From: mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com ("Mr. Mike" Passaretti)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Reasons for a notebook amiga
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:09:19 GMT
	<Bz6AL3.K1y@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> <Bz84IB.CMC@news.iastate.edu>
Reply-To: Mike Passaretti <passaretti@crd.ge.com>
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Distribution: usa
Organization: GE Aircraft Engines, Cincinnati OH


# In message <Bz84IB.CMC@news.iastate.edu>, 
# barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:

>In article <Byt3CK.4KL@news.iastate.edu> barrett@iastate.edu 
>(Marc N. Barrett) writes:

>> | Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> EVERYBODY:  BUY PRODUCTS FROM COLORADO, USA WHENEVER YOU CAN!!! :-) :-) :-)
>> Support initiatives against giving special priviliges for immoral behavior.
>

mb>    I think you are getting Colorado mixed up with
mb> post-cold-war Germany.  The Colorado proposition merely
mb> states that people will no longer be granted special
mb> privilidges on the basis of sexual oritentation.  It does
mb> nothing to strip homosexual people of their civil and
mb> constitutional rights.  You are the person who needs
mb> psychological help, not me.

If, as I suspect, you have gotten your data on Prop #2 from
CFV or some such group, I can see where you get that idea, but
you are incorrect.  The proposition at hand explicitly states
that nobody may pass any law which grants _or affirms_ a
person or persons rights based on their sexual orientation.

This means that, unlike blacks, Jews, and other groups who
need not produce specific case law to fight discrimination
gays, lesbians and bisexuals must fight each and every
battle in the civil and criminal courts anew.  This is an
explicit benefit of the legal system which is being witheld
from glb* people.

You are correct, it does not remove rights, but it does
prevent a city (for instance Denver) from adding glb people to
the list of those _explicitly_ protected from discrimination
in housing, employment and other such fields.  This _explicit_
protection is held by all religious groups, racial types and
genders.  It is _implicitly_ held by all Americans, but in
this imperfect world the _explicit_ laws make prosecution that
much easier.  At present, with no body of case law, it is
_legal_ to discriminate against glb people in Colorado.  The
EEO laws do _not_ apply to sexual orientation.  If you believe
that the EEO laws do not represent rights which are naturally
present and are being affirmed, then I will join you in
lobbying to repeal them.  Read as specific rights granted to
specific cross-sections of the population, I don't think they
are constitutional...  Somehow I don't think even you'll bite
that one.
                                                        - MM

P.S. If you can find just _one_ instance of a privilege
_explicitly_ granted to glb people by _any_ law in the US
which is not _implicitly_ granted to other citizens I'd be
glad to argue that point with you, but raising the specter of
"special rights" is disingenious at best and dishonest at
worst.  

Followups to alt.politics.homosexuality.

*glb == gay, lesbian or bisexual
-- 
passaretti@crd.ge.com           {whatever}!crdgw1!copernicus!passaret
mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com     {whatever}!crdgw1!copernicus!michelotti!mrmike
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.misc