From: Carlos Maltzahn <carlosm@tigger.cs.colorado.edu>
Subject: Supporters of 2 not swayed by boycott threats
Followup-To: amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu
Originator: doherty@tigger
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:26:27 GMT


Reprinted without permission from Colorado Daily (11/30/92):

Supporters of 2 not swayed by boycott threats

By Tom Springs

As groups, cities and businesses across the country continue 
to join a boycott of Colorado spawned by Amendment 2's pas-
sage, many of the relatively silent majority that pushed the 
anti-gay-rights initiative through maintain their convic-
tions.

"People in Colorado aren't bigots, and neither are the CU 
Republicans gay-bashers just because we supported Amendment 
2," said Kurt Liebchen, a CU sophomore and College Republi-
can. "We're just tired of seeing affirmative action for 
groups that really don't deserve it. Affirmative action pol-
icies are for group who face real and terrible discrimina-
tion."

Amendment 2, which failed by a 3-to-1 margin in Boulder but 
was approved statewide by a 7-percent margin, forbids anti-
discrimination laws and ordinances offering protection based 
on sexual orientation. Ordinances protecting gays, lesbians 
and bisexuals from bias in Boulder, Denver and Aspen face 
repeal.

"Someone blatantly called me a bigot for having a `Yes on 2' 
button on my backpack," said Emily Livingston, another CU 
Republican who supported Amendment 2. "I was mad,. because 
I'm not. It's not that I think gays should be all shot. I 
just don't believe they deserve special privileges. Not 
because they are gay, but because they are human. And no one 
deserves special privileges. I don't deserve special privi-
leges. Why should they?"

"For some people," said Liebchen, "it's a moral issue. Not 
for me. I don't get into religion and will not decry homosex-
uality as immoral. I just see it as unhealthy, unwise and 
somewhat degenerate."

Opponents of Amendment 2 say it is not an issue of special 
rights, but rather one of equal rights. Passage of the amend-
ment, they say, has denied gays, lesbians and bisexuals the 
same rights afforded all others. Gay and civil-rights orga-
nizations have rallied for the state boycott, urging vaca-
tioners and conferences to avoid Colorado unless the 
amendment is repealed. A number of groups have answered the 
call, as well as the city of Atlanta.

A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the amendment 
is pending.

But the battle of Amendment 2 goes even further, as some say 
it indicates the emergence of a new "political right" or the 
"religious right."

Many Amendment 2 supporters were reacting to what they saw as 
an offensive threat by the gay community, including former 
U.S. Sen. Bill Armstrong, a member of the board of directors 
of Colorado for Family Values, which placed the initiative 
on the ballot. And a number of religious conservatives 
regard the Amendment 2 battle as a religious one.

John Lamb, staff member of CU's Campus Crusade for Christ for 
the past 16 years, sees it as both.

"There is a growing perspective that homosexual behavior is 
just as legitimate as heterosexual behavior," Lamb said. 
"that's why it's not just a political issue. It's a moral 
issue that's becoming a political issue, Homosexuals do not 
want protected status. They want political power to change 
the way people think to justify immoral behavior."

And that is what the so-called religious right is out to 
stop, according to CU political science Professor Cal Jill-
son. It is using moral issues to gain political opportuni-
ties, he believes. 

"You go to where people who share your perspectives are, 
rather than go to where your opponents are and waste your 
time talking to them," says Jillson, "It makes immanent good 
sense to spend a lot of time in churches talking to people 
who share the same convictions that you do and convince them 
Amendment 2 requires a `yes' vote."

Jillson divides the conservative right into two parts. He 
describes the political right as a group traditionally sup-
porting small government, economic conservatism, personal 
individualism and low taxes, and who generally are not fun-
damentally religious.

Those within the religious right, on the other hand, offer 
"an intrusive sort of moralism" which pursues traditional 
Protestant morals and religious issues, Jillson said, point-
ing to CU Head Football Coach Bill McCarney and congres-
sional candidate Bryan Day as regional examples.

Jillson believes both groups come together around candidates 
who have the same conservative and moral views. When teamed, 
the religious right is afforded the use of the fund-raising 
capabilities and political campaign expertise of the older 
conservative group, he said. This "new right" enjoys the 
other's voting clout. Each one helps the other achieve 
mutual goals, whether it be electing a specific candidate or 
passing an amendment.

In regard to the passage of Amendment 2, Professor Jillson is 
one of many who were shocked at the result of election.

"I think there was a great deal of confusion over precisely 
what was involved. A lot of people, I think, thought that 
what was involved was simply the declaration that there 
should be no special privileges granted to gays. But still, I 
don't know how you get to the majority that voted in favor of 
it. I would have bet a lot of money that this one would have 
failed."

Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.info