From: Carlos Maltzahn <carlosm@tigger.cs.colorado.edu>
Subject: Twisting the truth about Amendment 2 (Opinion)
Followup-To: amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu
Originator: doherty@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:07:56 GMT


Reprinted without permission from Colorado Daily (12/2/92):

Twisting the truth about Amendment 2 (Opinion)

By Charles L. King

Passage of Amendment 2 renders ordinances protecting gays 
against discrimination in three Colorado cities unenforce-
able, while prohibiting the state or any of its political 
subdivisions in the future "from adopting or enforcing any 
law or policy which provides that homosexual, lesbian, or 
bisexual orientation, conduct, or relationships constitutes 
or entitles a person to claim any minority or protected sta-
tus, quota preferences, or discrimination" (Legislative 
council of the Colorado General Assembly: An Analysis of 
1992 Ballot Proposals, p. 13).

Though gays no longer enjoy special legal protection in 
three Colorado communities, they retain their basic consti-
tutional rights (as do all citizens), and are "entitled to 
recourse under the tort laws for libelous or slanderous 
abuse, wrongful discharge, emotional distress, or similar 
theories" (Analysis, p. 16).

An important duty of "public officials and institutions" is 
to prevent discrimination against all citizens, wherever it 
occurs, including reverse discrimination against plain old 
heterosexuals - though neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals 
can use their sexuality as a legal ground for complaint in 
any tort suit based on deprivation of civil rights. 

In view of the above, is a special legal status for the homo-
sexual life-style necessary or desirable? By a vote of 53.4 
(not 53) percent to 46.6 (not 47) percent - 806,855 votes to 
705,117 - Coloradans didn't think so. They were right.

Funny how some of those who were saying during the campaign 
that the amendment violated the home rule autonomy of Boul-
der, Aspen, and Denver are now looking to Congress for a 
national law which would supersede our state law. Any con-
cern by the gays for violation of our state autonomy? Not 
much, not much.

Amendment 2 was non-partisan and its opponents out-spent its 
proponents 2 to 1. It was widely discussed in the media, 
which for the most part vociferously opposed it, and which 
has since proved itself a poor loser.

The polls showed the amendment losing. Several commentators 
attributed the mistaken polls to deception on the part of 
"yes" voters. Perhaps, but we might have another possible 
explanation of the misleading polls were we to know exactly 
what phrasing was used by pollsters in asking questions 
about the amendment.

Were I, for example, to have been asked whether I was for 
equal rights for gays or whether I would oppose a measure 
which denied them their right to be free from discrimina-
tion, I would have answered "Yes, you betcha!" I believe in 
equal access to the law for all, not just for select groups. 
Yet, had the pollster uncritically swallowed the propaganda 
of opponents of the measure, he or she might have concluded 
that my reply indicated I was against Amendment 2 - though in 
truth I favored.

Which leads me to ask: Just why did I vote "Yes" on 2?

First, because gays are not identifiable as a class or group 
(and even if they were, our national Constitution says noth-
ing about *group* rights, only rights of *individuals*); 
second, because Amendment 2 does not and will not in the 
future, despite shrill claims to the contrary, deprive gays 
of any of their basic rights as individual citizens; third, 
because I simply do not wish to encourage the proliferation 
of a life-style which contributes to the moral decline of 
society.

My vote for Amendment 2 was determined not on the basis of 
mushy sentimentality but on what I perceived to be the best 
interests of society, now and in the future.

So, I am imposing my narrow religious views on society, you 
say? Well, excuse me, but should I impose my (your) broad 
pagan views on it?

Coloradans who voted for Amendment 2 do not look upon gays as 
pariahs or wish to harm them as individuals, but neither do 
they wish to encourage homosexuality - with which they asso-
ciate AIDS and other evils. Most of us who voted evils for 
the amendment believe not only that homosexual behavior pri-
marily harms its practitioners, but that it is detrimental 
to the health and welfare of society as a whole.

A tiny portion of yea-voters may have been moved by hatred of 
gays, but certainly in no greater proportion than nay-voters 
who may have been moved by hatred of straights.

By our vote we didn't outlaw homosexual behavior; we just 
balked at providing homosexuals with a status currently 
reserved for *bona fide* minority groups with a history of 
discrimination behind them. That's not hate; it's good 
sense.

If many people voted for Amendment 2 out of fear, as some 
charge, it was not an unreasonable fear but the kind of 
intelligent fear that causes them to drive according to the 
rules dictated by society, lest they harm themselves or 
their neighbor. What's wrong with that?

The reaction of some Boulderites, including Mayor Leslie 
Durgin, to the passage of Amendment 2 only confirms the sus-
picion of many that Boulder indeed consists of an area of 27 
square miles surrounded by reality.

Let's be thankful that the Mayor has not yet called for the 
People's Republic of Boulder to secede from Colorado.

(Charles L. King is a professor emeritus at CU)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrections, new info, and requests for info: amend2-info@cs.colorado.edu
Administrative comments                     : amend2-mod@cs.colorado.edu
General Discussion                          : amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu
Boulder/Denver area local meetings/events   : amend2-local@cs.colorado.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to a list, send mail to Majordomo@cs.colorado.edu, with
        subscribe <list-name>
in the BODY of the message.  For multiple lists, use multiple lines.

Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.info