HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: interesting thought (ammendment 2)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:52:08 GMT

In article <Bxz3o5.Dzq@fc.sde.hp.com> marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com writes:
>: Amendment
>: 2 repeals and prohibits such laws in the case of homosexual or bisexual
>: leanings _only_.

>To pick your brain one more time, I'm a little curious about this wording
>myself.  The word "leaning" is not used, but "orientation" is.  Is it possible
>to interpret this in the negative sense?  That is, the intent was clearly to
>remove the right to claim discrimination from people oriented "toward"
>homosexuality; could this also be applied to strike down laws that protect
>those oriented "away from" homosexuality?

It's _possible_ to interpert it in that way. Now that I think about it,
the Supreme Court might do exactly that: They generally try to 
avoid overturning laws. If they can think of any possible, constitutional
way to interpert a law, they prefer to adopt it instead of striking
down the law. (E.g. they might rule that the Amendment "really" mean
laws protecting heterosexuals are also prohibited, and therefore
the issue of equal protection isn't relevant.) Admittedly, the 
interpertation you suggest is playing with words and (probably) 
contradicting the intended meaning of the Amendment, but the Court
has done just that on many occassions, and might do so again in
preference to overturning a law.

>I still suspect it could be struck down on the basis that it explicitly denies
>protection to a group that has the potential to deserve it - homosexuals seem
>no less powerless than Christians, for example, but the latter group gets
>protection.

The Supreme Court (usually and currently) prefers not to decide who
"deserves" something. That's a political question, and they prefer
to leave it to other branchs of government. The Court would probably
see repeal as a very real, political solution, and avoid this issue.

Protections for Christians are a slightly different matter, since
the First Amendment to the federal Constitution specifically
protects religous groups. Legally, whether or not they "deserve"
such protection isn't an issue: There is a specific and supreme
law on the subject.

                                        Frank Crary
                                        CU Boulder
Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatalit
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:00:54 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Department

In article 45505@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU, freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman) writes:
>In article 1GJ@fig.citib.com, glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson) writes:
>>2) Even the Catholic Church recognizes that homosexuality is an
>>   innate characteristic, and discrimination exists against people
>>   who may be celibate but are attracted to members of the same sex.
>>   No behavior there, other than speech.  
>
>Perhaps the Homosexual community should band together and call themselves a religion.
>That would provide them with MUCH MORE protection then they had ever wanted, an hey-
>they would even be tax deductable?!

Hmm... Gay's for God?!  has an interesting ring to it.
---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: football priority
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:45:25 GMT

sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>...As Greg Woods pointed out, [McCartney]
>he's got a lifetime contract and can't be fired. He's also the highest-paid
>employee of the State of Colorado. The coach's Neanderthal political views
>aside, I think that's a pretty sad commentary on our priorities in this state.

It *is* sad...but it is entirely accurate.

The Buffs win a bowl game and everybody goes crazy.  Hey, fine!  We even go
off and paint a bus or two in CU colors (more or less) with some rah-rah on
the sides.  A bit out there, perhaps, but still OK, except...

A CU prof wins a Nobel Prize and it gets a moderate ripple of polite recog-
nition.  He gets invited to speak to the state legislature and damned near
gets tossed out on his ear because he dares speak to them about educational
priorities and such.  What's this?  Substance in a speech in the Capitol?
Get this guy outa here!  What does he know, anyway?  (After all, he's only
a faculty member.)  People in the state know and remember names like
McCartney (or Bienemy and probably a dozen other players from that year)...
but how many remember the name of the guy who got the Nobel, or the field
of his work?

Now, to forestall the obvious reply that a good football team brings lots
of money to the school (which IS true), I'll point out that this doesn't
mean the coach has to be quite so highly paid, nor (especially) that he
deserves a lifetime contract.  Nor does it mean that the best faculty
couldn't be highly paid too.
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	...Simpler is better.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 19:23:15 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Department

In article 24224@col.hp.com, aja@col.hp.com (Al Anderson) writes:
>Barbara Strisand and others who wish to boycott Colorado should feel free to do
>so...     (This may be an added side benefit to those of us who want to keep 
>Hollywood in California, not in the wilderness areas of western Colorado.)
>
Fascinating, your fear and prejudice is not just limited to to a few percent
of Coloradoans, but to the entire State of California!  Where will it end?
The point people like Barbara Streisand are trying to say is that specifically
picking out a particular group of people to "prevent future special rights" to
is wrong.  If you don't believe in "special rights" propose legislation that
prevents "special rights" from being granted to EVERYONE--that would be fair!

>With so many other things on the "Political Plate" (hundreds of things), why is
>this issue being treated as a "High Priority" by the media anyway ???  If you 
>want to boycott something, boycott the media that doesn't share your opinions.
>
Again, singling out a particular group of people is inappropriate.  Heres a little
Quote from a Lutheran pastor after WWII (You remember WWII, dont you?).

"	When they came for the Trade Unionists,
	I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist.

	When they came for the Jews,
	I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
	
	When they came for the Catholics,
	I did not speak out because I was not a Catholic.

	When they came for me,
	no one spoke out for they had taken everyone else.
"
	- Francis Niehmoller; 1945
	  Lutheran Pastor - Holocaust survivor

I guess what Barbara Streisand, the Media, and I are trying to say is:
	If we don't prevent discrimination of others, who will prevent
	it against us?!

>Al (Proud to Be an American - and not ashamed of Colorado) Anderson

Keith (Proud to be an American - and ashamed of people who are Prejudice) Freedman

---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: interesting thought (amendment 2)
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:16:03 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Nov23.054741@eklektix.com> rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>>rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>I hadn't seen mention of the
>First Amendment in what I'd read of the suit; I'm glad to know it may also
>be relevant.  Thanks, Steve (even if you do live in Co Spgs:-)

I'm just an expatriate Boulderite ;-). 

Steve
From: freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: AIDS question was (Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatalit)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:49:04 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Department

In article K2G@fc.sde.hp.com, mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella) writes:
>Van Martin (vanm@col.hp.com) wrote:
>: Mr.  Booker, dying from AIDS contracted through his
>: homosexual lifestyle, was aware, per the article, of ways to prevent
>: AIDS (his aunt helped him research a report on AIDS and preventing its
>: spread).  Why then would he ignore his own counsel and contract AIDS
>: by continuing his known-dangerous lifestyle?  I am not judging Mr.
>: Booker, I just don't understand the mentality that would continue in a
>: deadly course, particularly when knowledge of the danger is there.
>: 
>*Any* unprotected sex is dangerous; as is "protected" sex, for that matter.
>There is no way in the world you can make a moral judgement on someone's choice
>to "continue in a deadly course".  We all do this every day, every time we take
>such risks as getting into an automobile or having sex with someone of either
>gender.  How petty to try to make a simple biological accident (higher AIDS
>incidence among homosexuals in the US currently) into a moral issue.
>
Is Mr. Martin affraid of getting AIDS??  afraid of getting it from a homosexual?
afraid of getting it from a lover?  (by the way, I assume you're married).
He should have no worries of getting AIDS at all if he is a "Good Christian" and
loves his wife?  So what is he so afraid of?
---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: interesting thought (ammendment 2)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 19:07:16 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Department

In article 23319@col.hp.com, kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary) writes:
>One
>question I still wonder about has not been addressed anywhere I have seen.
>I live in Colorado Springs and you (aparently) live in or around Fort Collins. 
>Neither of these communities, nor the county or State they are in have ever
>ever had any kind of gay rights ordinance or law.  Has it always been legal
>to discriminate against homosexuals in these communities?  If not, why is
>it now legal to discriminate?
>
Simply because there were not laws on the books in CS or FC, does not mean
that it is LEGAL to discriminate against homosexuals, just that the people
in those cities didn't feel that it needed to be specifically written down.
Before A2, a homosexual in both cities could make a valid discrimination claim
without specific laws protecting the homosexual community.

>I think it would have been illegal to discriminate against homosexuals before
>amendment 2, based on the US Constitution, Amendments and case law.  I think
>that is still the case.  Amendment 2 just removes city, county and state govt.
>from legislating/enforcing these issues.
>
If, however, it is illegal to discriminate against a party based upon the US
Constitution, then A2 is an invalid ammendment as no State can pass legilation
in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America.


---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Newsgroups: co.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Local beers (was: Info on local tavern.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:04:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.162621.7034@advtech.uswest.com> mgooley@advtech.uswest.com (Mark. Gooley) writes:
>Opinions?  Does anyone else think that the bottled Boulder Beer products
>are bad, and are the ones they have on tap really better?

I'm not sure I'd call their bottled beers "bad." I define "bad" in terms
of the popular brands: Miller, Budweiser, etc... Boulder's bottled
beers are _much_ better than that. The're also no where close to, say,
Anchor's Liberty Ale. I think "unexceptional" is a better lable than
"bad"...

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:38:04 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Dept.

In article 24536@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu, aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:
>In <1992Nov15.115310.14904@col.hp.com> kary@col.hp.com (Dan Kary) writes:
>
>>aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:
>>> So far, no one has opposed my thought that this problem stems from our
>>> genetics,
>
>>Maybe no one thought it was worth arguing.  I've ignored it several times.
>
>What?!?  People ignoring an arguable subject on netnews?!?  "Imminent death
>of the net predicted!" :-)
>
Are you a moron, Andrew??
He just said, "Maybe NO ONE thought it was WORTH ARGUING!!!"
It is generally pointless to argue nonsence with the source of such nonsence--They
generaly aren't interested in an intelligent multi-sided conversation.

---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration

Newsgroups: co.general
From: mgooley@advtech.uswest.com (Mark. Gooley)
Subject: Re: Local beers (was: Info on local tavern.
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:26:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.153947.5567@ncar.ucar.edu> chris@chinook.atd.ucar.edu writes:
>I have to disagree with Boulder Beer being undrinkable.  All of there
>good beers are not available in bottle, so you have to go to the brewery
>itself.  Also they only charge $2.25 for a 22oz beer and $4.50 for
>pitchers and $6.35 for the half gallons.  They currently have an excellent
>Bitter on tap.

I'm the one he's disagreeing with.

Opinions?  Does anyone else think that the bottled Boulder Beer products
are bad, and are the ones they have on tap really better?

Mark.
mgooley@advtech.uswest.com
Newsgroups: co.general
From: freedman@cs.colostate.edu (keith freedman)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatalit
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:18:33 GMT
Reply-To: freedman@cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Department

In article 21162@col.hp.com, vanm@col.hp.com (Van Martin) writes:
> Homosexuality is a physically destructive behavior.  
Not being homosexual, I guess I don't understand this sentence, perhaps you can
explain it to me?
>
> CFV has no "Auschwitz" in mind for the homosexual community as
>mis-guided Mr. Booker wanted to believe.  Since he lived in Colorado
>Springs, he never had special protection, nothing changed for him.
>Unfortunately, depression is not much for logic. 
>
Again, the ammendment DID NOT remove special protection, it removed BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.

> What Amendment 2 states is that homosexual, bi-sexual or hetero-
>sexual behavior is not a valid reason to demand government dollars be
>allocated to pursue claims of discrimination.

Again, the ammendment discusses sexual orientation, there is NO mention of sexual
behavior.  I think you people (CFV) need to understand what it is you are saying
and what your beliefs are.

> Homosexuals can still pursue wrongful-discharge suits, but their
>behavior is not sufficient evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the
>employer.
Now, if an employer doesn't like an employee, they can fire them and claim it was
because they were gay.  This prevents pursuit of wrongful-discharge.  Is is right
for an employer to fire ANY employee because they don't like their "behavior" (to
use YOUR word) outside of work.  Maybe the employee bowls and the employer doesn't
like that sort of behavior?!

>Amendment 2 keeps Coloradoans on equal footing in the Civil
>Rights arena.  No special rights or considerations are appropriate for
>a group whose BEHAVIOR sets them apart from the (vast) majority.
>
BEHAVIOR WAS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE AMMENDMENT!!!!!!!!
does this mean that if a child BEHAVES in a manner in which you dislike, that you
will support an ammendment the revokes the rights of "bad" children?!

>Van Martin		
>vanm@col.hp.com
>
>All ideas expressed here are my own, 
>though you ought to consider that I am right
>
>"All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes,
>     But the LORD weighs the spirit"  
If you belive this, then you should let G-D handle Homosexuals rather than trying to
do it yourself!

---
Keith Freedman
Colorado State University
Department of Computer Science
Systems Administration
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:41:58 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <Nov16.221119.53899@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> freedman@cs.ColoState.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Nov16.195330.10398@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> taylorje@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (TAYLOR JASON EDMOND) writes:

>I have difficulty believing that 54% of Colorado Voters are from out of state?!
>Somehow, more than half the population voted in favor of the ammendment.  Where are
>these people??  Last I checked, Colorado Springs has much less than half of the
>states population!!

El Paso County (which is mostly Colorado Springs) voted about 2/3 in favor of
amendment 2, 1/3 against.   There were about 50,000 more yes votes than no
votes in the county.  However, the amendment passed by about 100,000 votes
statewide, so you can't blame it all on Colo Spgs.

Besides, it was all those northern-Colorado-Springs residents that did it,
not me...I live in the south end of town :-)

If you want to boycott anybody, consider boycotting Perkins Chrysler-Plymouth
and Colorado football.  The heads of both operations were prominent in the
pro-amendment-2 movement.  What would happen if a large chunk of the
CU student body stayed away from the next home game?  Or refused to buy
tickets for next season?
Xref: sparky co.general:1928 co.politics:2279
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
Subject: Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:11:44 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Nov19.220017.1720@claven.ucar.edu> woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.155736.4928@craycos.com> sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi) writes:
>>[Coach McCartney] is also the highest-paid
>>employee of the State of Colorado. The coach's Neanderthal political views
>>aside, I think that's a pretty sad commentary on our priorities in this state.
>
>This paints a misleading picture that says the state government cares
>more about football than about other state government functions, 

I don't think it's misleading in the least.

Steve
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Constitution
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:44:22 GMT

In article <BxvFw6.55r@fc.sde.hp.com> marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com writes:
>: The law in question was a federal exemption from literacy tests (in
>: order to vote) for anyone with a sixth-grade or better education in
>: a Puerto Rican, spanish-speeking school. One of the objections
>: was that this law denied equal protection to educated, speakers
>: of Spanish, simply because they were not educated in Puerto Rico.
>: The Court held that there a law did not have to deal with all
>: forms of discrimination at once: It was acceptable to offer one
>: group protection without offering another group the same protection.

>OK, as a non-legal person, this still doesn't seem particularly relevant.
>Obviously it is implicitly OK not to protect everyone equally - there are
>laws protecting blacks, but not laws protecting left-handed people, and no one
>has struck that down as constitutional.
 
More specifically, it is (apparently) constitutional to protect one
group but not another from exactly the same sort of discrimination.
(E.g. a law protecting blacks but not hispanics from ethnic discrimination,
or a law protecting left-handed people but not the ambidextrous.)

Under Amendment 2, anti-discrimination laws concerning sexual inclination
are still legal, but they protect heterosexuals only. That is, in 
Boulder it is still illegal to discriminate against someone because
he is straight. Someone suggested that this was an unconstitutional
denial of equal protection. However, Katzenback v. Morgan seems to
say the reverse: It is constitutional to protect one group but
not another, even if the groups are similar or suffer from exactly
the same sort of discrimination.

>If there was a constitutional
>amendment that said "People with an education from Mexico shall never be
>granted the federal exemption from literacy tests", do you think the Supreme
>Court would have upheld it?

Do you mean an amendment to the state or the federal Constitution? If
you mean the federal Constitution, this is trivially valid: Amendments
by definition alter the pre-existing Constitution and supercede any
conflicting provisions; so an amendment is automatically constitutional.
If you mean an amendment to a state constitution, I still think such
a law would be upheld: The Court has ruled that such a law (applying
in that case to Puerto Ricans, not Mexicans) was constitutional,
so I don't see why a provision in a state constitution to the
same effect would be any different.

                                         Frank Crary
                                         CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.general,boulder.general,co.politics,soc.motss
From: peterscc@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (PETERSEN CAROLYN COLLINS)
Subject: more thoughts on the boycott
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:18:28 GMT


To Melinda and others who are pushing for a boycott of  Colorado and its
products:

Just a few thoughts from someone wo:

a) voted against discrimination in all its forms b) never underestimated th
stupidity of human beings...

It occurs to me that if you all were really intothe idea of a boycott, you'd
be busy looking up the names of the big businessesthat donated money and
support to the groups who foisted this amendment off on all of us.  For
starters, you'd have to get a list of contribtors to Colorado for Family
Values -- like a certain car dealership in the Coloado Springs area -- and
put pressure on those companies to explain why they supported such hateful
legislation.  Your boycott will hurt small business like ine much more than
it will hurt these large corporations (chevy comes to mind) - and of course
those companies won't care too much if little companies die on he vine.  But,
if their profits start to hurt -- they'll think twice.  In otherwords,
consider doing what we all were supposed to do when boycotting companies that
invesed in South Africa.  Hurt the companies who contributed to hate when
they donatd money to the ultra-right groups who are trying to force this down
the throatsof the 48% of Coloradans who didn't vote for hate.

Another thought -- while we're all feasting on the bones of small companes
that die because of the boycott, don't forget for a minute that the so-calle
Christian Right is still out there legislating against equal rights for women
nd for the opportunity to force women to bear children.  If we don't watch
our lanks, maybe this little diversionary tactic will work this time...

Hate is not a FamilyValue. Think First Before You Boycott People Who May Have
Supported Your Rights.

<send flames to alt/dev/null>

peterscc@ucsu.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: co.general