From: ez000281@hamlet.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.latin-america
Subject: Re: Human Rights in Cuba
Date: 8 Jan 93 06:19:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis


Greg Parkinson writes:

>The statistics that this "most affluent" stuff is based on
>come from a pool of older gay men who give contributions
>to gay/lesbian political causes.  Could we look at the
>affluence of Cubans in Miami who give money to Cuban-American
>political causes and say that all Cubans are extremely
>affluent?  It's equally specious.

With all due respect, Greg,  statistics indicate that Cuban Americans are the 
wealthiest of all ethinic groups in the nation, including "Anglos" and Jews.  
Of course, this does not mean that every Cuban American is wealthy as you can 
learn from Jeremy Barth in statistics 1.  Neverthelless, I wish blacks and 
Latinos would have some more of those older gay men in our community, it would 
certainly let us boycott conventions in spick hating states around the country 
much more efectively.  Who knows, maybe we could have our own powerful lobby, 
like the Cubans, and pass stronger quota legislation through Congress.  What 
certainly amazes me, on my campus at least, is that there are more faculty who 
are gays and lesbians than there are Chicano faculty, in spite of the fact that 
Chicanos constitute 1/3 of the population of the state.  So if the Jeremy Barth 
predictions that somehow the poor masses of this country are closet homosexuals 
are true, and we have only seen the tip of the iceberg of gay bourgeoise emerge 
from the closet, then certainly I wouldn't mind setting up special affirmative 
action laws for gay and lesbians in spite of the legal redundancies involved in 
doing so.

|> No, in CALIFORNIA we granted them special legal status (given their 
|> political
|> control of places like San Francisco. In Colorado voters rejected a proposal
|> which would have given gays and lesbians the status of an underrepresented
|> ethnic minority and would make them qualify for State Affirmative Action
|> programs and special legal status, when in fact they are overrepresented
|> economically, are very affulent, have much more  political clout, than 
|> say... blacks.

>This is, simply put, a lie.  No legal remedies to anti-gay
>discrimination have *ever* included affirmative action or
>special legal status.  

Well then, why did you invoke an analogy (see below) where you take the 
Colorado Law to be an "exact analogue" of the abolition of Affirmative Action 
for Latinos?

>What they want to do is to add
>sexual orientation to the list that includes gender,
>race, religion, marital status (among other things.)
>It't interesting to note that these last two protections
>cover *lifestyle choices*, not innate characteristics
>like the first two.

Oh, you mean they wanted to make this part of the states affirmative action 
policies which require harshers remedies and impelementation in the event of 
non compliance?
[..]

>Actually, with the passage of the law in Colorado
>there are several places where discrimination against
>heterosexuals is illegal but *is* legal when practiced
>against gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.

Well tell me where (other than Colorado) so I can boycott their State. Let me 
guess, Alabama? Georgia?

As to your ANALOGY OF COLORADO LAW WITH FEDERAL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:

>How would you feel if someplace passed a law saying
>"there shall be no laws allowed which protect latinos
>from ethnicity-based discrimination"?  Not saying that
>anti-discrimination laws were not allowed, but singling
>out latinos as not worthy of protection.  That's an
>*exact* analog of the Colorado law.

I would not feel bad at all, because ther is an amendment in our Constitution 
from which I gan get DIRECT remedies from: the 14th amendment.  That's why all 
this thing of eliminating some affirmative action programs doesn't give me 
insomnia.  With the abolition of this special protection stuff the few 
"hispanics" who feel a little discriminated (a mere 30%) would get protection 
directly from the Constitution instead of having to appeal to some crappy law 
of Congress.  We are ALL entitled to equal protection under the law, whether we 
are Gay, Straight, Black, Asian, Latino, or Polack, and if someone is seeking 
special protection on account of "sexual orientation" (which includes 
everything from straight folks to pedophiles),  I just think they're looking 
the wrong way.  If you want to protect your rights as gay or latino you simply 
shouldn't look in all the garbage they put out on official documentation (you 
know, the "This institution does not discriminate on the basis of race, 
religion, martial status or physical handicapp" trap)  Instead, you should look 
directly into the CONSTITUTION, and if your attorney is seeking remedies under 
those corporate tailored laws, I'll refer you to mine, who has litigated before 
the U.S. Supreme Court, and happens to prefer other direct routes:

                Edelmiro Salas Garcia Esq.
                (809) 722-5718

Edelmiro