.colorado.edu / co.politics.amend2.info
	  ... moderated mailing list for people interested in
	  information on the implication and issues of #2.

   Sending mail to either mailing list has the effect of also posting 
   the message to the corresponding shadow newsgroup.  We encourage
   people to use the mailing list address when disseminating information
   so that those people who are on the mailing list but who do not
   have access to news can benefit from the discussion/information.

   To subscribe to either mailing list, send mail to:
           Majordomo@cs.colorado.edu
   where the body of the message is:
           subscribe <listname>

   ** NOTE:  Mailing lists won't be active until (earliest) 11/7, PM.
             News groups are active now.
 
2. Contact Governor Roy Romer to express your outrage.

	  Governor Roy Romer
 	  136 State Capitol Building
	  Denver, CO 80203
	  (303) 866-2471

3. Boycott Colorado-made products (the most common of which are
   probably meat and beer) and Colorado tourism (yes, this means skiing).

4. Contact the Colorado Tourism Board and the Colorado Association of
   Commerce and Industry to express your disdain:

	  Colorado Office of Tourism
	  1625 Broadway Suite 1700
	  Denver, CO  80202
	  (303) 592-5510

	  Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry
	  1776 Lincoln Street Suite 1200
	  Denver, CO 80203
	  (303) 831-7411

5. The plan of action in response to the new amendment is to
   file a lawsuit.  To be added to the list of people on the adjoining
   amicus brief call the City of Boulder at (303) 441-3090 (you need not
   be a Colorado resident).

6. Contact your Senators and Congressional representatives to tell
   them that you want them to support the national gay rights bill, which
   Clinton promised to sign.

7. SPREAD THE WORD!  Forward this message anywhere you can think of.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: lpj@col.hp.com (Laura Johnson)
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... RESULTS
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:35:20 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow - CU Computing Network Services) writes:
> 
> Results of Colorado Amdendment Ballot questions:
> ----------------------------------------------
> 
> Referendum A: (rights of crime victims)
> 	YES: 30%
> 	NO:  30%
> 

Looks like a typo. Referendum A did pass, though I don't know by what
margin.
-- 
Laura Johnson
lpj@hpctdls.col.hp.com
Opinions expressed are my own, but may be licensed for a nominal fee.
Xref: sparky co.general:1722 co.politics:1809 boulder.general:1009
From: mhatz@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mike Hatz)
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics,boulder.general
Subject: Re: Help Preserve Civil Rights in Colorado
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:41:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.

I have to agree with Jim.  The school systems need much more attention than the
"possible" abuse of homosexual rights.  I am sick and tired of having
militants homos, militant fundies and everyone lese telling me what a bad
life/misled life/whatever and that their way is the only way.  Lets get a grip
and a mind of our own for Christmas/Hanukah everybody.
Newsgroups: co.general