🚀 go-pugleaf

We do not plan to address many of the points made in your response to our
original posting, since there were so few that had any content other than
emotional rhetoric. We think that, instead, better care should have been
taken to edit the homophobic motivations clearly present in the response. 
For example:

In article <16B5CA3FB.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
> Did you ever stop to think that such a law might also actually
> discriminate against gays?  Employers might look for telltale signs 
> of someone being gay ...

What are these telltale signs anyway? Do you think that one can really
determine someone's sexual orientation by the way they look? 

Instead, we wish to point out that it is incorrect to consider Amendment #2
as a quota enactment. As we originally pointed out, the amendment makes it
legal to discriminate against gays, and furthermore, makes it illegal to
enact laws forbidding such discrimination. For those who cannot easily
interpret the original wording of the amendment, or understand our first
posting, nor the persons that elaborated on and echoed our statement in
follow-up postings, and who insist, like Focus on the Family/Rocky Mountain
Family Council (the originators of the amendment), that the amendment simply
bars quotas, we wish to cut out a few of the redundant words in the amendment
to illustrate its intent and full force.

	AMENDMENT 2  (AMENDING THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION)  
   "Neither the State of Colorado ... nor any of its agencies ...
    shall enact ... any statute ... whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual 
    orientation ... shall ... entitle any person ... to have ...any ... claim
    of discrimination."

Please check against the full wording of the amendment included in our
earlier posting that there are no significant words edited out of it.
If it is not now unambiguous, we cannot make it much clearer.

_mike_cox

Mimi Recker