From: glp@fig.citib.com (Greg Parkinson)
Subject: Re: Human Rights in Cuba
Originator: glp@merlin
Organization: Citibank IBISM
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:49:14 GMT


In article <20764@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, ez000281@hamlet.ucdavis.edu writes:
|> Julio Gonzalez writes:
|> 
|> 
|> >> In my face?  We just happened to pass civil rights legislation to protect
|> >> homosexuals (which by the way are the most affluent minority in the nation)
|> >> from discrimination in California,

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.

|> 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.  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.

|> The voters decision simply says were not in favor of people 
|> discriminating you (as we're not in favor of anybody discriminating against 
|> anybody), but we won't give you the same monetary and special legal status 
|> given to Native Americans. 

No, the voters listened to the the propaganda saying
that this is what the law would do and didn't find out
what the law actually said. The protection that gay
people had covered only simple discrimination in
employment and housing and *never* provided monetary
advantage or special legal status.

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.

|> I thinks a very reasonable decision and I don't 
|> know why their making such a fuss about it, they even want to compare the 
|> Colorado vote with the Arizona one refusin to conmemorate King's Holiday!!

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. 

-- 
Greg Parkinson                  Phone: 212-657-7814  Fax: 212-825-8607
Citibank,111 Wall Street        E-Mail: glp@fig.citib.com
New York, New York  10043
The opinions expressed are my own and not those of the big 'ol bank.