From: WAND_M@gold.colorado.edu
Subject: Boycott Editorial
Followup-To: co.politics.amend2.discuss
Originator: gina@rintintin.Colorado.EDU
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:10:27 GMT

Get it straight, Barbra
by Chuck Green, editor of the editorial pages, Denver Post
November 22, 1992

Barbra Streisand's heart might be in the right place, but her head is screwed 
on cock-eyed.

Streisand last week encouraged other entertainers to boycott Colorado because 
of a new anti-gay-rights amendment to the state's constitution.  Among the 
big-name celebs who were on hand to hear haer plea were Liza Minnelli, Shirley 
MacLaine, Elton John, Billy Hoel, Christie Brinkley, Dolly Parton and Penny 
Marshall.  More importantly, the national media heard--and broadcast 
widely--her message, and by week's end others had joined in.

"There are plenty of us who love the mountains and rivers of that truly 
beautiful state, but we must now say clearly that the moral climate there is no 
longer acceptable, and if we're asked to, we must refuse to play where they 
discriminate," she said Wednesday night at a gala AIDS benefit in L.A.

Colorado voters approved the amendment No.v 3, invalidating three city 
ordinances that protect gay rights.

Unfortunately, Streisand and other wrong-headed folks--like some convention 
planners--are hurting the very cause they want to help.  Celebrities like 
Streisand, Brinkely and Joel don't vacation in Grand Junction--one of the 
Colorado towns that helped pass the anti-gay Amendment 2.

They vacation in Aspen, where a gay-rights ordinance is the law.  By boycotting 
Aspen, they are hurting the very town whose values they are championing.

Amendment 2, in effect, overrides Aspen's gay-rights ordinance.  It is one of 
only three Colorado communities--and one of very few in the nation--that have 
acknowledged gay rights.

In her boycott of Aspen, Streisand is actually steering business away from a 
gay-rights town, business that is quite likely to be detoured to resorts that 
have no such protections.

In her rush to help the cause of tolerance and to promote the rights of gays, 
she's striking out at the wrong target.

If big-time Hollywood types want to send a message to Colorado, they ought to 
organize a boycott of Colorado Springs, birthplace of Amendment 2.

Headline entertainers love to hang their hats at the swanky Broadmoor Hotel.  
Bob Hope has produced his Christmas TV extravaganza there.  Liberace played 
there.  Goldie Hawn has been on stage there.  Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, 
Ford and Bush all have stayed there, and Clinton will probably pass through 
town in the next four yearas.  In fact, Streisand herself has been to the 
Broadmoor.

Personally, I'd hatge to see a boycott hurt the Broadmoor.  I honeymooned there 
a few years back, and I treasure many fond memories from return visits in 
recent years--including a Christmas getaway last year.

And, as far as I know, the Broadmoor doesn't deserve to be targeted for an 
economic pinch because of Amendment 2.  But neither does Aspen or Denver--yet, 
those are the two communities most likely to be hit the hardest in a boycott by 
L.A. entertainers.

Denver, after all, is where the marquee entertainers play in Colorado--and 
Denver has a gay-rights ordinance, and Denver voted against Amendment 2...just 
as Streisand would like it to hav voted.

So if they're trying to send a message, Colorado Springs ought to be in their 
crosshairs.

If the Hollywood gang really wants to send a message, why not keep their movies 
off the screens of Colorado Springs cinemas?

I'm convinced that Amendment 2 passed not because Colorado is a mean-spirited, 
gay-bashing colony of bigots.

In fact, Colorado overall is probably more liberal and more tolerant than 
California, where Streisand is shouting her call for a boycott.  (The single 
largest disclosed contributor to the Amendment 2 cause is a California 
resident.)

Amendment 2 passed because of a misleading but persuasive a campaign that 
aconvinced many voters that gays were asking for "special" rights, not civil 
rights.

It was a wicked and deceitful tactic, but it worked.  I know several people whohold no malice toward gays, and in fact who would have no objection to 
extending them the normal menu of civil rights, but who were misled into 
thining that the issue was about "special" rights for gays.

The ad scare included the issue of hiring quotas, which gays have never 
demanded and are not entitled to under the three now-banned city ordinances.

But, as is all too common in politics, deceptive advertising carried the day.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.info