From: markm@ogicse.ogi.edu (Mark Morrissey)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: OR-9 text.
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:47:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.41760
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR

In article <1992Aug20.231929.8343@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>                                           So, gay bashing is now
>"more OK" than other kinds of bashings...

As the OCA would rush to point out, assault is assault.  What this
means is that you cannot assault someone purely through hate for their
sexual orientation and be prosecuted for a hate crime.  The interesting
twist on this is that hate crimes in Oregon are punished most severely
as compared to normal assault.  There are people who seem to spend
their entire time in the system for assault, but still only get a $250
fine with no jail time.

>                 In other words, a known homosexual could be barred
>from owning a gay-oriented business if said business needed to apply 
>for a construction permit, etc.  I suppose this could also be construed
>for any kind of licensing, or other certificates: lawyers, doctors,
>teachers, etc. since the state/regional/local gov't would be held
>responsible for making sure that they as a body did not facilitate
>homosexuality.  This also mean that should a gay professional who did
>get a license, etc. come out, he/she could be liable for damages
>to the state for any backlash due to 9.

I have been thinking a lot about the licensing aspect and how that
would affect doctors that primarily treat lesbians and gay men.  I
am also concerned that doctors who volunteer their time a hospices
may come under fire.  It definitely means that public clinics cannot
perform HIV screening (since, as the OCA puts it, if someone knows they
are HIV-, they will continue in their sinful ways <barf>).

I believe that it also means that I cannot go to work for the state since
by providing me with employment, the state would be encouraging my
lifestyle (paying me to live, so to speak).  However, it does not mean
that Intel would have to fire me (okay, so here I officially come out
as a senior research engineer for Intel :-).  The fact that the state does
business with a company which has a small minority of employees who
are lesbian or gay does not count as 'promotion'.  If this measure passes,
I intend to work to amend it to make it illegal for the state to do
business with any entity which employs even one GLB person.  Bringing the
state to a standstill may be the only way -- if this measure passes.

>	I think this also implies that GBLO*-folk can't use state
>provided counsel for civil suits or any suit that in any way
>has anything to do with the plaintiff's orientation.  In doing so,
>the counsel would be using state $$$ to effectively promote/facilitate
>homosexuality.

No.  You still have a guaranteed right to council.

>	On this issue as well it would also mean that all public housing
>would have to ask "Are you a known homosexual?" on all applications,
>since a homosexual in public housing is both getting public $$$ and
>is living on gov't-owned property.  College grants at the state level
>would also have to ask this question - and one could interpret this
>to mean that a gay person's rommate in college could have him evicted 
>from the dorms (at a state school) if his roommate was queer.  Campus
>orgs at state schools would have to go as well.  In fact, soc.motss
>would have to be removed from any state school's USENET feed.

No, letting a student pay for the privilege of staying in a dorm in not
promoting homosexuality.  Certainly, GLB organizations would no longer
be allowed to use state, regional, or local facilities to meet.  Say goodbye
to the Pride Parade or the NCOD gathering at Pioneer Courthouse Square.
Just Out and other free LGB publications could no longer be made available
at public locations.

One interesting aspect of the housing issue is that it would now be
legal for a landlord to ask about orientation and refuse to rent based
on that fact alone.  This was one of Mabon's strongest arguments.
He stated that he didn't personally have a problem with gays (yeah,
right <barf>) but that if he owned an apartment complex he wouldn't want
to be forced to rent to "them".


As for USENET, we have bigger things to worry about right now.

>	At the other level, it would mean that any group of GBLO*-people
>meeting or congregating in anything but a private space could I think
>be required to move or disperse in accordance with 9, otherwise
>the public institution in control of that space is allowing their
>property to encourage/facilitate homosexuals.

Well, that depends.  If using the space was interpreted as promoting
homosexuality, then they would be forced to move.  However, peaceful
assembly is peaceful assembly.  You have to find a way to show that
the state is actually promoting here.

I do not think it would be illegal for me to walk down the street with
my Act Up button boldly displayed.

>>State, regional and local governments and their departments, 
>>agencies and other entities, including specifically the State Department 
>>of Higher Education and the public schools, shall assist in setting
>>a standard for Oregon's youth that recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia, 
>>sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse and that
>>these behaviors are to be discourages and avoided.
>
>	This of course as everyone knows is going to help the
>teen suicide rate in Oregon balloon...  :-(  IT is also an indirect
>call for gay bashing.  The last sentence can be read actively or
>passively ("these behaviors are to be discouraged" could mean by
>yourself, or by other people... the form that "discouragement" takes
>is left to the reader).

This is a *very* big concern around here.  The OCA seems to think that
the way to get rid of homosexuality is to 'nip it in the bud'.  They
labor under the impression that at 12 or 13, some bright eyed little
boy or girl chirps up with "and now I think I'll be lesbian/gay
person".  They seem to think that if children are bombarded with
hateful messages about this "chosen lifestyle" <sorry, keep barfing>
that the children will turn out "right".

The magnitude of the venom in this measure is unbelievable.

>	How far this will be taken is not knowable.  How far one
>could construe things in a homophobic manner is trivial.  Like I
>said earlier - we need to work our BUTTS off to make sure this doesn't
>pass.
>
>BBC

We do appreciate all of the efforts many people from the soc.motss
family are expending to help us fight this measure.  The bright side is
that many new acquaintences have been made and new friendships formed.
The downside is that more people are going to get resumes if this thing
passes.

OREGON: shoot a spotted owl and bash a faggot.  Have a nice day.

--mark
--
Mark Morrissey           One Hatred to rule them all.  One Hatred to find them.
markm@cse.ogi.edu        One Hatred to bring them all and in the darkness bind
                         them.  In the land of Bigotry where the Shadows lie.

Newsgroups: soc.motss