From: WAND_M@gold.colorado.edu
Subject: Judge's decision sparks outrage
Followup-To: amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu
Originator: doherty@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:36:07 GMT

Gazette Telegraph, Colorado Springs
January 17, 1993

Residents speak out on injunction

By Warren Epstein

Most Colorado Springs residents were irritated when actress Barbra Streisand 
said she found Colorado's "moral climate" unsuitable for her vacations.

They were perturbed when officials from cities throughout the country boycotted 
Colorado to protest Amendment 2, which would ban laws that specifically protect 
gays from discrimination.

But those were mere annoyances compared to the outragae residents expressed 
Saturday about a Denver judge's decision to put Amendment 2 on hold pending a 
verdict on its constitutionality.

"I'm mad as hell," said Ann Heim, a Colorado Springs homemaker.  "I think he 
just caved in to pressure."

"No matter what we do, the majority vote is taken away," added her husband Ron 
Heim, a mechinist.  "It's as if we don't count, as if this isn't a democracy."

The Heims weren't alone.  A GT telephone line received nearly 200 calls 
Saturday, and those furious about Judge Jeff Bayless' rulng Friday otnumbered 
those pleased by the ruling about five to one.

An informal street survey of about 50 residents showed the ruling's opponents 
outnumbering its supporters by about two to one.

But the ruling's supporters were far more visible Saturday.

They celebrated the injunction and showed their continued resolve to fight the 
amendment by shifting the focus of a downtown protest--a march intended to draw 
attention to the city's minority-hiring record.

Among the 300 marchers was Nancy Wallis, who said she opposes Amendment 2 
because she opposes "the fanatic right."

"I'm a Christian too," she said.  "But God's No. 1 rule above all else is to 
love one another."

Amendment 2 opponents also showed their solidaraity by gatahering outside 
Perkins' Chrysler-Plymouth car dealership.  That rally, which drew about 200 
people, originally was planned by an American Indian group toprotest car dealer 
Will Perkins' alleted ties to an organization they consider anti-Indian.

But Amendment 2 opponents, upset at Perkins for spearheading the ballot 
initiative, outnumbered the Indians.

Perhaps the only pro-Amendment 2 demonstration Saturday was by 20 members of 
BACK OFF, a group that opposes the state boycott. They gathered outside 
Perkins' dealership and trashed Barbra Streisand tapes in the bakc of a pickup.

Although those upset about the ruling weren't protesting in large numbers, that 
doesn't mean they weren't seething.

Many Amendment 2 supporters were in a rage, if phone calls and interviews were 
any indication.

One respondent said the ruling "chaps my cheeks."

Another called Judge Bayless "spineless."

A third said the judge proved that "evil could conquer good."

Some suggested Bayless should read the Bible.  Others said he should read the 
Constitutuion.

Judy Michalenko, a student nurse, thought Bayless should listen to the people.

"I really feel that the judicial system doesn't work for the common people," 
she said. "It's so riddled with liberalism."

Taxi driver Ismael Hernandez agreed: Government should put more faith and 
authority in its citizens than its courts.

"The people understand the law," he said.  "We're not going to vote for 
something that would violate the Constitution.

Some suggested that the court was "interfering" with the democratic process.

Army pilot Terry Brah pointed out that the court doesn't get involved in 
presidential elections.  'We can't just say now, 'Well, I don't like President 
Clinton.  Let's go to court and see if we can get him out.'"

A few argued that the court procedure is wasting the taxpayers' money.  But 
many more talked about the time they wasted in the ballot box.

They feel cheated.

Horticulturist Nancy Spender suggested that in the future ballot initiatives be 
scrutinized before they reach voters.

"Why did they let us vote on it if they were going to turn around and say our 
vote didn't count?" she said.

Among those surveyed, a predictable pattern emerged: Those who supported the 
amendment were angry, those who opposed it were happy.

But there were some interesting exceptions, such as Glenn Pierre, an 
optometrist.

"I was disappointed" he said.  "I wondered what was the purpose of the vote in 
the first place if they were going to second-guess us.  On the other hand, in 
Nazi Germany the will of the people prevailed.  So maybe there should be a 
higher power to second-guess our decision."

Cashier C. C. Gage agreed Amendment 2's fate should be in the hands of the 
courts.

"I voted for it," she said.  "I don't think anybody needs special rights.  But 
if it turns out to be unconstitutional, then it should be overturned.  Nobody 
deserves to be discriminated against."

As Gage read the newspaper at a picnic bench in Acacia Park, she marveled at 
those who get worked up about each twist and turn of the Amendment 2 drama.

"Ther are too many other things in the world to get upset about," she said.  "I 
cant' believe that it's worth getting an ulcer over this."

     D'arcy Fallon contributed to this report.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrections, new info, and requests for info: amend2-info@cs.colorado.edu
Administrative comments                     : amend2-mod@cs.colorado.edu
General Discussion                          : amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu
Boulder/Denver area local meetings/events   : amend2-local@cs.colorado.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to a list, send mail to Majordomo@cs.colorado.edu, with
        subscribe <list-name>
in the BODY of the message.  For multiple lists, use multiple lines.

Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.info