From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Subject: Re: OR-9 text.
Organization: insert anything here
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:00:56 GMT

markm@ogicse.ogi.edu (Mark Morrissey) writes:
>rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>>So, gay bashing is now
>>"more OK" than other kinds of bashings...

>As the OCA would rush to point out, assault is assault.  What this
>means is that you cannot assault someone purely through hate for their
>sexual orientation and be prosecuted for a hate crime.  The interesting
>twist on this is that hate crimes in Oregon are punished most severely
>as compared to normal assault.  There are people who seem to spend
>their entire time in the system for assault, but still only get a $250
>fine with no jail time.

	Right but hate crimes against gay and lesbians would be stricken
from the books.

>>                 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 have been thinking a lot about the licensing aspect and how that
>would affect doctors that primarily treat lesbians and gay men.  I
>am also concerned that doctors who volunteer their time a hospices
>may come under fire.  It definitely means that public clinics cannot
>perform HIV screening (since, as the OCA puts it, if someone knows they
>are HIV-, they will continue in their sinful ways <barf>).

>I believe that it also means that I cannot go to work for the state since
>by providing me with employment, the state would be encouraging my
>lifestyle (paying me to live, so to speak).  However, it does not mean
>that Intel would have to fire me (okay, so here I officially come out
>as a senior research engineer for Intel :-).  The fact that the state does
>business with a company which has a small minority of employees who
>are lesbian or gay does not count as 'promotion'.  If this measure passes,
>I intend to work to amend it to make it illegal for the state to do
>business with any entity which employs even one GLB person.  Bringing the
>state to a standstill may be the only way -- if this measure passes.

	You won't ahve to.  While working for a private company would
be allowed.  The state/gov't wouldn't be allowed to contract with
a company that has an EE statement inclusive of homosexuals.  This
of course will hurt us since some places would remove it (and then
have an easier time firing us), and 9 would then be infiltrating
the private sector as well.


>>	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.

>No.  You still have a guaranteed right to council.

	Yes, but I'm talking only about suits that involve orientation.

>>	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.

>No, letting a student pay for the privilege of staying in a dorm in not
>promoting homosexuality.  Certainly, GLB organizations would no longer
>be allowed to use state, regional, or local facilities to meet.  Say goodbye
>to the Pride Parade or the NCOD gathering at Pioneer Courthouse Square.
>Just Out and other free LGB publications could no longer be made available
>at public locations.

	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.

>One interesting aspect of the housing issue is that it would now be
>legal for a landlord to ask about orientation and refuse to rent based
>on that fact alone.  This was one of Mabon's strongest arguments.
>He stated that he didn't personally have a problem with gays (yeah,
>right <barf>) but that if he owned an apartment complex he wouldn't want
>to be forced to rent to "them".

	Same thing for a job interview.

>>	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.

>Well, that depends.  If using the space was interpreted as promoting
>homosexuality, then they would be forced to move.  However, peaceful
>assembly is peaceful assembly.  You have to find a way to show that
>the state is actually promoting 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.

>I do not think it would be illegal for me to walk down the street with
>my Act Up button boldly displayed.

	
	Hard to interpret.  I don't think you'd be breaking the law
either, but the way it is written, the text doesn't say "groups",
nor does it say individuals.  I'm interpreting it as meaning "events",
where events implies any congregation of people for a specific purpose.
That would mean of course all of the events we had for motss.con
that weren't on private property.

>>>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.
>>

>>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).
>

>the way to get rid of homosexuality is to 'nip it in the bud'.  They
>labor under the impression that at 12 or 13, some bright eyed little
>boy or girl chirps up with "and now I think I'll be lesbian/gay
>person".  They seem to think that if children are bombarded with
>hateful messages about this "chosen lifestyle" <sorry, keep barfing>
>that the children will turn out "right".

>The magnitude of the venom in this measure is unbelievable.

	Of course, that's the point.  If we're dead we're out of the way.


BBC
Newsgroups: soc.motss