From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2.
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:01:49 GMT

HENDRICKER ALAN DAVID (ahendric@slate.mines.colorado.edu) wrote:
: 
: Amendment two in short was about whether or not homosexuals should be given
: minority status, and the "benefits" that go along with such.  However, to
: my knowledge, all minorities are defined at birth.  For instance... one is
: born black, hispanic, female, etc.

Your knowledge is incorrect in this case.  The is not only about minority
status; it also removes the right to make any claim of discrimination based on
sexual preference.  This type of protection is afforded to married people
(laws exist to prohibit discrimination based on marital status) and Christians
(laws exist to prohibit discrimination based on religious beliefs), neither of
which are defined at birth.

If the argument was that things defined at birth should be the only things
to determine "benefits" that go along with minority status, then it should have
been worded that way.  It wasn't; the sole purpose of this amendment was to
make sure discrimination against homosexuals would be constitutionally
protected.  This is now the *only* form of discrimination in *any* state that
enjoys such protection.

: To date, homosexuality cannot clearly
: be linked to genetics, although it has been established that tendencies for
: homosexuality may exist early in life or at birth, environment plays too
: large a roll for this ever to be established.

"Ever"?  Pretty strong word.  If ten years from now it is proved to be genetic,
then why should there be a constitutional amendment standing in the way of
graninting them this mythical "minority status"?

: Now, what would be some of the consequences of homosexuals being declared a
: minority?  Well, for one, companies would begin to establish "quotas" for
: homosexuals, just as affirmative action has forced companies to hire blacks
: and females.

Wrong.  There are laws protecting married people from discrimination, but there
are no quotas for them.  There are laws protecting Christians from
discrimination, but there are no quotas from them.  What on earth makes you
think there will be quotas for homosexuals?  As CFV is fond of reminding us,
homosexuals don't fit the federal guidelines for affirmative action anyhow; a
state constituional amendment was hardly necessary to prevent them attaining
something they don't qualify for.

: Now, consider a situation.  If I owned a house, or was looking for a
: roommate, and I advertise in the paper, or such.  If amendment two succeded
: (or failed, depending on how you read the durn thing) laws could be passed
: which would make it illegal for me to decide that I did not want a gay
: housemate or roommate.

True, and I would oppose such laws.  We don't need a constitutional amendment
that grants blanket protection to all forms of discrimination against
homosexuals just to prevent this one unlikely scenario.  And in any case,
what about laws that might make it illegal for you to decide you don't want
a black roommate?  A smoking roommate?  A satan-worshipping roommate?  A drug
dealing roommate?  Why single out homosexuals by making them the only type of
people that you have a constitutional right to discriminate against?  I would
demand the right in such personal decision to discriminate against whomever I
please, and not legalize one kind of discrimination in the constitution but
leave the rest up to local ordinances.

: 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.  

It did not, it almost happened in Madison, and the final ruling was that the
law had been misinterpreted, and no fines were paid, etc.  the law specifically
excluded roommate situations, as it should.

: Amendment 2, in my
: opinion did a poor job of trying to approach the problem.

On this we are agreed.  To the extent there was any danger of a law forcing
you to accept a homosexual roommate, passing amendment 2 to remedy the
situation is like using a hydrogen bomb to kill a wasp in a neighboring county
that might possibly have otherwise come and hunted you down and stung you.

: However, "special rights" need not be
: established for this to be accomplished.

Whatever "special rights" are.  The amendment does not contain that wording.
It does contain the wording "discrimination".

--
Amendment 2 - Shame On You, Colorado
--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
a disgusted resident of the first state in history of the union
to enact a constitutional amendment that explicitly legalizes discrimination
against a particular minority
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Xref: sparky co.general:1724 co.politics:1812 boulder.general:1010