From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: OCA's (Pat Robertson's CBN Christian Coalition) Measure 9 in review
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:19:12 GMT
	<1992Oct15.065149.26864@CS.ORST.EDU>
Organization: B*SHit

In article <1992Oct15.065149.26864@CS.ORST.EDU> 
thatcha@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Alexander Thatcher) writes:
>FROM THE OREGON VOTERS PAMPHLET:
>SECTION 41(1):  This state shall not recognize any categorical provisions such
>as "sexual orientation", "sexual preference," and similar phrases that includes
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What does this mean legally, what do you expect a judge to decide here?

>homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism, or masochism.  Quotas, minority status, 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^^^
What are the legal definitions of these words? When is one legally a sadist?

>affirmitive action, or any similar concepts shall not apply to these forms of
>conduct, nor shall government promote these behaviors.

Promote what behaviors? Isn't married or single a sexual orientation or
preference? Does this make the tax law illegal? How is the state to abide by
this kind of language? Eunichs only? Does this mean unisex bathrooms? Divorce?

>	  (2):  State, regional, and local governments and their properties 
>pedophilia, sadism, or masochisim.   

Something's missing here, but I think I've seen it before. When is one
legally a homosexual, pedophile, sadist or masochist? This is the equivalent
of anti-communist legislation, clearly it opens up the ability to have
modern day witch hunts if one was so inclined. Presumably if a "Christian"
accused an employee of the state ... etc government, the pressure would be
too great to retain the employee, and that employee would be stigmatized
for life. I notice no wording here that it is possible for a past "offender"
to make a correction and lead a "normal" or even "Christian" life.

>	  (3):  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, 
>masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse, and that these behaviors
>are to be discouraged and avoided.

Nice example of trying to force judges to enforce "Christian" morality.

>	  (4):  It shall be considered it is the intent of the people in 
>enacting this section that if any part thereof is held unconstitutional,
>the remaining parts shall be held in force.

Sure. This initiative is a nice example of a piece of legislation that is
guarenteed to clog up the court system. The judge or jury will have to make a
"moral" judgement on each case that is brought. There is no "workable" law
here, only histeria and hate mongering and an attempt to force judges to
enforce a concept of "morality". In order to make this workable, the judges
and juries would have to be of the same "Christian" morality, perhaps that
is the next step for OCA/PR/CBN/CC. One would have to wonder if this would
stand a Supreme Court challenge, the way the court's been stacked it's
difficult to say but I would guess that since the Court struck down anti-flag
burning legislation, this would go also.