From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Fam
Date: 18 Dec 1992 22:52:00 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1gthssINNciu@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > |> No one can argue with that approach.  Has there been any discussion of adding 
|> > |> this to an official statement-of-position by the gay-rights lobby?  If it were 
|> > |> made crystal-clear that there was no desire for minority status (and quotas) 
|> > |> that would effectively obsolete the wording of Col#2, which is likely to be 
|> > |> used in other states.   
|> > 
|> > Pease be specfic.   Exactly which part of the wording of Col#2 would this
|> > "effectively obsolete"?
|> > 
|> > I'd like to see a quote.
|> > 
|> > jon.
|> 
|> Jon, 
|> 
|> NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION.
|> Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments,
|> nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school
|> districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statue, regulation, ordinance
|> or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct,
|> practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of,
|> or enable any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority
|> status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination.
|> This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.
|> 
|> Specifically, the part about "enable any person or class of persons to 
|> have or claim any minority status, quota preferences..."
|> 
|> By showing that this isn't even being asked for, it would nullify that 
|> part of the wording of the amendment (wait, maybe that's a bad phrasing;
|> I mean it would nullify using that language in the next wave of states,
|> as people would no longer see that as a legit goal of the movement).
|> 
|> That is the part that made a *lot* of people who otherwise would have 
|> voted against it, vote for it.  Kill that part, and you've killed the
|> wording of the amendment. 

I've seen this before, and it's not what you are claiming.

You claimed " If it were made crystal-clear that there was no desire for 
minority status (and quotas) that would effectively obsolete the wording of 
Col#2, which is likely to be used in other states."

I see no wording here that indicates that anything in this Amendment depends
on what Gay Rights groups do or do not claim.   The Amendment talks about
what policies the Colorado Government shall institute.   It says nothing
about what they shall institute depending on what Gay Rights Groups claim.

I also see no reason why anything that Gay Rights Groups do or do not claim
is going to "obsolete" anything.   The CFV made up their own version of
what gays want, and used that in their propaganda.   I see no evidence
that they are about to change their claims about what Gays want based on
something trivial, like what Gays actually *do* want.

But let me give you another opportunity to make good on your claim.   I'll
ask you again:

	"Exactly which portion of the wording of the Colorado Amendment
	would becoem obsolete?"

Don't quote the whole thing.   Tell us exactly which part would be "killed"
by Gays making some declaration.

jon.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:8068 talk.politics.mideast:23590