Newsgroups: bit.listserv.gaynet
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:47:34 -0400
From:         gaynet@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Subject:      GayNet Digest Volume 5 Issue 627

In this issue:
                      U of Alaska Regents meeting
                            Wal-Mart number
                      PHILLIP MORRIS/ABSOLUT VODKA

Please send messages for the entire list to gaynet@ATHENA.MIT.EDU,
requests to be added or deleted to gaynet-request@ATHENA.MIT.EDU, and
personal replies directly to the other person, not the entire list.
Postings to GayNet are public communications.  If you must keep your
privacy, send your messages to gaynet-anonymous@ATHENA.MIT.EDU.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:07:57 -0600
From: Ryon Brame <ryon@support.avalanche.com>
Subject: U of Alaska Regents meeting

The Regents of the University of Colorado finally passed (after 7 years)
a law prohibiting discrimination of employees based on sexual orientation.
My arguments are targeted primarly toward employment issues, although
most could be applied to housing and public accomodation issues as well.

> 1. Are Homosexuals as a group a legitimate minority eligible for class
> protection?

> Gender, nation of origin and race are innate, immutable and do not necessarily
> affect one's moral behavior or lifestyle.  Research shows that homosexuality
> is not an inborn trait.  Research points to learned behavior (nurture not
> nature).

This is not what the question should be.  It should be: "Should any group
of people be denied employment opportunities based simply on characteristics
that do not affect their performance?"  It's pointless to get into the
argument of "nature vs. nurture" - aside from intellectual curiousity, the
causes of gayness don't matter!  Just as it would be unjust to deny a
person employment because of their religion (which, ultimately is a
choice) or because of their skin color (which, besides for Michael Jackson,
is not a choice), it is unjust (and, I believe, morally wrong) to deny
a person based on their sexual orientation.  The only thing that matters
is the person's ability to perform the job that they're hired for.  Skin
color, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation don't matter in the least.

When you argue before the regents, hammer away at this point.  Whenever
"nuture vs. nature" comes up, remind them that those issues are not
relevent to your discussion.

>      3)  The Supreme Court ruled in 1986 in _Bowers_ v._ Hardwick_ that the
> Constitution does not provide a right for homosexuals to engage in sodomy.
> Former Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, "To hold that the act of homosexual
> sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside
> millenia of moral teaching." (4)

AAAAAAAAAAArrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Burger and Byron White are so fucking infuriating!!!!  They've let their
private views on personal issues invade their interpretations of the
Constitution.  If I remember correctly, the vote on that case was 5-4 in
favor to uphold Georgia's *sodomy law*.  Burger's opinion doesn't apply
to your situation.  Their issue was to decide whether the sodomy law
was constitutional, not to decide on the morality of firing fags and dykes
from their jobs or denying them housing.

>      4)  Anti-discrimination employment laws are typically enacted to correct
> patterns of economic injustice. Discrimination is demonstrated by an inability
> to obtain economic mean income, adequate education or cultural opportunity.
> Marketing studies refute those claims:(4)
>        a) Homosexuals have an average annual household income of $55,430
> versus $32,144 for the general population and $12,166 for disadvantaged
> African-American households;
>        b) More than three times as many homosexuals as avaerage Americans hold
> professional or managerial positions (49% versus 15.9%);
>        c) 65.8% of homosexuals are overseas travellers - more than four times
> the percentage of average Americans (14%).  More than 13 times as many
> homosexuals as average americans (26.5% versus 1.9%) are frequent flyers.
>        d) More than three times as many homosexuals as average Americans are
> college graduates (59.6% versus 18%).

Again, hammer away on the point that "discrimination is wrong.  Period"  You
might try and draw parallels between this argument and the propaganda from
Nazi Germany, which claimed that affluent Jews were the cause of their social
ills.

Also, if they specifically bring up these data, you should point out that
that information was obtained from a survey of 8 national gay-oriented
magazines.  There are several promlems with using that data and applying
it to the entire gay and lesbian population.  (1) people who subscribe
to those magazines are more likely to have a higher level of education
(2) people with higher levels of education usually make more money
(3) people who make more money typically have a higher descretionary income
which allows them to subscribe to these magazines.  You could also add
that you don't know anyone whose household makes that much money.

Make sure you go back to the "discrimination is wrong" point if you address
these statistics, otherwise, they might dwell on the figures, thinking
that the fundies have a valid point.

> income since they typically have no dependents.  Special employment rights for

Make sure you point out that they keep using the term "special rights" and
that that's not what we want.  We don't want any "special rights", quotas
or additional benefits because we're gay.  We simply want equal opportunities
to obtain and retain jobs, etc.  In short, we want the same rights that
everyone else has.  If they say, "You already have the same rights provided
to everyone under the constitution.", respond with, "when we lose our jobs
or apartments simply because of our sexual orientation, then obviously
we _don't_ have the same rights as everyone."

> homosexuals diminish the integrity of protection for the truly disadvantaged.

There should be a very clear line between right and wrong.  Firing people
because of a non-job-related attribute or belief is wrong.  Protecting
people from being fired because of non-job-related attributes or beliefs
is right.  Anyone who is discriminated against is "truly disadvantaged".

>     5)  The presumption that homosexuals comprise 10% of the population of the
> United States is misleadin Since 1981 three studies have randomly sampled
> twelve different areas of the United States and have arrived at similar
> conclusions. (5)  About 96% of the population consider themselves exclusively
> heterosexual, while about 4% consider themselves bi-to homosexual. Only 1-3%
> consider themselves exclusively homosexual.

Who cares?!?  If they really want to bring this into the argument, use it
to support the argument that gays are a minority and one of the founding
premises of the U.S. was "government by the majority, protecting the
minority.

> 2.  Will special employment rights for homosexuals expose the University of
> Alaska to unreasonable litigation?

Not any more than protecting the rights of ethnic minorities or people with
different religious beliefs.  (And slam them on using "special" again!  It's
not "special" rights we want, it "equal" rights!!!)

> How can the University know if a prospective employee is homosexual?
> Unlike racial, gender, handicap characteristics, "sexual orientation"
> is not readily apparent.  How then might "sexual orientation" be revealed
> on the job?

The university doesn't need to know if a prospective employee is homosexual.
If it came up in the hiring process, he or she couldn't be denyed the job
because of his or her sexual orientation.  (In all likelyhood, the
applicant would be denyed the job on some other basis.)  If "sexual
orientation" were revealed on the job, fine!  That's the whole point of
this protection law - to allow people to be themselves.  To allow them
to live without the stress of hiding a vital part of themselves.  To
allow them to have a picture of their partner on their desk or to tell a
story without changing the pronouns or names without the fear of losing
their jobs.

> When it produces behavior in conflict with University policy, how far is
> "sexual orientation" protected?

This pisses me off!  By using "when" in her question, she's implying that
a conflict will occur.  If the university has a policy of non-discrimination,
how will a conflict arise?  Demand an example.  She either won't be able to
come up with one, or it will be so flimsy that you'll be able to tear it
apart.

> What about "independent contractors" in competitive bidding processes? What if
> an unsuccessful bidder claims to be a homosexual and sues the University for
> discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation"?   It seems that any
> employment query to determine "sexual orientation" or preference of an
> individual would be an invasion of privacy.  Personal declaration of
> homosexuality is not at all like the self determination or identification
> methods used to identify other protected classes.

If a person was to sue the school for denying the contract because of
queerness, that person would first have to be willing to publically declare
his or her gayness.  There's clearly no invasion of privacy.  The reason ethnic
heritage questions are asked on some employment forms, is to comply with
federal regulations.  By passing this law, the university would not have to
ask questions about sexual orientation, and they wounldn't have to meet any
federal quotas.

The goal of the law should be to protect people from unjustness.  Being
fired or denyed employment on the basis of sexual orientation is unjust.
If an independent contractor was denyed a contract because he was gay or
she was lesbian, that is also unjust.  The regents shouldn't be afraid to
right unjustnesses for fear of administrative or judicial burdens.

> 3.  Will special employment rights for homosexuals jeopardize University of
> Alaska benefits packages?

At Colorado University, the regent's law only added the words "sexual
orientation" to the school's non-discrimination clause.  I would suspect that
the same is true for the University of Alaska.  Point out that she's
introducing another issue that hasn't been brought up yet, and remind her
that the issue currently being discussed is: "should the university allow
qualified employees to be fired from their jobs because of their sexual
orientation?"

> 1)  Homosexuals average between 20 and 106 different partners per
> 2)  Homosexuals have exceptionally high rates of gonorrhea, syphilis,

I have no idea where she got this information, but it could be useful to have
corresponding information on other groups of people (i.e. compare it to
college kids).  You also might point out that gay men are more likely to use
condoms then their straight counterparts, thereby reducing the risk of
sexually transmitted diseases.


> 4.   Will special treatment of this special interest group detract from the
> freedoms and liberties guaranteed to all other employees?   If affirmative
> action is required, and if it were possible to recognize homosexuality
> without infringement upon the privacy of the individual, it could result in
> reverse discrimination.

First, we don't want special treatment.  Second, we're not a special interest
group.  Third, protecting the rights on one group doesn't infringe on the
rights of others.  These types of bullshit psuedo-points make me want to
throw up my hands and scream (or just throw up)!  The points she raises are
just an attempt to cloud the issue and make it seem more complex than it
really is.  Ask her to provide examples of how protecting gays and lesbians
from discrimination would detract from the freedoms of others.  Could she be
refering to the "freedom to fire fags" or the "liberty to hate people".
Ask her which liberties are guaranteed to all other employees and how they
could possibly be infrindged on.



>  B.  By providing civil rights protections for certain protected
> classes, society proclaims public support for the group(s) in question.
> Laws preventing discrimination, even apart from their enforcement, send a
> message of empathy and encouragement to the protected class. A distinction
> should be made between "true minor" and "special interest group". In light
> of the information presented above, I do not believe the homosexuals as a
> group constitute a true minority class, rather they are a special interest
> group, and as such are entitled to the Constitutional rights of all U.S.
> citizens, but they should not be entitled to special legal status and
> privileges.

Civil rights protections send a message that the state will not tolerate
discrimination.  Using her logic, catholics are also a special interest
group, who are afforded the same constitutional rights of all U.S. citizens,
but should not be entitled to special legal status.  I'm sure that she would
think that it's deplorable to fire a catholic because of his or her beliefs,
but she's saying that it's okay to can a queer.  Make her look like she hates
fags and condones discrimination (which she does).  The more you can make her
look like an intolerant, hateful puppet of the right-wing, the better chance
you have of discounting her trash and getting the measure approved.  (Also,
harp on the "special legal status and privileges" from that last paragraph.
Her kind keep using the wrong terms in order to get the non-thinking public
to their side.)

> The Board of Regents at the University of Michigan, and at the University
> of Colorado declined to change the wording of their discrimination
> policies, and chose not to add "sexual orientation".  I spoke with staff in
> both offices personally, and have their names and telephone numbers if you
> would like to contact them.

Once again, lies, lies, lies!  The University of Colorado regents added the
words "sexual orientation" the the school's discrimination clause for
employees last spring semester (1992).  They did not add it to the code that
affects students, but we're working on that.  I had a friend who went to U of
M and he said that it was added their as well.  Maybe a kind soul from
Michigan will help us out here.

I may have fucked up - I thought that this letter was printed in a local
paper, so I gave ol' Mary Anna a call to find out who she talked to at CU and
UM.  She was very surprised to hear that anyone else had read it.  I told her
that I got it off of a computer network, but thought it had been published.
She said it was a private letter to the regents and asked which network.  I
told her that I wasn't sure, but it had something to do with the regents.
She said, "The Regent's Agenda"?

	"Why, yes, that was it.  I'm just researching this for the regent's
	 meeting and we need to verify your claims."

	"Oh, well, then, I talked with Mr. Arnold at CU - 303/492-8203.  And
	 at UM, I spoke with both Lisa and Nancy at 313/936-2255.  Who did
	 you say you worked for?"

Then the phone went dead.  Strange, huh?  Okay, okay.  I hung up on her.
(BTW: Bud Arnold is the Secretary to the Board of Regents and will soon be
retiring.)

I hope I didn't cause any harm by talking with her.  Sorry!

Here in Colorado, we're fighting a proposed constitutional amendment that
would prohibt any state or local government from including "sexual
orientation" in their discrimination clauses.  The backers of this amendment
(Colorado for Family Values) have used a lot of the same arguments that Mary
Anna used.  I suspect that she got her information from the Traditional
Values Coalition in California.  They're backing the Colorado bigots, as well
as the jerks in Oregon who are promoting a much more abusive amendment to
Oregon's constitution.

I hope this message isn't too garbled.  I added my thoughts as I read her
letter.  Next time I will post a couple of articles I wrote regarding
Colorado for Family Values and the income of gay housholds.  There should be
some info in there that you can use.

				- Ryon

+--------------------+-----------+------------------------------------------+
| Ryon Brame         |   *****   |  Due to financial contraints, the light  |
| ryon@avalanche.com |    ***    |  at the end of the tunnel will be turned |
| Boulder, Colorado  |     *     |  off until further notice.               |
+--------------------+-----------+------------------------------------------+

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 14 Aug 92 15:10 PDT
From: Ron Biduk                            <ECZ5RAB@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Wal-Mart number

Hate to be on the late freight with this, but does anyone out there have a
phone number for Wal-Mart to complain about them not selling the M. Johnson
book?  Have been distributing the info to everyone I know and this is the one
piece of info I failed to keep.  Sorry again for the lame request.

Ron Biduk
UCLA Biomedical Library

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:40:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: "David M. Pahnos" <dp0q+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: PHILLIP MORRIS/ABSOLUT VODKA

>Now, drinking is different.  Actually, a little alcohol in the system
>every once in a while is good for the digestive/nervous system.  It is
>when it is taken to excess constantly that it is bad for one's health.
>Personally I don't object to alcohol advertisements as much as cig
>advertisements.  Now, I guess you could say that consumption of liquor
>does eventually cause cirhosis of the liver, but I believe that is
>only when it is taken to excess for a long period of time.

>Again, I am not interested in receiving flames on this one.

ANYTHING taken to excess is bad for you.  SO what is wrong with a
moderate intake of cigarette smoke? Did you know that automobile
emissions are more poisonous (and in greater amounts) than a whole
carton of cigarettes?  How many evironmentalists do you know who own
cars?
What about the case of alcoholism and drug abuse?  Did you know that the
gay community has a 40% higher drug and alcohol abuse rate than the
strayt community?  That alcohol is the main reason gay men will not
insist on safe sex (judgement is impaired), which is when most cases of
seroconversion occur with men who normally practice safe sex piously?
Would knowing the above THEN change your mind?
Trust me, I'm not flaming you, (nor do I flame anyone else when I
respond by the way, contrary to popular belief).  I both smoke and
drink, so its no skin off my back.  I'm just challenging your
assumptions.


michael j pastor iii
guest on davids account

------------------------------

End of GayNet Digest
********************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU