🚀 go-pugleaf

cddugan@ouray.cudenver.edu wrote:
> 
>         The following exerpted article, by Barry W. Lynn, first appeared
> in the Feb. 1996 issue of _Church & State_.  The "Parental Rights
> Amendment" is on the Nov. 5 Colorado State ballot as "Amendment 17."  The
> Colorado version would add to the state constitution the inalienable right
> "of parents to direct and control the upbringing, education, values and
> discipline of their children."  A Virginia-based group, "Of The People,"
> with ties to the Christian Coalition, and Focus On The Family, has
> supplied nearly 100% of the funding for Colorado's Amendment 17 ballot
> initiative.  They have stated that Colorado is a test case.  If the
> so-called "Parental Rights"/Amendment 17 passes, Of The People plans to
> introduce similar ballot initiatives in and additional 27 states. -cd
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>                 WHAT'S WRONG WITH 'PARENTAL RIGHTS?'
> 
>         Proponents of something called the "Parental Rights Amendment"
> are trying to amend all state constitutions and eventually the [US]
> federal constitution.
>         The proposed amendment states: "The right of parents to direct
> the upbringing and education of their children shall not be infringed."
>         ...What's wrong with this amendment?  On first reading, it
> certainly sounds innocuous.  As a parent, I want my rights... Why the
> fuss, then?
>         The Religious Right insists that public school officials have
> some nefarious scheme for subverting "parental rights," primarily by
> choosing curriculum and other material that are at odds with their moral
> values.  The bottom line of the Parental Rights Amendment is to give
> parents active in Religious Right groups a type of constitutional "trump
> care" to override any decision public schools make that they don't like.
>         How would this work in practice?  The Massachusetts legislature
> gave us one example two years ago when it considered a "parental rights"
> bill that required two weeks' written notice to parents whenever the
> children were to be involved in any teaching or activity deemed
> "controversial."  These were not just the hot button topics of
> homosexuality and abortion, but everything from discussions of values to
> death and marriage.  Worse, if parents did not affirmatively "opt in"
> every time - actually filling out a form noting it would be all right for
> their children to be exposed to these topics - their children were barred
> from participation.
>         Can you imagine the chaos this would spawn, as teachers abandoned
> PTA meetings and course planning to pursue "wayward" parents who hadn't
> even received the permission slip?  (How many parents stumble on last
> month's homework, lunch news, "important notices," - and occasional
> sandwiches - while cleaning out their children's backpacks?)  What would
> actually happen, of course, would be that many teachers would steer clear
> of these subjects so that they wouldn't have to go through the burdensArticle Unavailable

cddugan@ouray.cudenver.edu wrote:
> 
>         The following exerpted article, by Barry W. Lynn, first appeared
> in the Feb. 1996 issue of _Church & State_.  The "Parental Rights
> Amendment" is on the Nov. 5 Colorado State ballot as "Amendment 17."  The
> Colorado version would add to the state constitution the inalienable right
> "of parents to direct and control the upbringing, education, values and
> discipline of their children."  A Virginia-based group, "Of The People,"
> with ties to the Christian Coalition, and Focus On The Family, has
> supplied nearly 100% of the funding for Colorado's Amendment 17 ballot
> initiative.  They have stated that Colorado is a test case.  If the
> so-called "Parental Rights"/Amendment 17 passes, Of The People plans to
> introduce similar ballot initiatives in and additional 27 states. -cd

Did Amendment 17 pass, and do you know the breakdown in votes?  (This 
appeared on my newsreader today, one day after the elections.)

LaVonne

LaVonne Carlson wrote:

> Did Amendment 17 pass, and do you know the breakdown in votes?  (This
> appeared on my newsreader today, one day after the elections.)
> 
> LaVonne
***************************

The amendment did NOT pass, but I'm not sure of the breakdown.  You
might want to check on  http://www.electionline.com  (I think that's
right!!). There's a link from http://www.abc.com  or nbc.com - one or
the other.

Stephanie

LaVonne Carlson wrote:

> Did Amendment 17 pass, and do you know the breakdown in votes?  (This
> appeared on my newsreader today, one day after the elections.)
> 
> LaVonne
***************************

The amendment did NOT pass, but I'm not sure of the breakdown.  You
might want to check on  http://www.electionline.com  (I think that's
right!!). There's a link from http://www.abc.com  or nbc.com - one or
the other.

Stephanie

*******and of course, right after I started sending this, I saw the post
from Chris...good timing! So, if you haven't seen it on the group yet,
here it is.
***********************************8

In what local pundits are calling the biggest surprise upset of
the Colorado General Election, Amendment 17, the "Parental Rights
Amendment" lost, 57% to 43% in Tuesday's balloting.  The measure, which
would have created an inalienable right of parents "to direct and
control
the upbringing, education, values and discipline of their children," had
been running approval ratings as high as 70% in the polls in the weeks
leading up to the election, and still held a commanding lead days
before. 

        97% of the funding to promote and place this initiative on the
ballot came from a single out-of-state Religious Right organization, Of
The People, who announced that Colorado would be a "test state" for this
type of constitutional amendment, which it intends to push nation-wide. 
Caught off-guard, opponents were slow to respond and organize.  TV spots
opposing the amendment did not begin airing until a few days before the
election.  The November 6th _Rocky Mountain News_ reported: 

         "Television and radio ads run by Amendment 17 opponents the 
week before the election hammered home the message that the amendment's 
vague language was deceptive and dangerous and could complicate child 
abuse investigations and prosecutions and turn schools into ideological 
battlegrounds, experts say.
        "'Opponents were able to mount a very, very effective campaign, 
raising a number of issues and questions about the amendment that took 
away the victory,' pollster Paul Talmey said.
        "Opponents, united under the Protect Our Children Coalition,
grew 
from 80 groups in early September to more than 150 by election time.  
Among their ranks were the state's district attorneys and county 
sheriffs, as well as teachers, doctors, nurses, parents, child-advocacy 
groups, and clergy."

        Locally, the "Parental Rights Amendment" was brought to us by
the
same faction which pushed through Colorado's notorious "Amendment 2"
several years back.  Amendment 2, which passed, explicitly denied civil
rights protections to gay people statewide.  Before it was struck down
by
the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional, Amendment 2 resulted in a
tourist boycott which cost Colorado millions of dollars, subjected us to
years of costly litigation, and made us the target of national scorn as
"the Hate State."  Coloradans are apparently more wary now of Religious 
Right zealots bearing "gifts" of this nature. 

Chris

Chris, does it not occur to you that if enough people feel strongly enough      
to propose a Constitutional amendment on this issue that perhaps there is      
some merit in it?   
   
The issue is hardly one confined to the religious right; in truth it is a     
human right for children to be raised by parents. It seems very sad to me     
that there may be no way to insure that except to campaign for it.   
   
Lynn   
    
    
>     
> 	The following exerpted article, by Barry W. Lynn, first appeared    
> in the Feb. 1996 issue of _Church & State_.  The "Parental Rights    
> Amendment" is on the Nov. 5 Colorado State ballot as "Amendment 17."  The    
> Colorado version would add to the state constitution the inalienable      
right    
> "of parents to direct and control the upbringing, education, values and    
> discipline of their children."  A Virginia-based group, "Of The People,"     
> with ties to the Christian Coalition, and Focus On The Family, has     
> supplied nearly 100% of the funding for Colorado's Amendment 17 ballot     
> initiative.  They have stated that Colorado is a test case.  If the     
> so-called "Parental Rights"/Amendment 17 passes, Of The People plans to     
> introduce similar ballot initiatives in and additional 27 states. -cd    
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------    
[snipped opinion] 

lynnt@sean.oregon.com  ***  Mom to Kimberly, 15  ***   Homeschooler    
Aun Aprendo                     *****                    Team OS/2

warrenb@fc.hp.com (Warren Brill) wrote:

>Did it not yet occur to anyone that this "right" already exists? If some
>government agency seems to be abridging parental rights, a constitutional
>amendment seems like the wrong way to deal with it...how about guaranteeing
>a parent in danger of losing his/her kids the same "Public Defender" 
>accorded a common (but poor) criminal? This sounds like a better solution.
>I don't want _my_ children's education dumbed down by teachers afraid to
>teach the truth because some bigoted other kid's parents wants to run the
>schools. Anyway, the voters have spoken. 'Nuff said.
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"The Voters have spoken".  Hmmmm.  That's what I said after Amendment
2 was passed by those very same voters.

Dale Anderson
Boulder, Colorado
dalea@ix.netcom.com

Dale Anderson wrote:
> 
> warrenb@fc.hp.com (Warren Brill) wrote:
> >schools. Anyway, the voters have spoken. 'Nuff said.
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> "The Voters have spoken".  Hmmmm.  That's what I said after Amendment
> 2 was passed by those very same voters.
> 

Yes, but Amendment 2 was a flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Recognize the
distinction?                                                            
T                                                                     
                                                                      
-- 
Tim Cross
US West Technologies, PSRP Development Group, Denver
tacross@uswest.com  (303)624-2284 work  (303)833-4982 home
Do the four-leggers a big favor, and vote YES on Amendment 14
to ban animal trapping in Colorado.
My opinions, etc.

Dale Anderson wrote:
> 
> warrenb@fc.hp.com (Warren Brill) wrote:
> 
> >Did it not yet occur to anyone that this "right" already exists? If some
> >government agency seems to be abridging parental rights, a constitutional
> >amendment seems like the wrong way to deal with it...how about guaranteeing
> >a parent in danger of losing his/her kids the same "Public Defender"
> >accorded a common (but poor) criminal? This sounds like a better solution.
> >I don't want _my_ children's education dumbed down by teachers afraid to
> >teach the truth because some bigoted other kid's parents wants to run the
> >schools. Anyway, the voters have spoken. 'Nuff said.
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> "The Voters have spoken".  Hmmmm.  That's what I said after Amendment
> 2 was passed by those very same voters.
> 

I we wonder why we have a 50% registered voter turnout.

Well....I don't wonder why...

TimW

In article <328267a8.110825358@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Dale Anderson <dalea@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>warrenb@fc.hp.com (Warren Brill) wrote:
>>I don't want _my_ children's education dumbed down by teachers afraid to
>>teach the truth because some bigoted other kid's parents wants to run the
>>schools. Anyway, the voters have spoken. 'Nuff said.
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>"The Voters have spoken".  Hmmmm.  That's what I said after Amendment
>2 was passed by those very same voters.
>

And Amendment 17 was as poorly written as Amendment 2
and probably would have met with the same fate.  

Does anyone have any idea how much money got spent 
on Amendment 2 in the court system?  

Hmmm, what if they had both passed--would have been
interesting to see if people where screaming for "special"
rights for parents so long as they weren't queer.

Dale Anderson (dalea@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: warrenb@fc.hp.com (Warren Brill) wrote:

: >Did it not yet occur to anyone that this "right" already exists? If some
: >government agency seems to be abridging parental rights, a constitutional
: >amendment seems like the wrong way to deal with it...how about guaranteeing
: >a parent in danger of losing his/her kids the same "Public Defender" 
: >accorded a common (but poor) criminal? This sounds like a better solution.
: >I don't want _my_ children's education dumbed down by teachers afraid to
: >teach the truth because some bigoted other kid's parents wants to run the
: >schools. Anyway, the voters have spoken. 'Nuff said.
:                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

: "The Voters have spoken".  Hmmmm.  That's what I said after Amendment
: 2 was passed by those very same voters.

Touche'  BTW, though, there are some differences. A2 tried to take away 
rights already guaranteed to a group by virtue of them being Americans, 
and A17 tried to give rights already guaranteed to a group by virtue of
them being Colorad[o]ans. Another difference was the wording. A17 was
pretty clear (even though the _intent_ behind it was camouflaged as well
as could be done at the time), but a lot of people thought they were 
voting _against_ A2 when they voted _for_ it. I really liked the ballot
issue that limited ballot issues to 100 words or less - that one was 
pretty timely! Your point is well taken, anyway.


: Dale Anderson
: Boulder, Colorado
: dalea@ix.netcom.com

<-------------------------------------------------------------->
I ####     ####  Warren T. Brill		 	       I
I ##  /_  _  ##  email: warren_brill@hp.com  	               I
I #  / / /_/  #  Hewlett-Packard Co Fort Collins Colorado USA  I
I ##    /    ##  Personal opinions expressed here do           I
I ####     ####  not necessarily reflect those of HP           I
<-------------------------------------------------------------->

Warren Brill wrote:
> 
> Dale Anderson (dalea@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : warrenb@fc.hp.com (Warren Brill) wrote:
> : >...
> : >schools. Anyway, the voters have spoken. 'Nuff said.
> :                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> : "The Voters have spoken".  Hmmmm.  That's what I said after Amendment
> : 2 was passed by those very same voters.
> 
> Touche'  BTW, though, there are some differences. A2 tried to take away
> ...
> pretty timely! Your point is well taken, anyway.
> 

Like Mr. Anderson, you've missed the real difference, and that
is that Amendment 2 was UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and a clear violation
of the 14th Amendment. If the voters had passed an Amendment to
the state constitution prohibiting advocacy of left-handedness
in print, the courts would have thrown that one out, too, as a
clear violation of the 1st Amendment. The voters spoke on
Amendment 2, and what they said was, in essence, "Hey, we're
bigots!". Fortunately, the U.S. Constitution puts some limits
on what a majority can do to a minority by force of law, and
Amendment 2 was clearly outside of those limits.
Tim

-- 
Tim Cross
US West Technologies, PSRP Development Group, Denver
tacross@uswest.com  (303)624-2284 work  (303)833-4982 home
Do the four-leggers a big favor, and vote YES on Amendment 14
to ban animal trapping in Colorado.
My opinions, etc.

cddugan@ouray.cudenver.edu ( ) wrote:

[snip]

>	A "Parental Rights Amendment" won't make any difference to parents
>who aren't committing legal child abuse or neglect.  It only helps parents
>who are borderline abusers get away with battering their kids or keeping 
>them chained up in the basement.

[snip]

This brings to my mind another possible reason that Amendment 17
didn't pass:  perhaps the laws concerning the above are not inforced
to a high enough degree? If stronger inforcement of already-existing
laws about abuse came about, then parents might have voted for this
amendment.  Unfortunately, some of these kinds of abuse or neglect go
ignored while parents are being carted off to jail or tied up in court
for spanking or denying a child's "right" to learn about gay sex (or
any sex).  If the laws governing abuse of children could be justly
inforced, and we could trust the people who inforced them, more people
might have voted yes on 17.

Terry

>Chris

________________________________________________________________________________
Vote Libertarian in 96 (Harry Browne for President)! Just say yes to freedom!

Things are so much more like they are today then they ever were before.

"I once had a life-sized map of the United States... but I couldn't fold it up."
                                   -- Steven Wright