NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/motss/54131

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 7.0 KB | 145 lines

Newsgroups: soc.motss
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!news.dtc.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hpuerca.atl.hp.com!mhr
From: [e-mail] (Mike Reaser)
Subject: Re: Attention Skiers Boycotting Colorado
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:10:22 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: a stone mountain of Kudzu
Lines: 134

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Walter Smith) writes:

[ ... passages deleted to save bandwidth ... ]

>As for businesses, there's a few things to be considered here.  First,
>the passage is still a fairly recent event; second, it has become
>such a emotionally and politically touchy issue, that I suspect
>most businesses would rather be invisible on the subject rather
>than risk making people locally even more angry.  Companies are
>business units, not political units.

But business units usually want to make sure they are operating in a
"friendly" political unit.  Amendment 2 ensures they are not.

>You've got to take human nature into account; I think a lot of
>people were suprised that #2 passed.  I think there would have
>been even more opposition to #2 WITHIN the state had the boycott
>*not* happened.  Now it's turning into an issue of "will one state
>allow other places to dictate to them how to handle their internal
>politics".  It has become a matter of will, instead of a matter
>of human rights, which is sad.

So Colorado can take away rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution,
but no one is supposed to be concerned?  No one from outside the
state is supposed to show any displeasure?  Get real...

>>     The fact is, that no matter what an individual town/county
>> did on 11/3, the net effect was that more people voted for bigotry
>> that voted against it.

>Bob, do you REALLY think that's what people were voting for, for
>bigotry?  Do you REALLY think 53% of the people here are bigots?
>It's just that sort exaggeration that makes people NOT want to
>get involved.

If they are not bigoted then they are ignorant, because they voted
_FOR_ a measure without understanding it.  There were several
amendments and referenda on the Georgia ballot on which I did not
cast a vote because I knew nothing of them.

>What *is* suprising to me is that with all the national attention,
>there have been no polls (that I've heard of) done to determine
>why various people did vote for #2.  Does anyone know of any
>plans for this?   It might serve to de-emotionalize the issue,
>and lead to some (rare) intelligent commentary on how to fix it.

Amen to that.

>> While standing in line in McDonalds, the
>> odds are that either the person in front of me or in back of me
>> voted to take away my rights.

>Voted to take away your rights...(assuming you lived here...) and
>people wonder why not enough is being done about this issue..Bob,
>*most* people who voted for #2 had no desire to take away anyone's
>rights.  They were voting 'yes' based on the 'special rights' part,
>and not the basic human rights that MOST people think everyone
>should have.  That has been said over and over again, and still
>there is rhetoric like what you're saying, or spraying in places
>like Boulder/Aspen...which only paints the picture that pro-boycott
>people don't care about the 'issues' as much as they care about
>a show of force, and 'punishing' people if they can.  Petty and
>vindictive.  I've seen a lot more hatefulness in the boycott than
>in the foolish vote that caused it.

But, Walter, rights _WERE_ taken away.  You can rationalize all you
want about what the voters _thought_ they were doing, but the reality
is that should our employer fire both of us due to our sexual
orientation (for some wild reason, HP suddenly decides to employ only
bisexuals), only you would have any legal recourse -- a claim of
discrimination based on your heterosexuality would be allowed to
proceed in a court of law, in any administrative agency, etc., while
mine, since I'm gay, would be dismissed immediately thanks to the
amendment.

If you think I'm going to sit back and see a part of my country decide
I'm a second-class citizen, guess again.  I pay my taxes, I have my
rights -- and now, you have more rights than I do.  Something about
the words "All men are created equal" and the fourteenth amendment to
our federal constitution seem to ring false for me in Colorado.

Shades of Orwell's _Animal Farm_ -- because now Colorado has designated
heterosexuals as "more equal" than homosexuals.  How nice.  :-(

>>     People who are worried about how my not spending $$$ in
>> CO will affect them should have done some more thinking prior
>> to 11/3.

>This struck me as a really pompous statement...but then I thought,
>"what exactly could have been done prior to 11/3?"...I think the
>most effective thing would have been to examine the 'special rights'
>portion of the amendment, and show that nobody was trying to *get*
>special rights in the first place, so there was no need to pass
>an amendment to the constitution against them.  That would have
>left the 'no protection from discrimination' part as the 'teeth'
>of the amendment, and most people would not have voted for it
>then.   We can't cry over spilt milk, saying what could have been
>done beforehand; but that would be an effective thing that could
>be done *now*.  But people seem much more motivated to attempt
>a show-of-force, and to *make* people change their vote.

You're really enamoured of the word "force" aren't you?  Well, the
state of Colorado has _forced_ any homosexual to either remain in the
closet or face the wrath of employers, housing agents, etc., without
any legal recourse available.  If I can't make the citizens of the
state understand that I will not accept second-class status because
they view my basic civil rights as "special", then I will get angry
and not hesitate to show my anger.

>> I'm just a little weary of every
>> mention of CO:2 having some obilgatory statement trying to
>> instill guilt in irate out-of-staters...

>And people here are weary of every mention of #2 having some
>obilgatory statement trying to say that 53% of the people
>want to take away your rights.  It shows either an uninformed
>position, or an intentional attempt to furthur inflame the
>issue more than it already is.

Uninformed?  53% of the people who voted (as opposed to 53% of the
citizens -- is that any better?) _DID_ vote to take away my rights.
You can make a legal claim of discrimination based on your heterosexuality,
while I cannot based on my homosexuality.  On what basis can you claim
otherwise?

>Walter

--
=======================================================================
 Mike Reaser, Hewlett-Packard N. Amer. Response Center - Atlanta
 Internet:  [e-mail]
 NBCS: B5 f t w g+ k s              I barely speak for myself, so
 #include <standard.disclaimer>       don't make me speak for HP
=======================================================================