From: zstewart@nyx.cs.du.edu (Zhahai Stewart)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... RESULTS
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:42:28 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.

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.

Phil, I fear that you have been taken in by the sponsors of Ballot Issue
#2.  You are certainly right that many (maybe most) of those who voted for
Issue #2 do not hate homosexuals; I think otherwise about the sponsors,
tho.  The director of CFV was quoted as comparing homosexuals to "a black
widow spider living in your home and biting you.  You don't hate the spider,
you just get rid of it".  By that reasoning, Hitler didn't claim to hate
the Jews either; he was just solving problems they caused, he said.  For
another example, CFV spokeman Bill MacCartney repeatedly called homosexuality
"an abomination before God almighty".  He doesn't consider that hateful,
because he considers it simply stating an unquestionable "Fact".  The folks
on the receiving end see this differently.

However, CFV ran a cleverly deceitful campaign about "special rights".
Let's look at the facts (anyone is welcome to challenge these; but nobody
has, because they are true).  There are NO special rights, quotas, or
priviledges existing or proposed by this state or its subdividions, for
homosexuals.  None.  Period.  So what does exist?

Aspen, Boulder, and Denver have ordinances which prohibit discrimination
in certain areas (employment, housing) on the basis of sexual orientation.
That means, in answer to your question, that if you live or work in one of
those cities, you have legal recourse if somebody discriminates against you
as a heterosexual.  No kidding.  This may even still be true after #2, since
#2 did not prohibit laws protecting heterosexuals.  Before #2, homosexuals,
and bisexuals, had the EXACT SAME protections in those cities as you had and
maybe still have.  Not one iota more.  These were EQUAL protection laws to
the core.  Sometimes they are called "gay rights laws", even by supporters,
because gays face a lot more discrimination then heterosexuals do, and so 
are more often going to have need of anti-discrimination (this is of course
true of all anti-discrimination laws, not unique to sexual orientation; even
if the law is absolutely even-handed, one group is usually more often subject
to discrimination and more in need of some redress).  

Issue #2 spent more words (and the campaign focused) on preventing "special
rights" for gays.  They apparently convinced a lot of non-hateful people,
like yourself, that this was to be the effect of the amendment.  However,
there are no quotas, preferences, "minority status" (whatever that means),
or other special rights for gays, and nobody is trying to create any.  So
all the verbiage about quotas, etc was a smokescreen.  The only portion of
the amendment which will have any real world effect is the tiny section at
the end outlawing anti-discrimination.  Prohibiting all laws against
discrimination is equivalent to legalizing discrimination, just as prohibiting
all laws against abortion or drugs would be legalizing abortion or drugs.

I don't think you hate gays.  I think you, like most of the gays and straights
I know, are just against special rights.  If CFV had left out the section
killing all equal rights laws and regulations, there would have been no real
contest.  I would have voted for it, or ignored it.  But they knew full well
that special rights were not a real issue; the issue was equal rights.  They
also knew that not enough Coloradans were against equal rights, that most of
us in this state don't hate gays.  So they cloaked the issue in verbiage
which appeared to be focused on special rights, claimed not to be hateful,
published cartoons of a "day care center" where some applicant is told "Sorry,
your qualifications are perfect but we haven't filled our quota of 
homosexuals".  They told congregations that they would be forced to hire gay
ministers (even the equal rights ordinances have exempted religious 
institutions).  They told horror stories about other states (those which have
been checked were untrue, distorted, or mis-represented).

Let me tell you how it really works.  The University of Colorado in Boulder
has a roomate placement service.  They ask the person advertsing for roomates
whether they prefer not to have homosexual roomates.  The question came up,
naturally, of whether this was against the ordinance.  The city said no, it
applied to landlords, not roomates.  Gay rights advocates expressed the
opinion that such a question was more helpful than harmful - why waste time
checking out a roomate situation if it was not going to work?  This is how
it works in the real world.  Does that sound so terrible?  Extremists trying
to force everybody into some sort of PC straighjacket?  Naw.  The sponsors
of #2 were outrageously inaccurate in their portrayals.  Yes, after watching
this situation (and reading their literature), I do think the sponsors hate
gays and lesbians and bisexuals.  I don't think the majority of Coloradans
do, and that's why CFV (the sponsors) had to fool folks like yourself.

I might have voted for the amendment myself if I hadn't read it well, and
then heard more about the sponsors.  I have both gay and straight friends.
None of them are spiders, to be gotten rid of.  None have asked for any
special rights.  Equal human rights are all either needs.

I'm sorry you voted for #2, but I don't think it makes you a hateful person.
You were misled by a very slick, well funded, "stealth" campaign, which hid
its true goals.

Oh, watch for the ongoing situation.  It will be tested in the courts.  It
will be tested ONLY in regard to EQUAL rights ordinances and regulation, not
special rights.  CFV will be fighting legal battles to kill equal protection
ordinances, yet they will try to misportray the situation.  Read the news
stories carefully, and you will see what I mean.

>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.

You may be right about the voters; but just try to get a CFV person to
quote you one single ordinance which gives homosexuals any more rights
than heterosexuals.  They will change the subject or lie; no such reference
exists.  I challenge any #2 supporter to cite any, hereby.  They never can
find one, despite the ordinances being easily available.

Best regards and no hatred / zhahai