HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jls2@teal.csn.org (Jeff Stoner)
Subject: Re: What happened to all the referenda... RESULTS
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:12:21 GMT

This is truly a depressing time for me. When I left Colorado on Monday, it
looked like a law in my town (Boulder) would continue to protect myself and
my mate. Then, sitting in Boston all this week, I watched Oregon tell the
hate mongers to forget it... and Coloradans destroy my rights.

I worked long and hard with others to get a bill passed to protect
my rights--and a majority of the Boulder voters those several years ago
agreed with us. Now, the rest of the state has seen fit to tell the
citizens of the city of Boulder (and the cities of Aspen and Denver too)
that "the rest of us know better"...

And I openly discussed the issues of amendment 2 at work--and had 15 other
people (in a company of 15 people) tell me they all felt it was a bad thing
too and planned to vote no.

Apparently Boulder County turned out 5:1 against the initiative. And that's
very heartening. I also understand a proposal has already been aired in
Boulder City Council to secede from the state. Interesting concept...

Anyone want to start a campaign to put an initiative on next year's ballot
that removed "religion" as a protected class? I mean, they have other
recourses in cases of discrimination, and of course, no one would ever be
fired, thrown out of their home or have a hate crime committed on them because
of their religion... right? (He bats "Bambi eyes" at the crowd). Besides, it's
a chosen trait anyway... if people choose a religious lifestyle, they should
live with the consequences of that decision...

Gee, and then we re-enslave all the blacks and chase out the Hispanics and kill
those nasty Japs that are destroying our economy and put women back at home
and the world will be the nice place it was to live in in the 1950s. Or
perhaps the first half of the 1940s in northern Europe...

(Heavy sarcasm in above 2 paragraphs for those whose sarcasm meters are broken
right now).

I come Sunday from Boston... and will join the fight against this disaster.

Attention all Colorado gay and bisexual people on the net: it's time to
fight or find another state to live in--and I have, until this week, found
Colorado one of the best places in this country to live in and had planned
to spend many more years there.

-- 
====== Jeff L. Stoner === Boulder, Colo. ============ /\ = /\ ========== |
                                                 /\  /  \ /  /\  /\    --*--
   Home: jls2 @ bearhug.boulder.co.us         /\/  \/    /  /  \/  /\    |
   News: jls2 @ csn.org                    /\/  \   \  /\  /    \    /\
From: lspangle@nyx.cs.du.edu (L. A. Spangler)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Summary: A possible recourse
Date: 7 Nov 92 16:34:59 GMT
Distribution: co
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.


>urban@cs.colostate.edu writes:
    
	...in the continuing debate over Amendment 2...

>The major problem I see is if your boss doesn't like you. He could claim
>you displayed homosexual tendencies and fire you for being gay whether you
>are or not. Now due to the amendment you have no legal recourse such as 
>claiming discrimination in courts to get your job back.

I don't claim to be a lawyer, but do have some experience in the area of 
libel and slander law.  It would seem an individual who was fired, based 
solely on allegations he or she were gay would have recourse in civil court 
if: 
	1)  The allegation were "published" in that individuals 
	    personnel records, or better yet, a company memo to 
	    the personnel department (libel), ,  
        2)  or the individual were slandered in a conversation by 
 	    a superior who mentioned to another person the termination 
            was because of sexual preference (slander).  .  

It would probably be easier to attack this under the slander statutes, 
since it would be easier to prove damages.  With libel, an absolute 
defense is the truth.  I can not point to source material, but in recent 
years, jury's have generally ruled in favor of the plaintif in libel cases, 
awarding large sums of money.  (You could check with the Gannett Center 
for Media Studies if you want the data.)  The same would probably hold 
true for slander in this case.  

This isn't a "fix" for the problems created by the narrow minds or 
misunderstandings of a majority of those who voted, but it is a recourse 
for those who fall victim to Amendment 2.  At least it sounds reasonable. 
Regarding housing and the like, while it's not likely anything will be 
written down, there is a very good likelyhood something will be said 
to someone why the new tenant wasn't approved.  >


>David S. Urban
>email : urban@cs.colostate.edu

Lance Spangler - lspangle@nyx.cs.du.edu

ObAmend2 - Best Protest Sign - Straight but not Narrow

--
	|======lspangle@nyx.cs.du.edu=====			    | 
	|	=====Seeking a clever quote=====		    | 
	|		=====to fill this empty space=====	    | 
	|			=====Any suggestions out there?=====| 
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics,co.politics.amend2.discuss
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: Request for Comments: co.ocs, co.politics.amend2.{info,discuss}
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:14:32 GMT

Raymond La France - X2787 (ralf@fester.dell.com) wrote:
: Before
: you all start screaming and flaming (I've seen a lot of it aimed at 
: anyone who dares to not ape the local anti-2 party line), I will say
: (as I have many times before) that while I don't see any reason to give
: minority status to any group based on their bedroom gymnastics, I don't
: see any reason to deny anyone's rights, either.  I think a line-item
: veto of the "or any claim of discrimination" stuff would be appropriate.
: Minority status is usually reserved as a tool for rectifying and preventing
: injustices suffered by the economically, socially and politically
: powerless.  The gay community is none of the above (thank God).

Not now, but who's to say what the situation will be like 10 years from now?
Say things get so bad we all recognize they are suffering economicaly, socially
and politically - then they will deserve the "minority status"?  If so, then
why throw up this artificial roadblock to make them the only class deserving of
minorty status but constitutionally prevented from attaining it?  If not, then
perhaps we need to adjust our standards for who deserves this status.  Either
way, simply excluding one specific group from it, with no reason given, seems
unacceptable and blatantly discriminatory to me.  At least pass an amendment
that says, "those who do not fit criteria X, Y, and Z cannot have minority
status".  The current amendment does not deny them this status because they
fail to meet some objective criteria; it excludes them simply because they are
gay.

Even though I, like almost every other person in the world, do not think
homosexuals do not deserve "minority status" (in the sense of affirmative
action), I also do not think they deserve being blacklisted in the state
constitution.

: I think everyone needs to just get off of the feeble
: attempts at legal remedies and just f**king get along.

I can understand this sentiment; but the scary thing is not that homosexuals
are denied protection because protection is feeble, it is that they are being
deined protection simply because they are homosexual.

--
Amendment 2 - Shame On You, Colorado
--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
a disgusted resident of the first state in history of the union
to enact a constitutional amendment that explicitly legalizes discrimination
against a particular minority
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Newsgroups: co.general
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:11:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.032535.6493@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.011507.13739@colorado.edu> devin@frodo.Colorado.EDU (Sonja Orlavski) writes:
>>: Amendment two in short was about whether or not homosexuals should be given
>>: minority status, and the "benefits" that go along with such.
>
>>*laughs*
>>Not to sound judgemental, but have you read the amendment?  CAN you read?
>
>Actually, have _you_ read the amendment? Or just the summary on the
>ballot? The ballot summary of, for example, amendment 6 clearly
>shows that the summaries may relfect political bais (In the case of
>6, the mention of taxes was left to the last sentence, in the hopes
>that people would focus on claims of education reform.) There is no
>reason to think the ballot summary of amendment 2 was completely
>accurate. I've seen people quoting and debating the text of the
>summary, as if it were the actual amendment. It might be interesting
>to see what the amendment really says.
>
>                                                Frank Crary
>                                                CU Boulder
>


Here you go, Frank.



Article 2, of the Colorado Constitution is amended by the addition of
Sec. 30, which shall state as follows:

NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION.
Neither the State of Colordado, through any of its branches or departments,
nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school
districts, shall enact, adopt, or enforce any statute, regulation,
ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation,
conduct, practices, or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the
basis of, or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any
minority status, quota preferences, protected status, or claim of
discrimination.  This section of the Constitution shas be in all respects
self-executing.


Looks like it says about the same thing, and I can even read.


-- 
David Knapp                                   University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                 knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Looks like hate *is* a family value after all and Colorado families are for it.

Newsgroups: co.general
From: mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella)
Subject: Re: Amend. 2, What it means or doesn't mean.
Reply-To: marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:58:43 GMT

Phil Tripp (ptripp@diana.cair.du.edu) wrote:
: 
: Maybe the majority of the voters of
: Colorado are thoughtful people concerned about the rights of
: everyone and realize that the instant special status and rights are
: granted to a specific group, rights and freedom are taken away from
: others.  And there is also the question of where do we stop?  Can
: blonds claim special status?  What about left-handed people?  What
: about nudists?  What about people who are smokers?  Should they be
: able to claim special status?

Currently, they can try all they want.  Homosexuals are the only group now
prevented by the constitution from trying.  So amendment 2 is completely
ineffective in answering the question of "where do we stop".  It simply forces
one passenger off the bus.

And stop talking about "special status".  The term is not defined.  The issue
in the amendment is "claim of discrimination".  You are correct that granting
anti-discrimination protection to homosexuals takes away the freedom to
discriminate against homosexuals.  The question is, is that a right the people
deserve, given that they do not have the right to discriminate on the basis of
race, marital status, or religion?  Or, more particularly, should the right to
discriminate against homosexuals be the ONLY form of discrimination explicitly
protected by the constitution?

--
Amendment 2 - Shame On You, Colorado
--
Marc Sabatella
marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com
--
a disgusted resident of the first state in history of the union
to enact a constitutional amendment that explicitly legalizes discrimination
against a particular minority
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Newsgroups: co.general,co.politics
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Constitution
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 04:43:17 GMT

The readers are referred to a front page article in todays (Nov. 13, 1992) 
issue of the Denver Post discussing the constitutionality of Amdt. 2.
The article appears very objective, including comments from both sides.

Newsgroups: co.general
From: dkark@auc.trw.com (Don Kark)
Subject: Wanted: Access to PIC Development System
Organization: TRW Denver Operations
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:28:03 GMT

I'm interested in getting access to a PIC (MicroChip Microcontroller) 
development system in the Dec/Jan time-frame for a personal project.
Does anyone local (Denver Metro Area) have one they might want to rent/sell
around this time?  I would like to see if an idea pans out before
shelling out the few hundred dollars to purchase one new...  Thanks.

				-- Don

-- 
=============================================================================
Don Kark                        |  don@wilbur.coyote.trw.com
TRW Inc.                        |  dora!dkark@csn.org
Denver, CO			|
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Date: 11 Nov 92 05:34:27 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

mjs@fc.hp.com (Marc Sabatella) writes:

>Regardless of the specifics of the law, the point is, families with children
>have the recourse to try to get laws like this passed.  So does any other group
>that feels it is being discriminated against, except, now, for homosexuals -
>the only group constituionally prevented from becoming protected in this
>manner.

Here you have a point-- as long as protected minority status exists, everyone
should have a crack at trying to get it.

Paul Ciszek pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | When planning for posterity, we ought to
                                  | remember that virtue is not hereditary.
                                  |     --Thomas Paine
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: YA Safeway Slam
Date: 9 Nov 92 07:31:12 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:

>>'Though I _do_ wish that the FDA would lighten up about things like cheese-
>>making, and that our lawmakers would stop looking at wine as a sinful luxury.

>I thought that was a political thing (i.e., the tariffs on European
>wine & cheese), trade-war type stuff.  Not the FDA's doing.  ???

Nah, I'm talking about laws that cripple domestic production.  I'm not too
familiar with the cheesemaking process, but I understand that the necessity
of pasteurizing everything prevents American dairies from *truly* duplicating
the more highbrow cheeses, which involve funky live bacteria and who-knows-
what-else.  In short, you aren't ALLOWED to make really good cheese in the
USA.

As for wine, our congresscritters like to enact "revenue
enhancements" that make life very difficult for small wineries.  To be able
to ship your wine from one state to another, each winery must pay a helacious
fee per variety per state (destination).  Taylor and Gallo can easily afford
the fee, since it is per variety and NOT per volume, but you will never
find, for example, Glenora or Wagner wines outside of NY state, even though
they are an order of magnitude better and quite affordable (within NY state).
(Uh, the whites are better.  NY is too cold for reds.)
Newsgroups: co.test
From: davehieb@rootgroup.com (David Hieb)
Subject: test 1 from magi
Organization: The Root Group, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:13:14 GMT


testing...
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: Liberal President, but conservative amendment voting?
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:39:30 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Nov4.223349.28419@ncar.ucar.edu> ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.220614.3194@claven.ucar.edu>, woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov4.175948.17993@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow - CU Computing Network Services) writes:
>> >Particularly, I'm referring to the approval of amendments 1 and 2, and the
>> >no vote on amendment 6.
>
>As far as #2, I agree with Greg that those who voted for it were 
>clearly embarrassed about it, as they lied to the pollsters -- nobody
>expected it to pass.  Maybe Gary can say something about whether
>it's a LP viewpoint -- I would think that its overrule of "home rule"
>would be contrary to the Libertarian view.  I suspect that the emphasis
>(in the written amendment) on "protected status" made people think that
>it really was a "special rights" issue and not a discrimination issue.

I think a large number of folks were misled about the purpose and the effect
of the amendment. Down here in podunk, the TV ads from CFV stated:

	Homosexuals have equal rights, now they want "special rights"

There are no doubt an awful lot of people who voted *for* 2 without a clear
understanding that they were in fact legalizing housing and job discrimination 
against a whole class of citizens. 

Having the local TV stations here in the Springs (thank you, Sandra Mann!)
refer to Amendment 2 as the "gay rights amendment" (even during the election 
coverage) probably didn't help much either. It's a wonder *anyone* knew 
what was going on. I assume there will be court challenges soon - I really
resent the fact that my tax dollars will be wasted in the (one hopes)
futile effort to defend this nasty piece of unconstitutional legislation.

>If it had been worded "Should there be a state law prohibiting communities
>from passing laws to forbid discrimination against homosexuals?" I don't
>know if the outcome would have been the same.

I agree completely.

>/\     There may be honor among thieves, but there's none among politicians.
 
	And even less among fanatics, it  would seem :-(.

Steve
From: jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:15:12 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

In article <1992Nov8.081050.29193@mercury.cair.du.edu> elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:
>>#2 was not about "special rights".  If Amendment 2 sticks, people can
>>be fired or thrown out of their apartments just because they are gay.
>>These are the facts.  Having a place to live and a job are not
>>"special rights"  
>This is what the media and homosexual groups want you to believe.
>Fortunately Colorado voters were intelligent enough to read the
>Amendment and see that your comment above is bullshit. Under the U.S.
>Constitution, everyone is guaranteed equal rights. The reason you are
>so upset about this is because your next move was to get gay quotas in
>the workplace/housing and you just took a step backwards.
>
Eric, PLEASE go read the amendment. AND go look at the current situation.

Voting NO on 2 would NOT have given anyone any special rights.
Let's assume you are right, and all that gays wanted was to go ahead and plead
for special status. NOW, with AM2 we can not even discuss such an issue.
If we had voted down 2, then that point may or may not have come up
at a later point in time (and I dare say voted down at THAT point).

You, like a lot of other CO voters were led to believe that special rights
was what it was all about. It was not. AM2 now prohibits the making
or enforcing of any laws concerning discimination and special status and
other legal crap. Did you hear me? Prohibits the MAKING of such laws.
Those laws would not have automatically come about by voting NO. That
would have been a further discussion. The immediate result concerns
DISCRIMINATION. That is now made legal. And that, dear sir, is what is 
bullshit.

-- 
 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: co.politics,soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics.amend2.discuss
From: barb@locutus.cs.colorado.edu (Barbara Dyker)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 23:58:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.161617.9197@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary  
Strand) writes:
>   As has been pointed out to me, #2 forbids homosexuals, lesbians and bisex-
>   uals from claims of discrimination. It does not do the same for heterosex-
>   uals, since the original ordinances in Denver, Boulder, and Aspen make ref-
>   erences only to "sexual orientation", not specific sexual orientations. In
>   retrospect, it's even better that I voted against it. However, if #2 had
>   been stated as simply "sexual orientation", I would have voted for it.


Whether a particular "sexual orientation" is acceptable is a *moral* or
*religious* judgement - just as the judgement against race, color, or
religion.  NO ONE should be allowed to use their personal judgement of
morality to deprive another of their basic civil rights.  If you 
feel that discrimination based on any morality judgement is acceptable as your
statement clearly indicates, then I'm sure you would be happy to repeal all
the current anti-discrimination laws.

Anti-discrimination laws are unfortunately necessary because we HAVE
to legislate to protect people from using their personal moral judgements to  
usurp the rights of others.  Left to their own devices, the dispensers
of morality would be rightous in their attempt to clense/save the world.

I personally would be quite happy with the repeal of all current 
anti-discrimination laws as long as they were replaced with a blanket
law against moral judgements to deny civil rights.  Then we wouldn't
need a new protection law every time the bigots find another group to
target.

..Barb
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern)
Subject: Re: After amendment 2 (was Re: What happened...)
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:31:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.035639.1786@mercury.cair.du.edu>, tjreynol@zephyr.cair.du.edu (five left and cut!) writes:
> In article <1992Nov5.231953.15246@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
> 
> >  Only three locales are affected by amendment 2, Denver, Boulder, and Aspen,
> >  and I wonder what positive effect their anti-discrimination laws have real-
> >  ly had. All three places are more liberal than the state average, so it
> >  seems to me that their ordinances were rather superfluous.
> 
> If I recall correctly, Denver and Boulder were the only areas that voted
> NO by any signifigant margin, perhaps by any margin at all.

According to the Camera this morning: Denver, Boulder, "a few mountain
towns," and the area around Durango [Ben Nighthorse Campbell's stomping
grounds, incidentally] voted significantly NO.

-- 
/\     There may be honor among thieves, but there's none among politicians.
  \_][ <--NCAR Ilana Stern dod#009 r.b. cliff swallow ilana@ncar.ucar.edu    
      \______________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: co.politics