From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Wanted: Post election comments on Prop. 9
Summary: *sigh*
Keywords: el-mundo-zurdo(Gloria Anzaldua),immediatism,anarchism,queers, feral-humans,freethinkers,[lL]ibertarians,gays-and-other-sex-radicals, strategy,tactics,intelligence,psy-ops,deception,disruption,memetics, screwing-things-up,aikido,entropy,doxies,o
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:56:03 GMT
Organization: Totally Unorganized

In article <1992Nov10.204135.8617@pcx.ncd.com> johnl@pcx.ncd.com (John Light) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.174212.6515@sequent.com> dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
>>I am not a Christian fundamentalist. But I voted for Measure 9.
>
>[text deleted]
>
>>Now, the No on 9 people deserve to be congratulated for their hard
>>work and ultimately successful campaign. So how about working just
>>as hard to put an initiative on the ballot that guarantees the
>>rights/privileges you believe gays deserve?  Thus letting the voters
>>decide the issue rather than going through the back door of
>>administrative orders.
>>The OCA may be misguided in their views, but at least they put their
>>program before the voters instead of maneuvering behind the scenes
>>which is what was going on up to now.
>
>You obviously bought into the OCA hook, line, and stinker.  There are *no*
>right/privileges being sought by gays beyond what the rest of us take
>for granted for ourselves.  The national gay rights agenda states clearly
>that gays are not seeking any special treatment such as affirmative action
>quotas.

Any law that sets aside a specific group or groups for special consideration
that are not afforded the rest of us creates special rights.  Even
if that law provides special sanctions if ORDINARY rights are denied
a certain group, by the fact that it gives that group avenues of redress
unavailable to the rest of us grants that group special rights.

Calling the people that point that out 'racists' or 'homophobes' or
any other derrogetory does not change that fact.  Most people have no
objection to laws that provide redress and penalties when someone
is unfairly discriminated against.  They have a BIG problem when that
law is written to apply only to certain groups or classes of people,
denying that avenue of redress to those outside the specified groups.

>The Oregon constitution states clearly already that *no* group can have
>special privileges not granted to everyone else, except as spelled out in
>the constitution.  The lack of initiatives to change the Oregon
>constitution should be taken as prima facia evidence that there is no
>desire to gain special rights for gays.
>
>Your words and attitudes are coded.  "Special rights" has come to mean
>laws that attempt to right previous wrongs.  In my canvassing efforts

Two wrongs (discrimination in this case) don't make a right.  Canvassing
results depends on how the questions were worded.  One can get almost any
results they want by carefully wording the questions.

>on Measure 9, it became clear that many people were transferring their
>resentment against African-Americans and their "special rights", such
>as affirmative action quotas, to gays.  Racists in today's society are

Are you calling folks who oppose affirmative action racist in paragraph above? 
That is ONE way to reduce opposing viewpoints, I suppose...

>frustrated that simply expressing their biases can result in negative
>consequences.  There are few circumstances in which most racists can
>safely speak their minds.  Instead, they redirect their rhetoric toward

What happened to free speech?  Or is it taken to mean 'freedom of APPROVED
speech'?   What happens if the climate were to reverse, and those who
express pro-gay or pro-black stances face civil/criminal sanctions?  (I
also note that such limits on speaking ones mind are NOT applied to
blacks or gays - when was the last time, for example, a black was brought
into court for uttering a racial slur?) Just because an abridgement of
rights supports one's agenda at the moment does NOT make it right.  It
is still wrong, and still an infringement of rights, which if tolerated,
could well backfire at some time in the future.  Not pointing out and
denouncing such abridgement because it happens to be convenient suggests
a degree of hypocracy.

Double Standards are alive and well in civil rights issues, it seems.

>groups which are unprotected.  Sometimes they redirect more than
>rhetoric, and gays die.

Murder is allready illegal. Are we to understand that because someone
is gay, they merit EXTRA protection under the law? How does one determine
if speech would result in assault on a gay? Because that is difficult,
we must surpress ALL speech that questions any policy singling out gays?

>The weakness in the OCA position is that the transfer of hate doesn't
>really work.  First, in general, gays are not economically disadvantaged,
>nor discriminated against while they are in the closet.  They don't need
>affirmative action: they mostly already have good jobs.  Second, you
>can't tell a gay person by looking at him, so all of us know and respect
>gay people: we just don't know it.  Third, the scientific evidence is
>becoming clearer about the basis of homosexuality, and the OCA is wrong.
>Ultimately, science will resolve this issue, as long as we don't succumb
>to an era of "political" science.

Then why are any special pro-gay laws needed?  Assault is allready against
the law.  If they don't need special access to employment, the problem
can't be there.  If one is denied employment for reasons other than
performance related reasons, that is also illegal.  So why a law, if it
doesn't afford some sort of special consideration in some sort of way?

Perhaps I am wrong, but it appears that any law would have to be such
that one must have to PROVE that employment was not denied because the
person fell into some group (black, gay, whatever) - in short, that if
the person denied a job opening falls into one of these categories, the
employer must show a bunch of EXTRA proof that the reason for choosing
another was not because the employer does not 'like' the persons category.
The employer is considered guilty of descrimination until proven otherwise?
It sounds an awful lot like being asked to prove a negative (absense of
a discriminatory reason), not to mention assuming guilt before proof.

Since the person in question IS black, or gay, or whatever, it is ASSUMED
that the denial is because of discriminatory reasons.  If this is the
case, the employer may well be inclined to give preferential treatment
to avoid the hassle and expense of an unfounded accusation, because the
burden to prove innocence is placed on the employer.  Is the black or
gay required to prove (other than by the person being black or gay and
that the job was given to another) that they were treated unfairly, or
is the accusation plus being black/gay enough? Call me a <insert pet
derrogatory> if you want, but that still does not make the above situation
right.  It makes it doubly wrong when one tries to surpress comments
considering problems such as the above by tagging those who bring these
up with a negative label.  Such tactics do not belong in a free society.
-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"