From: robert@slipknot.rain.com (Robert Reed)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9
Reply-To: robert@slipknot.rain.com.UUCP (Robert Reed)
Organization: Home Animation Ltd.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:29:22 GMT

In a reply from Dick Winningstad, he writes:
|
|This is a reply, so I am deleting the parts of my earlier posting and
|replying to what you have written.  I am pleased that the responses so
|far have not been flames.  Is anyone else out there that is willing to
|talk about why they voted the way they did?

I can't speak for anyone else, but my objective is a fair discourse with the
intent to change others views.  You can't change someone's view by burning them
at the stake.  But because of my concern about public airing of issues, I am a
little disturbed about reducing this discussion to private mail.  I don't have
anything to hide and I assume you don't.  Is there a reason why you chose to
move this off-line?

For this reason, I will reply this once, and without objection from you, will
repost my reply to pnw.general.

|Other minorities were abused on the basis of uncorrectable features
|such as skin colour, ethnic origin, or gender. This is not the case
|with homosexuals where a choice was made to live that lifestyle. The
|only exception, that I can think of (it's 2230 now), is religion and
|that has to do with ones choice of worship a right specificly dealt
|with in the constitution.

Excuse me, but this argument is specious.  May I remind you that the freedom of
religion is not protected by the constitution per se, but by its first
amendment?  In fact, the core document says very little about citizen rights,
and several amendments have been added to clarify those rights, including the
13th (banning slavery), 14th (due process, etc.), 15th (protections based on
race, creed or previous servitude), 19th (women's right to vote), and 24th
(poll tax ban).  The Equal Rights Amendment, which failed ratification a couple
years ago, was pushed because of a widely held view that the constitution fails
to protect the rights of women.

Thus, the notion that human rights are somehow apparent in some indelible
physical manifestation is not supported by the history of our constitution.
Repeatedly our country has passed laws to protect people, based on their
appearance, beliefs, and even their net worth (poll tax).

But putting all of that aside, are you saying that if future research revealed
that homosexuality has a genetic predisposition, you would drop your objections
to their fight for equality?  If you are, you are the exception to the average
Measure 9 supporter, who comes by his or her views usually due to moral or
religious convictions.

|The part about people other than gay/lesbians being activists, I'm
|not sure what bearing that has on the discussion.

Your statement implied your belief that fight for rights (special or equal) is
being led by some cadre of homosexuals.  I was merely pointing out that the
opposition is much more broad based than that.
 
|By implementing adminstrative orders specifying nondiscrimination for
|homosexuals (Portland) and allowing the partners of gay workers to be
|covered under health insurance policies (Mult. Co.) a precedent is
|being set to have gays treated as a class. Why not just issue a
|directive that requires hiring on only the basis of qualifications for
|the job?

I don't understand.  There are already people (like members of the OCA) who are
treating members of the homosexual community as a class.  Measure 9 would have
put specific wording in our constitution identifying homosexuals as a class
(and equating them with pedophiles and other law breakers).  And if I'm not
mistaken, the Multnomah County rule allows health coverage for all unmarried
partners, not just homosexual ones.  And as to a qualifications for hiring
directive, I believe state and local governments already have to abide by EEOC
rules, which provide those.  Not being intimate with the Portland case, my
guess is that those rules proved inadequate to deal with some perceived problem.

|I do not agree that any minority has the right to force an owner of
|property to behave in any way that owner does not want to. The
|constitution does not talk about any rights to housing or employment.

Does that imply that you would have no objection to a landlord denying access
to housing based on race or creed?  If so, I'd suggest that you re-examine your
human rights values in general.

|Other legislation does deal with equal rights and while I do not agree
|with it, as long as the laws are on the books I will obey them.
|As soon as classes are singled out for special treatment under the
|law, that constitutes special rights.

So your interpretation of "special" is "explicitly delineated" rather than
"other than average."  If that's true, then to be consistent, you must believe
that members of minorities, women, and people with religious beliefs already
have "special" rights, because all of these groups are outline in the
constitution.  Now, I must say that the intent of these constitutional
amendments and of the civil rights legislation that has been passed over the
last 25 years has been to remove "special" rights (interpreted as "other than
average," in this case being below average, or discriminatory).

|>Lincoln freed the slaves with the act of a pen (Emancipation proclamation)...
|
|The subject of abolition of slavery was a view of the majority of the
|citizens of the U.S. and was a national issue when the Civil War
|broke out. Lincoln, by the way, issued the Emancipation Proclamation
|partly as a way to keep Great Britain out of the war. He (Lincoln)
|was much more interested in preserving the union than in abolition.
|Also, you are right that liberty for all was not a clear cut majority
|view but rather an evolving one. There are no "light switch" changes
|in behavior in history. Usually it is evolving. Voting rights were
|restricted to land owners in the 1790's and not until the 1830's were
|white males over 21 completely franchised. Then black males, then
|women and so on. Come to think of it, maybe your side is on the wave
|of evolution, but I think not.
|But getting back to my point, minorities are given rights when the
|majority is convinced that they are to be given. A lot of times this
|has involved violence, but not always.

I don't believe that you can "give" rights.  As our Declaration of Independence
states, certain rights are unalienable.  What majorities can do is recognize,
or fail to recognize, the unalienable rights of others.  It's never easy and
frequently involves violence, as we witnessed during this campaign as the
majority overturned the OCA's attempt to restrict the rights of a minority.

|Yes freedom of religion is protected and homosexuality is not. This is because
|homosexuality is considered an immoral behavior by a majority of the people.

No, freedom of religion and assembly is protected because the framers of our
constitution witnessed religious bigotry in their lifetimes, and in an altruist
gesture, wanted to protect those views may be radically different from their
own.  Though I have no figures, I don't believe that homosexuality as an
immoral behavior is a majority view.  I would say that the majority have a more
"live and let live" attitude, though they would probably disapprove of their
sons or daughters choice of that lifestyle.  But the rabid moralists of this
country are a vocal minority.

|>Again I ask, what special rights?  Can you name even a single right desired
|>by the homosexual community that is any different or better than the rights
|>you currently enjoy?

|The legalization of homosexual marriages, the adoption of children by
|homosexual couples, and the sanctioning of homosexuality as a viable
|alternative to hetrosexual lifestyles are a few of the social
|practices I would not want to see sanctioned by law.

None of those are rights that are denied to other loving couples, and so none
of them are in any way "special" rights (meaning other than average rights).
What's "special" here is the concern some people are showing about how other
people choose to live their lives.  What right do you have to mandate how
someone else practices their religion in this country?  None (though in actual
fact the federal government has been taking various steps to limit the practice
of indigenous religions).  Why should you have any more right to control who
someone chooses to live with and to love?

|>I'm not saying you have to respect the homosexual lifestyle or even like
|>them.  There are certainly members of some religious persuasions that I would
|>like to avoid.  But accepting someone and respecting their civil rights are
|>totally different concepts.  And currently in Oregon, there is no law that
|>prevents a landlord evicting someone or an employer firing them based solely
|>on their sexual preferences.

|I accept gays by not wanting to disturb their privacy.

This statement seems inconsistent with your previous avowal that homosexuals
should be be denied the institutions of marriage and adoption.  Both of these
restrictions are incursions into their private lives.

|As for being evicted or fired, I do not think that can happen now. In my last
|job as a production manager, I was not able to fire any one on a whim,
|and landlords I know have a heck of a time evicting people as it is.
|I think these are red herring arguments, though I do admit to anecdotal
|evidence supporting my side.  Again as I mentioned above, what someone wants
|to do with his property is his business, in my own but not legal, opinion.
 
Property rights are not absolute--never have been, never will.  But that's a
whole other discussion.

|Discrimination and prejudice can not be legislated away.  And I do not
|think the above listed organizations are able to have an impact on
|the gay community economicly.
|As far as violence is concerned, there are plenty of laws available
|to protect anyone from attack. A will to enforce them is needed, not
|more laws.

I don't necessarily agree.  Discrimination against blacks is considerably less
overt after 30 years of civil rights laws, largely because they have mandated
the association between groups that have given them the chance to learn more
about each other and help dispell racial biases.  I'm not claiming that all the
problems are solved, but I will say that most of the remaining problems have
more to do with ignorance than anything else.

It is true that viewpoints are hard to legislate, and I'm certainly not arguing
for more laws.  But likewise I will argue against any laws that would deny
others basic human rights, whether they be considered special or otherwise.

|Gay-neutral is ok with me if it respects the privacy of gays. If Gay-neutral
|means an official acceptance of the lifestyle [then] I do not agree with it.

What do you mean about "official acceptance"?  Are these some special code
words?  I don't think our body of laws officially "accept" any lifestyles, but
they do attempt to provide some norm of acceptable behavior between people.
Does it really hurt you to allow couples to form a contract between themselves
that permits them to share insurance, their property, and to avoid probate
complications if one of them should die?  That's "officially" what a marriage
is.

|I think the whole measure 9 thing got going because of a [perceived] move to a
|pro-gay stance by government. [It] will be up to you to prove otherwise.

I'm not going to attempt to prove this one way or the other, because it has
more
to do with perceptions than actual facts.  I could spout facts 'til I'm blue in
the face, and it may make no difference to your viewpoint if you perceive those
facts differently than me.  All I'm asking is for you to "walk a mile some one
else's moccasins."

|Thanks for your thoughts.
________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Reed                     Home Animation Ltd.             503-656-8414
robert@slipknot.rain.com        5686 First Court, West Linn, OR 97068

When I was little, we had a a quicksand box.
I was an only child, eventually.
--Steve Wright
________________________________________________________________________________