From: ahendric@slate.mines.colorado.edu (HENDRICKER ALAN DAVID )
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Amendment 2.
Date: 6 Nov 92 03:30:33 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Colorado School of Mines

Amendment two is definitely worth some consideration.  In my opinion, this
issue was handled very poorly by the legisaltors as well as the media.  For
instance, every time amendment two was referred to by the media it was
referred to as "The Ban Gay Rights" amendment.  This was a completely false
portrayal, which led in general to the public being misinformed on the
issue at hand.  

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.  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.

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.  So, would it not be possible for a person to claim
homosexuality simply to gain this minority status to have a better chance
at getting a job?  Asking for proof of homosexuality is preposterous, so
this situation is not so unlikely as it first may seem.  This, of course,
is not a problem with other minorities.  

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.  Now, if I owned a house, and had children, I would
want to raise them in the way that I thought right.  Now, perhaps that I
believe that homosexuality is wrong.  (I don't, but we'll go with it)
Would I want a homosexual to influence my children in a way that I believed
wrong?  Of course not, yet legisation could be passed that would require
me, under the penalty of fines, etc, that I cannot refuse such a person?

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.  

The issue of homosexuality is a touchy one, no doubt, but it needs to be
approached in the *correct* manner by the legal system.  Amendment 2, in my
opinion did a poor job of trying to approach the problem.  Certainly the
legal system needs to do a better job at protecting the jobs and rights of
the homosexual community.  However, "special rights" need not be
established for this to be accomplished.  The persecution of the
homosexuals is real, but I will not sacrifice my minute rights as a white
male on an issue which can be apporached in manner which makes that
sacrifice unnecessary.


Alan Hendricker
ahendric@slate.mines.colorado.edu

The Purpose of Life?  "To Die Young as Late in Life as Possible"  (unknown,
by me anyway)
 
fema