HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Date: 9 Nov 92 06:24:35 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

In article <1992Nov9.052022.11210@mercury.cair.du.edu> elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:
>So you're saying that if there is not a law giving special protection
>to a certain group they have no civil rights? I guess as a white
>heterosexual male I don't have any civil rights either
>
You're still misunderstanding AM2. It doesn't GIVE anybody anything.
Voting NO would not have given anybody anything either. AM2 is taking
AWAY from someone. Not giving. It specifically states, that it is illegal
to claim discrimination in the case of homosexual orientation.

YOU still have all the rights endowed to you by the United States Constitution.
Gays no longer do. (And that was AM2's fault).

-- 
 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------
From: elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: So I can be fired?
Date: 8 Nov 92 08:50:59 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

This entire argument is stupid!! So an employer can just fire you
because you are homosexual since there are no laws giving
homosexuals special rights? 

I guess this also means that I can be fired because I drink Coke
instead of Pepsi, read the Post instead of the News, like FOX better
than ABC, ride public transportation instead of owning a car, have
brown hair instead of blonde, have a phone number with an 871 prefix,
like IBM's better than Mac's, have more than 5 video tapes, have a
2400 baud modem instead of a 9600, live in Denver and not
Littleton....how many more reasons do I have to give?

That's the 2 supporter's argument as I understand it. You are saying
that since there are no special laws protecting homosexuals that you
can be fired for that reason. Well, I guess this now means that since
Coke drinkers don't have special protection they can be fired too.
Where do you draw the line???

Eric
______________________________________________________________________________
|__Eric LeSatz_________________[]{}__I've got seven in the clip and one______|
|__elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu___[]{}__in the chamber. Will that be enough??___|
|__lesatz@phakt.usc.edu________[]{}__If it ain't, I'm in BIG trouble!!_______|
|______________________________[]{}__________________________________________|
Xref: sparky co.general:1718 co.politics:1801
From: ralf@fester.dell.com (Raymond La France - X2787)
Subject: Re: Request for Comments: co.ocs, co.politics.amend2.{info,discuss}
Reply-To: ralf@ioscc.neosoft.com
Organization: IO SpecialistsConsulting
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:38:02 GMT

ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:

>In article <1992Nov9.233328.332@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:
>> In <1992Nov9.184111.5685@colorado.edu> tim@refuge.Colorado.EDU (Tim Hunter) writes:
>> 
>> >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)

Ok, so there's a new group dealing on Amendment 2 with moderators and
everything.  So, is this going to be strictly
an "anti-Amendment-2" newsgroup or will there be evenhanded moderation? 
Call this an unfair, blanket statement, but I haven't seen a whole helluva
lot of pro-Amendment-2 discussion coming out of either CU or NCAR, just a
lot of anti-2 polemicizing.  I know that Ms. Cherry has cross-posted a lot
of such crap on other netgroups, blatantly wasting bandwidth on people
who really don't give a damn.  I DO give a damn as far as a non-resident
possibly can, but also as someone who's concerned with the tone of recent
legislation and the abuse of our legislative/judicial processes.  Before
you all start screaming and flaming (I've seen a lot of it aimed at 
anyone who dares to not ape the local anti-2 party line), I will say
(as I have many times before) that while I don't see any reason to give
minority status to any group based on their bedroom gymnastics, I don't
see any reason to deny anyone's rights, either.  I think a line-item
veto of the "or any claim of discrimination" stuff would be appropriate.
Minority status is usually reserved as a tool for rectifying and preventing
injustices suffered by the economically, socially and politically
powerless.  The gay community is none of the above (thank God).  Intolerance
from anyone toward anyone sucks, but there were no ordinances in place to
prevent discrimination against Italians and Irishmen.Iin the late 1800s -
early 1900s, both of these groups suffered heavily but overcame without
legislation.  I think everyone needs to just get off of the feeble
attempts at legal remedies and just f**king get along.

--
Ray LaFrance               | Don't sweat the petty things --
ralf@ioscc.neosoft.com     | pet the sweaty things!
(303)673-2787              | (Y)  (Y)  (Y)  (Y)  (Y)  (Y)  (Y)
W.W. Kemmerer Consulting   | (The usual disclaimers apply...)
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: YA Safeway Slam
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:55:13 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:

>I know I've seen some pretty suspect items at Kings.  I suspect it is
>common in all food stores.  My belief is that this is merely the result
>of capitalism...

Of course, we all know how well communism keeps the stores stocked with a
variety of fresh, wholesome food...

America has made the choice, as a culture, of having food that is nothing
special but plentiful as hell.  Europe has made a different choice.
Most days they eat nicer food than we do, but then during WWII, Brits were
willing to trade 50-year old Scotch for Spam.

'Though I _do_ wish that the FDA would lighten up about things like cheese-
making, and that our lawmakers would stop looking at wine as a sinful luxury.


Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson
From: zstewart@nyx.cs.du.edu (Zhahai Stewart)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... RESULTS
Date: 7 Nov 92 20:58:06 GMT
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.

Article 2, of the Colorado Constitution is amended by the addition of
Sec. 30, which shall state as follows:

NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION.
Neither the State of Colordado, through any of its branches or departments,
nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school
districts, shall enact, adopt, or enforce any statute, regulation, 
ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation,
conduct, practices, or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the
basis of, or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any
minority status, quota preferences, protected status, or claim of 
discrimination.  This section of the Constitution shas be in all respects
self-executing.

--- end of amendment; note that the text was published more freely by
--- the anti-2 folks than the pro-2 folks.

Let me extract from the verbiage:

... the State of Colorado...[and all local governments, etc] [may not]...
adopt or enforce any statute... or policy whereby homosexual... orientation..
shall.. be the basis of... any person ...[making] claim of discrimination.

That's the core that irks, and that the sponsors tried to downplay.  I
believe that it is the essence of the real world effect that the sponsors
were seeking, covertly.  I realize that very few people who voted FOR
Ballot Issue #2 (now Article 2, Section 30) ever read the text of the
amendment (no accident there, they weren't supposed to), and fewer still
extracted the well hidden "real effect" thread described above.

However, this was NOT an accidental effect.  First off, ONLY the above
extract would annull the Aspen, Boulder and Denver ordinances, yet the
#2 sponsors have clearly desired to have that effect;  they know full well
that if they had left off the "claim of discrinination" section, then
the ordinances would have stood unchanged.  Secondly, the amendment is
going to be challenged in the courts, based on exactly that extracted
thread, and CFV is going to be opposing the challenge based on that
aspect.  That is, nobody is going to be contending in the courts based
on any quotas or other special privileges, as there are none; yet CFV
is still going to be opposing this.

The Ballot Issue #2 supporter who said otherwise was either deceived, or
attempting to deceive you.  I could not guess which.
   ~z~
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}
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:41:11 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,co.politics
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: Constitution
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:23:17 GMT

Frank Crary (fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: 
: >>>Denial of any chance of protection seems to me
: >>>to be the same as legalization of discrimination.
: 
: >>I think a court would see it differently: They are not denied any
: >>chance of legal protection. Amendment 2 can be legally repealed so
: >>_some_ chance does exist (The Supreme Court consistantly avoids
: >>questions of easy such things might be, calling them "political
: >>questions" beyond the scope of the Court's jurisdiction.) 
: 
: >"This law doesn't discriminate unconstitutionally because it can be 
: >repealed?" 
: 
: The law itself doesn't impose any discriminatory measures. Any 
: discrimination that results from it would come from private
: citiznes, not the government. Since repeal is possible, it does
: not, as you suggested, "deny any chance of protection."

No, but it does make that chance of protection a little less "equal" in the
14th amendment sense of the term: "All you other guys, if you want legal
protection, just get a law passed.  But you homos, first you gotta repeal
a constitutional amendment, and only then can you try to get the law passed".

--
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.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: Re: so much for #2, but now time for '94 (silliness)
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 00:14:44 GMT

gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>[tiny excerpt from the satire I wrote last night]
...
>  Let's not get hysterical and engage in baseless hyperbole, OK? 

OK, let's not.  I certainly wasn't.  What I wrote is called "satire".  If
you didn't enjoy it, that's fine with me, but keep some perspective.

>  I don't understand these reactions to the passage of Amendment 2...

That seems a safe statement; from your response I'm pretty sure you didn't
understand what I wrote or why I wrote it.

>...I do not see its passage as spelling imminent doom for all sorts of groups
>  of people...

I don't think there are likely to be concrete near-term effects; I don't
know.  Most of the near-term effect is probably going to be in attitudes.

What we had, prior to the battle over #2, was somewhat of an uneasy peace.
There was a bit of a fuss now and then.  Three cities had enacted laws to
prohibit certain types of discrimination based on "sexual orientation"--
apparently folks in these places felt some need for such laws, but it
hadn't been spreading.  Nobody had proposed quotas--the idea is ludicrous,
because it would require determining sexual orientations--so that wasn't
an issue.  I won't say that the situation was stable and everyone was
happy, but it was at least metastable and the problems weren't severe.
People of different persuasions may have been uneasy with one another, but
they were frequently able to sit down and talk in spite of the unease.

Now we've got these people angrily shouting at one another, accusing each
other of all manner of evil.

Amendment 2 did not materialize out of nothing.  It was written by people
who had something in mind--but what?  What were these people trying to
achieve?  What problem were they trying to solve?

Regardless of your position on the amendment, you didn't have to think
about it very much to see that it would produce anger, threats, divisive-
ness.  It was a bitterly fought issue.  It rekindled a lot of hate.  The
issue itself was expensive; the court battles which are now beginning (and
which were inevitable, given that the amendment overturns laws in home-rule
cities) will also be expensive.  What did it actually achieve?  By Gary's
view, nothing much.

But it *has* created a lot of anger, hatred, and conflict.  I submit that
the authors of amendment 2 knew that it would do just that--and that it was
their *purpose* to stir up trouble.  So...I don't know what they'll do for
an encore, but we can expect that it won't be driven by clear thinking,
thoughtful analysis of problems, nor a desire to encourage people to live
in harmony.  And that was the point of departure for my little satire (with
some influence from Jan Vilhuber's comments on biblical prohibitions
yesterday afternoon, plus a nice roast-pork dinner last night:-).
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	...Simpler is better.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: estrickl@diana.cair.du.edu (EDWARD STRICKLAND)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: I hate kids !!!
Date: 7 Nov 92 14:37:20 GMT
Distribution: co.general
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado


Well actually I hate myself, because I have helped to create a situation
where I am compelled to do some $%&@# WORK %^(&@ for KIDS ! 

We have sent a clear message to Colorado school administrators that 
we demand accountability in school spending. We want to know just how the
money will be spent when we are asked to pay more taxes. We want information
so that we can make intelligent decisions. 

How can we use this network to collect the information ?

When and how is the state school budget determined ?

Since we have put a lid on taxation (great idea !!) we now have accepted
the burden of GETTING INVOLVED.  
Newsgroups: co.general
From: devin@frodo.Colorado.EDU (Sonja Orlavski)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:55:42 GMT

Note:  I'm reposting the whole of our conversation to make a point.  I want
to emphasize the fact that I'm repeating myself because of a lack of an answer
from Mr. LeSatz.

Eric LeSatz (elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu) wrote:
: In article <1992Nov9.005039.12900@colorado.edu> devin@frodo.Colorado.EDU (Sonja Orlavski) writes:
: >Eric LeSatz (elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu) wrote:
: >: 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!
: >
: >I'd like to know why you think gays, lesbians and bisexuals had special
: >protections or rights, and how you think Amendment #2 would stop that.
: >
: >All I see Amendment #2 doing is stripping a large group of people of their
: >basic civil rights to little things like jobs and housing.
: 
: So you're saying that if there is not a law giving special protection
: to a certain group they have no civil rights? I guess as a white
: heterosexual male I don't have any civil rights either

No, I am saying nothing of the sorts.

I asked, first why you thought gays, lesbians, and bisexuals had special
protections or rights.  You didn't answer that question at all.

Then, I made a comment about CO-2 stripping basic civil rights from a large
group of people.  CO-2 does not JUST limit protected class status, it
explicitly makes it legal to discriminate against homosexuals and bisexuals.
That is a stripping of civil rights, IMHO.

Generally, anyone can claim discrimination in the court (even you, you poor
white heterosexual male, awww) on any basis, and have a chance of winning.
Now it's been written into the state constitution that homosexuals and
bisexuals cannot claim discrimination at all.

			-D

--
Devin Hooker (RP90)  (SotM 7/91)  DoD #0034  devin@boulder.colorado.edu  ------
"It's being both that's a bitch."                                      --\--- /
"I wanted to take my brain to hell and back and see what I had left."  \  \ //
"This howling in the distance, it's a captivating sound.                \  \/
        Can't tell if it's ecstasy or pain..."  -DW                      \/
Newsgroups: co.general
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Constitutionality of Amendment 2
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:21:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.004957.27346@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> marks@ssdevo.enet.dec.com (Randy Marks) writes:
>A state's constitution (and its ammendments) cannot contradict the
>US constitution.  As far as I can tell, the potential unconstitutionality
>of Amendment 2 is an issue only at the US Supreme court level.

No, any court (state or federal) can make rulings on constitutionality.
However, their rulings are subject to appeal. If the challenge
is exclusively over a conflict with the federal Constitution, the
case would (I think) start in the federal District Court for Colorado,
and work it's way up. If there are any State law/constitution
issues involved, the federal courts will stay out of it, at first:
The case has to be ruled on by the State Supreme Court, before the
federal courts will hear it. Actually, I think it will probably
start in the State courts (if the opponents of the Amendment are
smart): There are a lot of additional restrictions on suing a
State in federal court.
 
                                               Frank Crary
                                               CU Boulder
Newsgroups: co.general
From: wam@neocad.com (Walt Manaker)
Subject: Re: Leinenkugels (Was:Info on local tavern that has Packer games, Brats.
Organization: NeoCAD, Inc.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:33:09 GMT

I believe Leinenkugels was purchased by Miller Brewing, Milwaukee.
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: After amendment 2 (was Re: What happened...)
Followup-To: co.politics
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:19:53 GMT

  [followups to co.politics]

dw> David "Fuzzy" Wells

dw> I was happy to hear of all the conventions that are being moved due to
    this amendment.

  So far, I've heard of only one. The American Association of Physicians for
  Human Rights, composed of gay and lesbian doctors, students, and their sup-
  porters has cancelled their convention. COFFIN (Coloradans and Californians
  for Fairness in the Nation) has recommended an economic boycott of sorts
  against the state. Neither action surprises me.

dw> I also hope that Apple has the guts to fight against Amendment 2 or at 
    least move away to a state that doesn't promote hatred.

  I still fail to see how the passage of amendment 2 "promotes" hatred; rather,
  all it does is remove the ability of gays to take legal action against those
  who discriminate (or are perceived to discriminate) against gays, in those
  towns/cities where such anti-discrimination laws exist. It's not even remote-
  ly close to Oregon's Measure 9, which sounded to me like it definitely advo-
  cated denying homosexuals their rights.

  Only three locales are affected by amendment 2, Denver, Boulder, and Aspen,
  and I wonder what positive effect their anti-discrimination laws have real-
  ly had. All three places are more liberal than the state average, so it
  seems to me that their ordinances were rather superfluous.

dw> Amendment 2 will die.  It will just take the Supreme Court (or a massive
    increase in intelligence from the average Colorado voter, which assumes
    too much, I know) to overrule this "law".

  Don't assume people who think differently are stupid. That's dangerous.

  A2 will probably be overturned anyway, because of equal protection in the
  US Constitution, as well as the issue of state law overruling what home
  rule cities want. I wouldn't be terribly exercised right at the moment.

--
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