From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: OR-9 text.
Date: 22 Aug 92 16:12:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Aug22.161223.26713
Organization: insert anything here

In article <41797@ogicse.ogi.edu> markm@ogicse.ogi.edu (Mark Morrissey) writes:
>rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:

>>	A university could remove any state financial aid it what
>>I was getting at.  The idea is of course that all state/local paperwork
>>could be amended to ask the question "Are you a homoseuxal?" with 
>>the anti-gay fallout occurring as a result of this.

>This point is a given.  However, the state could not bar LGB students
>attending state schools using non-state monies.

	We agree here.

>>	Knowingly allowing a group of homoseuxals access to a public space
>>would count as "facilitating".  The way the text is worded, it says that
>>no lands owned by an Oregon government can be used to promote or facilitate
>>homosexuality.  Meaning if we use it, to gather, protest, etc., the law
>>has been violated.  The state would have to remove us, or risk a civil suit
>>by the OCA for violation of Prop 9.

>This is a rat hole, but...

>The key here is "..promote or facilitate homosexuality...".  If I and a
>friend go to the park to fly kites, we are okay.  If the LGB kite club
>of Portland goes to the park for an outing, we are in trouble.  See the
>difference?

	Yup.  We agree here too.  But one thing to remember is that it
is never possible to get out the "correct" meaning of the law at
the time an alleged infraction is occurring...  For example, were someone
from the Parks dept. to accost you and your kite-flying friend, and
ask if you were gay - he might still give you trouble even if in the
end you are in the right legally, since it would take going to court, 
etc. to "prove" this.  In other words, the great potential remains
for people to cluelessly or intentionally misinterpret the law in order
to hassle queers.  For the most part, those hassled will just move on
to avoid being hassled, in the right or not.  I mean it happens now
already - it will just escalate further under 9.

>>That would mean of course all of the events we had for motss.con
>>that weren't on private property.

>Correct, no con activities at Rooster Rock, for example.

	One more thing: exactly what happens if someone or some
institution breaks 9?  I mean say someone at the Parks Dept
knowingly gives a day permit for a gay group at Washington Park?
What's the penalty?  Presumably the person issuing the permit is
somehow reprimanded, but to whom is the state responsible?  It
seems to me that the state could just ignore 9 for the most part and
there would be little recourse that the OCA could do about it.
Going after individuals on the other hand would still be very easy.
I suppose that it would really be hard for the institution to do
anything without being able to pin it on *some* individual somewhere.

	If 9 passes, I wager that a homosexual-only sodomy law will
be introduced within 24 months.  This law would also carry along with
it the term that anyone convicted under it would be prevented from
doing a lot of things in the state...  in other words, the equivalent
of the original pink triangle.  (yup - I believe that we're that close.)

BBC
Xref: sparky soc.motss:35202 ba.motss:1420