From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:19:55 GMT

ag> Andrew Gerber
gs> Gary Strand

ag> Regardless of the wording of #2; regardless of what it really does, the
    agenda of CFV is anti-gay.  The response of the gay community, and the
    gay-positive straight community, has to be one of outrage and anger.

  Overblown, I think. Anger, yes, outrage, ?. If all the gays and gay-positive
  (and gay-neutral, like myself) people want to get around #2, hire and other-
  wise help the gays who say that they've been fired/abused/whatever because
  they can no longer seek legal recourse for their problems. If there are so
  many people opposed to #2 that means that there are places where gays are 
 "safe"; I suspect that those who voted for #2 aren't uniformly *anti*-gay,
  they may not care one way or the other. 

  I suspect, when all the dust settles, things will stay pretty much the same.
  I believe that having a little piece of paper that says "I can sue you if
  you do something I don't like" isn't a whole lot of protection. As I've said,
  I doubt employers will say right to an employee's face "We've been waiting
  to fire you because you're gay, but we couldn't because this business has to
  accept the Boulder/Denver/Aspen anti-discrimination ordinance, but now that's
  been negated, out the door you go!"

p > No matter what CFV may say, they represent the Fundamentalist Right and
    would be very happy to see all the gay people in Colorado die or leave
    the state.  You admit that CFV is motivated by homophobia. Can't you then
    understand the reaction that Yes on 2 has generated? 

  CFV and #2 are not the exact same thing. Now, if #2 was like Oregon's Mea-
  sure 9, the reaction would be much more justified.

p > The wording of #2 is really a side issue.  It's the goals and purpose of
    those who put #2 on the ballot which is of major concern.

  And they would say the same about the strident gay militants. There is some
  reasonable middle ground here; somewhere between "We gays are going to be
  killed by the thousands here in Colorado, just for being gay" and "Gays will
  molest our little children and recruit in our schools."

tc> [B]ecause I happen to have a lot of pink dress shirts, I now have a legit-
    imate fear of losing my job under amendment 2.

gs> Why do work where you do, then? That's like a black working for the KKK. 
    Is being out of a job, no matter how great the pay (and lousy the condi-
    tions) really that bad? It's not my fault you're a masochist.

ag> Wake up! Very few people have the options to change jobs rapidly. School-
    teachers with tenure.  Policemen with pensions.  Saying "get a new job"
    is hopelessly naive, and shows just how out of touch you are

  No, the "I need *this* job so bad I'd be willing to work for Satan" is the
  gutless attitude. I wouldn't want to have a job in such an intolerable sit-
  uation. I've never understood why some people feel they ought to have the
  right to work for an employer who hates them.
--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: co.politics