NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/motss/54170

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 8.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!spdcc!rdonahue
From: [e-mail] (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Attention Skiers Boycotting Colorado
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:08:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Dec30.190817.17066
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: insert anything here
Lines: 170

[e-mail] (Walter Smith) writes:
>[e-mail] (Bob Donahue) writes:

>>     All well and good --- I fail to see why then, that so
>> many Coloradoans and Colorado businesses are spending more time
>> telling us why we shouldn't penalize them for CO:2 than they
>> are screaming to the power that be to have it removed.

>I've gotten the impression that there was very biased coverage
>of this whole issue, and this confirms it.  The 'powers that be'?
>You mean like the governor of the state, who now has a group of
>fanatics trying to get him *recalled* because he OPPOSES #2, and
>has come out and said so?


    Yeah, so?  What's your point:  that he shouldn't have
come out against it?  that his not liking it has made it go away?
that in the 9 mothns before the election the adgenda of the
poeple who hate should have been made more clear?

>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.

    Thus a boycott --- their invisibilty is going to cost
them $$$ in the long run.  From what you're saying here, that
coming out anti-2 is worse than saying nothing, implying
that CO is at this point in control of those who hate.
I menation this because it becomes the answer to your question
later on.

>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.

    Oh --- I see you're confused:  the boycott happened
AFTER CO:2 passed, not before.  The opposition was supposed
to occur to PREVENT it from passing, not to be a reaction
to its passage.  I though this was self-evident to the most
casual observer.

>> perfectly honest, I have not heard anything other than the
>> complaint issued by the city of Boulder that was co-signed
>> by Martina Navratolova.  On the other hand, though, there doesn't
>> seem to be any shortage of people pleading for economic clemency
>> on behalf of <fill in supposed supportive community here>.

>Look at it from a practical point of view.  A company may not
>want to get involved in the political issue when it is being
>turned into a battle of wills.  Instead, they emphasize the fact
>that *they* are against discrimination, and have policies they
>enforce to that effect.

    And CO:2 makes it impossible for me to *use* those policies
should I need to.  How many times must we say this before it sinks in?
An EE statement on paper is worthless if my rights have been abrogated
from making sure its enforced.

>>     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.

    Oh bullshit --- people are *involed* when they pull the
lever --- I know that some people were confused but that's a
direct result of the purposely ambiguous way it was worded on the
ballot, plus the lies that were continually put forth in the media
without rebuttal.  Guessing how many people goofed is useless.
The facts remain: 53 out of every 100 people, or at least one of
every two people that voted, voted YES.  It is the onus of the
people of Colorado (that's you Walter) to "fix" it.  IF you
don't want to fix it, fine say so, and we'll be sure to never
bother you again.  If you're intending to fix it - DO IT and
stop whining about the ways the rest of the country registers
their disapproval.  Get it?

>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.

    Does it matter?  Really?  I mean if all the people who voted
yes say "I did it cuase I hate fags" make any more of a different
than "I did it thinking I was voting FOR gay rights but was mislead
by the wording of the ballot", in the end it's my rights.  Which
are *supposed* to be a matter for debate.

>> Even in such supposedly enlightened
>> places such as Aspen and Boulder there were certainly enough
>> people who voted YES on 2, that I could spin in a circle, pissing,
>> and hit more than one.

>Charming picture...how many 'no' voters would you likely piss
>on in the process?

    Less than who voted 'yes'... duh.

>> 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.

    Again this special rights crap.  Do you KNOW what special
rights are Walter?  Marriage is one.

>>     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.

    No, we are motivated to remove a state's constitutional
amendment that removes due process from homosexuals.  We are motivated
to stop this from happening again 10-15 times in the 1994 gubernatorial
elections.  Since it will take about 2-5 years for CO:2 to be overturned,
are facing having to redo 25+ years of gay rights work because you
people didn't get it right the first time.  Sorry I'm so upset
about this, it's only my life after all...  Thilly me.

>> 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.


    Neither of us is uninformed - one of us doesn't understand
the issue.  The other one is living it.  Gee, now who do I find
more credible?

BBC