From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: OR-9 text.
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:19:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Aug20.231929.8343
Organization: insert anything here

rizzoe@FASECON.ECON.NYU.EDU (Emily Rizzo) writes:

>This is the wording of the Oregon amendment as it appeared in the New York 
>Timeslast Sunday, August 16th:

> This state shall not recognize any categorical provision such as
>"sexual orientation," "sexual preference," and similar phrases 
>that includes homosexuality.  Quotas, minority status, affirmative
>action, or any similar concepts, shall not apply to these forms of 
>conduct, nor shall government promote these behaviors.

	I think "similar concepts" would also include hate crimes.
Certainly any hate crime law that has the "categorical provision"
inclusive of GBLO*-folks would be barred.  So, gay bashing is now
"more OK" than other kinds of bashings...

> State, regional and local governments and their properties and 
>monies shall not be used to promote, encourage, or facilitate 
>homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism.

	I didn't realize that "regional and local" were in there.
This adds zoning boards to the list of bodies that would be required
to discrminate.  In other words, a known homosexual could be barred
from owning a gay-oriented business if said business needed to apply 
for a construction permit, etc.  I suppose this could also be construed
for any kind of licensing, or other certificates: lawyers, doctors,
teachers, etc. since the state/regional/local gov't would be held
responsible for making sure that they as a body did not facilitate
homosexuality.  This also mean that should a gay professional who did
get a license, etc. come out, he/she could be liable for damages
to the state for any backlash due to 9.

	I think this also implies that GBLO*-folk can't use state
provided counsel for civil suits or any suit that in any way
has anything to do with the plaintiff's orientation.  In doing so,
the counsel would be using state $$$ to effectively promote/facilitate
homosexuality.

	On this issue as well it would also mean that all public housing
would have to ask "Are you a known homosexual?" on all applications,
since a homosexual in public housing is both getting public $$$ and
is living on gov't-owned property.  College grants at the state level
would also have to ask this question - and one could interpret this
to mean that a gay person's rommate in college could have him evicted 
from the dorms (at a state school) if his roommate was queer.  Campus
orgs at state schools would have to go as well.  In fact, soc.motss
would have to be removed from any state school's USENET feed.

	At the other level, it would mean that any group of GBLO*-people
meeting or congregating in anything but a private space could I think
be required to move or disperse in accordance with 9, otherwise
the public institution in control of that space is allowing their
property to encourage/facilitate homosexuals.

>State, regional and local governments and their departments, 
>agencies and other entities, including specifically the State Department 
>of Higher Education and the public schools, shall assist in setting
>a standard for Oregon's youth that recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia, 
>sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse and that
>these behaviors are to be discourages and avoided.

	This of course as everyone knows is going to help the
teen suicide rate in Oregon balloon...  :-(  IT is also an indirect
call for gay bashing.  The last sentence can be read actively or
passively ("these behaviors are to be discouraged" could mean by
yourself, or by other people... the form that "discouragement" takes
is left to the reader).


>It shall be considered that it is the intent of the people in 
>enacting this section that if any part thereof is held unconstitutional, 
>the remaining parts shall be held in force.

	How far this will be taken is not knowable.  How far one
could construe things in a homophobic manner is trivial.  Like I
said earlier - we need to work our BUTTS off to make sure this doesn't
pass.

BBC
From: weeks@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Greg Weeks)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:02:23 GMT
Subject: Re: RNC: Buchanan's speech
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA