From: jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... RESULTS
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:32:34 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

In article <1992Nov5.214917.28857@mercury.cair.du.edu> ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu (Phil Tripp) writes:
>You know, everyone is calling this a hate issue, etc.  I don't see
>it that way at all.  It is really a matter of special rights and
>privileges.  Colorado voters have decided not to grant special rights
>to homosexuals.  It doesn't mean anyone hates anyone.  Heterosexuals
>don't have such rights.  If a heterosexual has her or his rights
>trampled upon only because she or he is a heterosexual, what legal
>recourse would she or he have?  None.  There are no special rights for
>heterosexuals to protect them from discrimination based on sexual
>preference or lifestyle.
>
>My guess is most of those who voted "Yes" on Amendment 2 do not hate
>homosexuals and do not condone discrimination or persecution directed
>toward homosexuals.  The voters just do not see any need or reason to
>give special rights to homosexuals, rights which heterosexuals do not
>have.
>

But Phil, Amendment two would not have given any special rights to anybody.
As a matter of fact, the PASSING of amendment two has TAKEN certain civil
rights from a group of people. Who's next? Will the KKK put forth an amendment
taking away civil rights of black people? Will I put forth an amendment
taking away the civil rights of christians, just because I don't believe
in their god?
Someone recently reminded me of a quote from Germany about the holocaust,
and  being partly german myself, this is very close to me.
"When the came to take away the jews, I didn't say anything, because I
wasn't a jew. When they came to take away the catholics, I didn't say anything,
becuase I wasn't catholic...."
(This is from memory)
It ends with: "When they came to take me, noone said anything, since there was
noone left to say anything".

I object strongly to taking away anybodys civil rights. For the record,
I am also strongly against special rights for ANYBODY. Everyone should
qualify for, say, a job, only on the grounds of ability.
As for getting kicked out of your house, or job, just because you belong
to a certain religion, sexual orientation, gender, or race, is just
as bogus. And THAT is what we have opened the door to by voting YES. 
And I think it's scary.

On the other hand I also think a lot of people were misled as to WHAT
amendment two meant. It did NOT mean to GIVE special rights to anybody.

>For example, suppose you are gay and you own a business.  You need to
>hire employees.  You turn down a straight person because the person is
>straight and you would rather hire a gay person.  Should the straight
>person be able to take you to court and sue you for violating the
>person's rights?  Should the heterosexual person be able to legally
>force you to hire him or her?
>
Yes. And as far as I know (corrections please) anybody can do that.
Everybody, that is, except homosexuals, lesbians, and bisexuals, now.

>mindedness cannot be legislated or forced upon people.  Rattling swords
>and flexing muscles will not work nearly as well as consideration,
>respect, and understanding.
>
Which is exactly why amendment two needs to be overturned. It reflects HATE.
It puts HATE into legislation!

Again: Once this precendent has gone unanswered, WHO'S NEXT?
-- 
 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------