From: zstewart@nyx.cs.du.edu (Zhahai Stewart)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Amend. 2, What it means or doesn't mean.
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:15:47 GMT
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.

>>I disagree.  Pre-Election polls showed Amendment 2 clearly failing and
>>yet it passed by a comfortable margin.  This suggests to me that
>>people knew that this amendment was bigoted.  I know how the 
>
>The logic escapes me.

It's not pure logic, actually; the sentiment he was expressing is usually
based on the empirical experience (in many places and times) that in matters
involving tolerance, pre-election polls tend to show a significantly greater
degree of tolerance (whichever direction that is for a particular issue) than
shows up at the ballot box.  Non-tolerance issues don't show the same bias.
The theory is that folks don't want to sound intolerant (or bigoted, or
whatever) to the poll takers, so bias their responses some.  Once it's down
to the real vote, with real consequences, and no human who knows which way
they voted, a larger percentage switch towards the "less tolerant" side than
vice versa.  This is so well known (by close observers), that the opponents
of #2 felt that they wouldn't feel comfortable about winning unless the 
pre-vote polls showed at least a 20 point lead (against #2).  The pre-vote
polls showed #2 losing, but never by that 20 points.  So it was not surprise
when the vote shifted the other way.  As I say, this is based on long
experience, not abstract logic.

The poster is presumably using this as evidence (not proof) that this was
indeed perceived by voters as a "tolerance" issue, since it followed the
typical behavior of such issues.

>The reason I mentioned tolerance and respect in my original post is 
>because I believe those qualities give us the answers, as in "I respect
>your right to be gay, and you respect my right not to be, and my right
>to not want to hire you or live with you."  Morality, ethics, tolerance,
>consideration, and respect CANNOT be legislated.  Using force or the 
>threat of force (i.e. a law) will never work.

First off, no laws forced anyone to live with anyone.  Some would have
given recourse if a landlord (not living in the same dwelling) refused
to rent to somebody just because they were heterosexual.  Or homosexual.

Secondly, cities like Boulder, which had such a law, voted overwhelmingly
against the constitutional amendment.  This was an example of people not
in Boulder using the law (force or threat of force) to impose their will
on the people of Boulder.  In this case, you may think that's a fine idea,
because you agree with the amendment.  Some day, you may find that you
resent your community being dictated to by a group who lives elsewhere.
That is: the people of Boulder never forced the people of Colordo Springs
to follow Boulder's consensus; the reverse is not true.

Of course, civil and human rights laws do sometimes impose on a local
community's values; sometimes discrimination or worse is locally popular.
There is no full answer to this.  However, until now, none of the cases of
the larger community imposing on the local one were based on singling out
one group as legitimized targets of discrimination (prohibiting all laws
and regulations against X is essentially legalizing it).  That is a new
low, and a bad precedent.  It's one thing if the State tells a city: you
cannot discriminate against Baptists even if locally a majority would like
to.  It's a whole different thing when the State tell a city: anyone can
discriminate against Baptists and you cannot do anything to help even if
locally a majority is against discrimination.

This could spark a trend, towards singling out groups FOR discrimination.
In different states and locales, different groups may be targeted.  While
I respect your views on there being "two sides" to such issues (and I would
have no problem if you lived in Denver or Boulder and voted against the
ordinances there), I hope you can see that #2 is a new beast.

Note that #2 doesn't say that quotas and special rights (much less equal
rights) cannot be made on the basis of sexual orientation.  Laws that
require all janitors to be heterosexual are perfectly legal.  It singles
out one group for discrimination, making no mention of the others.  This
is not about providing equal rights to both groups, it's about legalizing
discrimination against one targeted group.

The director of CFV says that their group is now preparing to go further
in advancing its agenda.  What do YOU think they will target next?  That's
a serious question, not rhetorical.  They do not feel that they have now
accomplished their goals, only that they've made a start.  Think about
that, please.

>I respect your right to your opinion.  Can you tolerate my disagreement?

That was directed at someone else, but I will answer: sure.  It's good to
discuss these things.  You seem to be a reasonable person.  Thanks for
describing your viewpoint so well.
   ~z~
Newsgroups: co.general