NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/co/general/2458

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-10 | 5.2 KB

Xref: sparky co.general:2458 rec.skiing:9362 rec.travel:17530
Path: sparky!uunet!van-bc!rsoft!agate!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!csn!copper!mercury.cair.du.edu!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!aburt
From: [e-mail] (Andrew Burt)
Newsgroups: co.general,rec.skiing,rec.travel
Subject: Re: Colorado amendment 2 information / boycott
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jan 93 16:12:35 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Lines: 94

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric LeSatz) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>a Moslem from a Jew by looking at him/her?  Can you tell a married person from
>>a single person?  No?  Then why do we allow laws against discrimination based
>>on religious belief or marital status?  Why doesn't the amendment apply

>Hate to differ with you, but I'm paying higher auto insurance rates
>because I am a single male, under 25 years old. I'm clearly being
>discriminated against because of my marital status, sex and age, but
>you don't hear me crying about it.

But, here's the important thing, which you should know, since you're a law
student -- you still have grounds for a lawsuit, if you want to pursue it.
There is no law that says "single adult males under age 25 cannot claim
discrimination".

To my mind, the ENTIRE issue is whether a group should be singled out and
denied a right to claim discrimination.

Clearly if someone is in a group that has violated the law, e.g., an ex-con,
then they may have different rights (e.g., losing the right to bear arms).
However, until we declare that being homosexual is illegal, or being an
adult male under age 25 is illegal, no legal group should be denied any
rights.

I think the underlying issue is that, for some, they'd like to see being
homosexual treated as an illegal group.  Amendment2 is an easy way to do
this.  The problem is that it's not an illegal group in Colorado!  I refuse
to stand by and watch rights get stripped from ANY legal group.

Of course, if Amendment 2 read "homosexuality is now a crime", it would have
been a much different matter.  I think a core issue is that many folks want
to interpret A2 this way since that's perhaps how they feel.  But it's not
a correct interpretation!!!  It is not illegal to be homosexual in Colorado,
therefore it is inconsistent to deny them rights.  I don't know how
anyone with a brain can fail to see the logic of this.

Backers of A2, put aside for a moment your feelings about gays, and
substitute for it any other legal group -- it doesn't come out right,
does it?

We need to thus either eliminate A2, or broaden it so it covers everyone:
"No person shall be able to claim discrimination".  Probably not a good idea,
but it would be consistent at least.

>I think most homosexuals are just a bunch of paranoid _____. Just like
>they will label me as "homophobic" because of my last sentence.  Well,
>if homosexuals are in such bad shape, being fired all the time, etc.

Who says they are???  It's just that now they can't even claim this.

>how come they are above average in income?

It doesn't matter if it were true, which I don't know about.  Who the hell
cares if it is????  If it were, one reason might be that, on average,
they're a highly intelligent, hard working group of people!  Boy, I bet
that would scare a lot of fundamentalist religious types.

Does that mean they should be denied rights?  Maybe we should just deny
rich people the right to claim discrimination?

>This brings up the point
>that there should be laws that reduce the number of homosexuals in
>high level positions so that heterosexual income will be more equal to
>homosexual income. But no, you and the media don't want to hear that
>do ya?  You just want to hear the one in a million horror story about
>the poor person who was fired because he was gay. But then you never
>hear about the nice settlement that the company gives the homosexual
>in question when he/she files a lawsuit.

What do they teach in law school these days, anyway?  I seem to recall from
my own (non law school) education that the Founders didn't guarantee
everyone equally comfy lives, just the right to start out on a level field.

"All men are created equal" -- doesn't say must finish equal.

>And I will certainly enjoy skiing in Colorado this winter. You might
>be surprised about the silent majority whom is coming to Colorado just
>because Amendment 2 was passed.

This is the scary part.  That there might exist a lot of people smugly
sitting back, quietly, thinking "aha, one step closer to making homosexuality
illegal".  This silent majority stuff is as close as I get to believing in
Illuminati & such.  I think if someone believes in something that strongly,
they should be willing to be vocal about it.

Of course, I also tend to believe that the majority of people are often
uninformed on any specific issue.  I'll stick with representational democracy
for myself, thanks.
--

Andrew Burt                                  [e-mail]

"But if he was dying he wouldn't bother to carve "Aaaaargh", he'd just say it."