sue === >From jrhelie Tue Oct 12 21:44:34 1993 Received: by igc.apc.org (4.1/Revision: 1.110 ) id AA21579; Tue, 12 Oct 93 21:44:31 PDT Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 21:44:31 PDT From: John R. Helie Message-Id: <9310130444.AA21579@igc.apc.org> To: suev Subject: HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS Status: RO Sue, FYI and post where appropriate. John /* Written 7:24 pm Oct 11, 1993 by conflictnet@igc.apc.org in igc:cn.research */ /* ---------- "HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS" ---------- */ CONFLICT RESOLUTION CONSORTIUM INTRACTABLE CONFLICT/CONSTRUCTIVE CONFRONTATION PROJECT Developing Constructive Approaches for Confronting Seemingly Intractable Conflicts Working Paper 93-27, July 20, 1993 [1] HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS: CONSTRUCTIVE RESPONSES TO COLORADO'S AMENDMENT 2 By Joseph de Raismes City Attorney Boulder, Colorado Let me first confess my biases. I am the City Attorney, so I am representing the City of Boulder, which has an anti- discrimination ordinance which was adopted in 1989. Also, the City of Boulder is a plaintiff in litigation against Governor Romer and the Attorney General, Gale Norton, attempting to invalidate Amendment 2. So, I am not going to be very objective about describing the proponents of Amendment 2 and you should probably not expect me to be. My additional biases as the City Attorney have to do with having spent three years as an attorney on the national staff of the American Civil Liberties Union as well as five years in the Attorney General's office, which was only a partial antidote to my civil liberties biases. On the other hand, one needs to recognize that there has been an evolution in the thinking of civil libertarians in this country. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union, which firmly advocated the rights of the Nazis to march in the streets of Skokie, has been on record in the last two terms of the Supreme Court as being in favor of hate-crime legislation and has attempted to defend hate-crime legislation against First Amendment challenges. So, civil libertarians in this country have moved from a firm individualistic stance on First Amendment issues to looking at societal consequences and wondering whether this is the kind of society we all really want to live in. Additional biases I have are linked to having been involved in litigation, in legislation, and in mediation concerning abortion demonstrations and anti-Persian Gulf War demonstrations. I am the founder and godfather of the Community Mediation Service in the City of Boulder, and at Harvard Law School I was a student of Roger Fisher's. Also, I helped with the mediation of the "bubble zone" involving abortion clinic demonstrations, which was first adopted by the City of Boulder and more recently by the State of Colorado. So, I come to this question, as to many questions, with a bias toward mediation as a way of solving social problems. But, I do not think this particular conflict over the rights of gays and lesbians in our society is currently a conflict that can be resolved by mediation. The mediation we did for the "bubble zone" did not resolve that conflict, although politically it laid the groundwork for an ordinance which has been quite successful in at least mitigating some of the effects of that conflict on women seeking abortions. So, I have enthusiasm for mediation as a process and yet some battle scars and some cynicism about using mediation to solve certain types of conflicts. Also, we need to understand that the Amendment 2 conflict is about sexuality. Because of this we need to give each other the space to be crazy about sex--because we are. We are very crazy about this subject. No matter what our orientation may be, we tend to react very quickly. We know sexual orientation is formed by approximately age six and it tends to be extremely resistant to change. Expert witnesses for both the plaintiffs and the defendants in the Amendment 2 hearings all testified to this fact. It isn't known whether sexual orientation is genetic or whether it is formed by socialization-- this may never be known. Experts testified that either thesis can be disproved. Most likely, it is a multivalent phenomenon--a confluence of both socialization and genetic factors. It may not be very helpful to answer this question because it is not known what would be done with the information. It may be more dangerous to know. There are at least three orientations: homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual. There are probably at least as many types of homosexuality as there are of heterosexuality. Thus, this is an area of great disagreement and complexity. I was educated in the process of the trial as to the extremely simplistic nature of the discussion on both sides of the question of what it is that gives rise to a particular sexual orientation. I was made aware, as a practicing heterosexual all my life, to the real difficulties experienced by gays and lesbians who are closeted, who have to go through the experience of what sometimes is called "internalized homophobia." This is according to what is called "gay affirmative therapy," where the person has to overcome their own self-hatred. To do that one has to affirm sexual identity, even though in that process, social and family conflicts are created; there is pain on all sides. We need to understand the pain of the person that is coming out or the one who is not--both choices involve pain--but also the pain of the family, the pain of friends, and the pain of society reacting to gay sexual-identity affirmations such as gay rights parades. I believe in understanding and compassion toward all sides. Some of the background literature in the Amendment 2 case involves the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association know as DSM-4. DSM-4 marks an important diagnostic watershed because it no longer classifies homosexuality as a disorder as did an older version, DSM-3. Until publication of DSM-4, homosexuality had been considered a psychological disorder. Now "disorder" is defined as a sexual orientation with which one is uncomfortable, whether it be homosexuality or heterosexuality. If one is uncomfortable, it is a problem; if one is comfortable, it is not a problem according to the American Psychiatric Association. However, this classification and diagnosis is not a universally accepted view. It clearly points to a very political question. This classification change coincided with a societal movement, sometimes referred to by the religious right as "the gay agenda," toward more acceptance of--or the demand for more acceptance of-- homosexual lifestyles. Homosexuals held gay pride parades, kiss- ins, and other gay rights actions. These activities have created a reaction on the right, sometimes typified by Coloradans for Family Values, the organization which spearheaded Amendment 2. This organization talks about the "gay agenda" much as the nativists in the late nineteenth century, sometimes called the "know-nothings," talked about the protocols of the elders of Zion--the supposed documents by which the Zionist conspiracy was going to take over the United States. Paranoia exists on all sides in this issue. Recently I was involved in negotiations among various local groups in preparation for the preliminary injunction in the Amendment 2 case. We were to decide whether the City of Boulder would defy Amendment 2, indicate our willingness to abide by the judge's order, or indicate our concern that absent an order, we might be prevented from enforcing our anti-discrimination ordinance. During these negotiations I had a very modest view into the internal conflicts that exist among homosexuals in Boulder over what their political agenda ought to be in light of the confusion and mutual accusations that have come out since the passage of Amendment 2. It is very sad to see, not only society in general, but friends and lovers parted as a result of the political challenge created by the passage of Amendment 2. Amendment 2 is deeply discriminatory. There is not a fair debate about that. There may be some who will attempt to convince us that Amendment 2 is an enactment of what are sometimes called "special rights." That is, frankly, purely a canard. There is no respectable intellectual argument to that effect. Amendment 2 states: Neither the State of Colorado through its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts shall enact, adopt, or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance, or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices, or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim they need minority status, quota preferences, protected status, or [and this is the important one] claim of discrimination. It is necessary to closely analyze this statement. The Amendment states that no government in Colorado shall enact or enforce any policy whereby any lesbian, homosexual, or bisexual may be entitled to claim discrimination. This means that unlike a vast number of other groups in our society, including heterosexuals (who are not mentioned in the Amendment) and religious orientations, homosexuals and bisexuals may not claim discrimination in Colorado if Amendment 2 is sustained. Any other group, whether they be majoritarian or minority, involved in any kind of ideological struggle can claim discrimination based on their class. Unlike all of those others, uniquely, homosexuals and bisexuals will be denied that right if the Amendment is upheld. That is blatant discrimination. It is discrimination most obviously because of the error that the Amendment 2 drafters made when they adopted it, which reveals their agenda. Instead of saying there can't be any claim of discrimination based on sexual orientation, which at least would have presented a facade of neutrality, they said this particular group may not claim discrimination. They overplayed their hand and in the process they showed what their claim of "special rights" was really about. More broadly, it states that gays and lesbians can be denied access to the voting booth and can be fired arbitrarily based on their orientation. One of the extremely important implications of this is that someone with AIDs can be fired, not because they have AIDs, but because they are homosexual. Of course, the pay-off is that an employer will not have to pay health insurance under a health insurance plan. It is important to reveal this implication because there is a lot of false consciousness surrounding this debate. Gays will not feel free to speak or come out of the closet because in doing so they will risk a legitimized discrimination that has been grafted onto the State Constitution by Amendment 2. This is an obvious, blatant violation of the First Amendment in addition to a violation of Equal Protection. Why did Amendment 2 happen? It happened because of prejudice and as a backlash to the movement for gay rights. Our society was able to be more, at least superficially, tolerant in an era when gay rights were not as blatantly demanded and presented. Perhaps it was hypocrisy; perhaps it was what Herbert Marcuse refers to as "repressive tolerance"--keeping people in line so long as they do not assert themselves too boldly. Ironically our society was probably more tolerant before this process began. It may be more tolerant, still, after the process is done. But in the mean time, we are in a phase of struggle. Amendment 2 also represents a backlash against affirmative action, having nothing to do with gay rights. This fact was indicated by polls after the election. The language in the Amendment addressing "special rights" reflects an attitude among white males and probably some white females--expressing a feeling of being threatened by other groups which have claimed quota status. These other groups have claimed affirmative action more broadly, but a portion of the majority population feel that homosexuals are another group that can potentially make that claim, and that it is time to stop it. This backlash is typified by people who are probably ideologically on the right but may have no particular feelings about gay rights. The "special rights" theme hit a nerve in that general ideological direction. There is now also a backlash against the boycotts instituted by some ill-advised actions in New York and from some probably better-intentioned actions in Colorado. Now 51 percent of the population is firmly in favor of continuing Amendment 2, with only 43 percent in favor of repeal as of January, 1993. Those numbers continue to get worse for those who think Amendment 2 can be repealed. The only solution in the short-term is to defeat Amendment 2 in the courts. In the long-term, of course, one hopes that these attitudes will continue to evolve and the reactivity generated by the boycott will begin to fail and people will begin to, perhaps, feel some economic consequences. But, those economic consequences, frankly, are pretty hard to predict. Although I understand fully, politically, why the boycott is happening, I think that we all have to understand that it is a dubious utility for deterring other states from adopting similar amendments. The Coloradans for Family Values group was invited to Colorado by the El Pomar Foundation which put $4 million into moving the headquarters to Colorado Springs. There are now 53 rightist groups who have established themselves in Colorado Springs--it is now basically the center of the Christian right in the United States, a shocking development in Colorado. Colorado has traditionally had a tolerant view. That is evident when looking at our statutes in the area of abortion rights prior to Roe vs. Wade. More recently Colorado was the first state to adopt the "bubble statute." This is not a state that could be fairly characterized as a "hate state." Frankly, if Amendment 2 can pass with the kind of slick campaign that it had last November in Colorado, it can pass anywhere in the United States. We should all be very frightened about that. The response to the campaign, the language about "hate state," "hate is not a family value," and the Equal Protection Coalition were obviously not effective. The general falsehood of the issue of "special rights" was not effectively refuted. The tie-in to affirmative action was not thoroughly recognized. As a result the family values cluster spoke to a certain sector of our society about issues such as abortion rights, the rights of minorities in our society, and many things about which some people are angry, but which they don't usually express, especially to pollsters. We all thought that Amendment 2 was going to fail until election day. All these things were mobilized in a way which produced a bare majority, but nonetheless, a majority on election day. This relates in some ways to the history of Boulder's anti- discrimination stance. In 1972 Boulder held its first gay rights referendum which was in response to the city council passing a gay rights ordinance. The ordinance was defeated in the referendum and then subsequently, a gay council member, Tim Fuller, was recalled and the mayor, Penfield Tate, was defeated at the next election. Not coincidentally, Pen Tate was our first, and so far our last, black council member and black mayor. A referendum passed in 1989 enacted Boulder's second ordinance. This was done in a very, very low key way. There was, as is traditional in Boulder campaigns, very little of the kind of emotional hyperbole that was present in the Amendment 2 election. There was not the stirring of emotions as there had been in 1972. As a result in 1984, it passed. It seems that in a more rational, less-emotionally inflamed context, people are willing to be tolerant. Once emotions, especially their emotions about sexuality and affirmative action, are engaged, it appears that there may be a different result. The key in all this seems to be getting to a deeper part of our humanity, which is our understanding of each other. How to do that is the challenge before all of us as we try to figure a way out of the current impasse over Amendment 2. In terms of the case, we currently have a preliminary injunction from Judge Bayless issued in February. We continue to litigate that case and the Supreme Court will be arguing the case on May 24, 1993. The discussions in local groups have been very instructive for me. There is no monolithic gay agenda. There isn't even a monolithic gay organization. There are as many organizations as there are people at times. We have groups like BOND and BOLD; there is also the Queer Nation group in Boulder. There are a number of different groups with different ideas about how to pursue their agendas. For some, they want to pursue confrontation in an effort to express their outrage. It is a very difficult situation for everyone and it is a testimony to people's ability to get along that we have managed to keep this thing together as long as we have without people splintering. But frankly, the notion of getting the Queer Nation group in the same room with Colorado for Family Values seems to be a very unhelpful way of thinking about how to resolve this. So, although I do favor mediation as a technique for bringing groups together, I suspect that it is somewhere in the middle that it is going to have to come together--not on the extremes. We have one local case of sexual discrimination currently pending, a very important one involving a firing that occurred just before Amendment 2. This case is coming up for hearing soon and will underscore the importance of dealing with this issue. We have another case currently in discussion phases where the firing occurred immediately after Amendment 2. Other than that, most of our cases have been resolved by some form of mediation to a point where the complaining parties were satisfied. But we need to realize that people's jobs and their livelihood are at stake and we need to understand how important that is in addition to their issues of identity. How could we handle these issues better in the future? We need more concrete information about what is at stake. We need to understand what sexual orientation is, when it comes about, and that it is not a choice in the way in which Colorado for Family Values thinks about it. It is not some form of mal-depravity, but a part of human existence. Slogans and media campaigns are really inimicable to the rational solution of such matters. Also we need to realize fundamentally that our state Constitution is too easy to amend. Alexis de Toqueville once said, "Constitutions are made to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority." If a bare majority of Coloradans can enshrine discrimination in our state constitution, we need to look at whether that is a rational process for protecting minority rights. I favor a two-third majority, because that is what it takes to amend the federal constitution. We need to ask ourselves whether a bill of rights should be so easy to change--whether it ought to be so subject to the winds of prejudice in our society as Colorado's Constitution now is. ____________________ [1] This paper is an edited transcript of a talk given by Joseph de Raismes for the Intractable Conflict/Constructive Confrontation Project on April 10, 1993. Funding for this Project was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the University of Colorado. All ideas presented are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Consortium, the University, or Hewlett Foundation. For more information, contact the Conflict Resolution Consortium, Campus Box 327, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0327. Phone: (303) 492-1635, e-mail: crc@cubldr.colorado.edu. Copyright. 1993. Conflict Resolution Consortium. Do not reprint without permission. >From jrhelie Tue Oct 12 21:45:16 1993 Received: by igc.apc.org (4.1/Revision: 1.110 ) id AA21668; Tue, 12 Oct 93 21:45:16 PDT Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 21:45:16 PDT From: John R. Helie Message-Id: <9310130445.AA21668@igc.apc.org> To: suev Subject: THE MEDIA'S ROLE Status: RO More of the same John /* Written 7:24 pm Oct 11, 1993 by conflictnet@igc.apc.org in igc:cn.research */ /* ---------- "THE MEDIA'S ROLE" ---------- */ CONFLICT RESOLUTION CONSORTIUM INTRACTABLE CONFLICT/CONSTRUCTIVE CONFRONTATION PROJECT Developing Constructive Approaches for Confronting Seemingly Intractable Conflicts Working Paper 93-28, July 20, 1993 [1] THE MEDIA'S ROLE IN THE AMENDMENT 2 CONTROVERSY By Mike Booth Reporter with The Denver Post I'm a reporter with The Denver Post. I have covered a number of different subjects for them but I've been covering Amendment 2 for about a year now. Before November we, like a lot of people, thought Amendment 2 would fail and go away very quickly. Obviously it didn't. Since November I have been covering Amendment 2 full- time; I haven't been writing about anything else. People at the paper often ask when I am going to get bored with it; so far I haven't been the slightest bit bored. I am fascinated by all the topics it involves. If I have a personal bias in this issue it is in favor of as much fair and accurate information as possible. That has been sorely lacking from both sides throughout the entire debate, especially from Colorado for Family Values. But both sides have played a role in disseminating information that has hurt the quality of the debate. It has been a very emotional conflict and the need for accurate information is even more important in such a conflict. I don't know how many times in stories we have tried to explain the dispute over "special rights" and the fact that protection against discrimination itself is not a special right. After the election I was getting a dozen calls a day from people arguing with me about my coverage--usually from conservatives saying that we were a mouthpiece for the gay groups and that we weren't even trying to be unbiased in our coverage. But, "special rights" kept coming up over and over again. People would call me from an office where they were arguing about Amendment 2 and put me on their speaker phone so I could explain it to groups of people. Even after explaining it to people in person, they will often not believe what you have said or simply misconstrue it. The paper has been through a lot because of Amendment 2 issues, mostly consisting of attacks from the conservative side on our coverage. We have lost a great number of subscriptions, by far more subscriptions than on any other political issue that we have ever written about because of people's perception of our coverage. Most often, the perception is that we are a mouthpiece for gay groups. This reaction escalated with the boycott. That seemed to upset people who normally would have never picked up the phone and called the newspaper. It has upset people to a degree more than any other political issue in Colorado. They seem very disturbed that people were trying to attack their state and, ultimately, their jobs, ironically exactly mirroring how gay and lesbians must feel about their job security. The boycott seemed to threaten a lot of people where they hadn't been threatened before. Some of the tactics employed by both sides contributed to the position that we are in now, which, according to the polls, seems to be like before the election, perhaps going even further in the direction favoring Amendment 2. No one seems to be willing to change their mind. Particular tactics contribute to this impasse. The term "Nazi" was used so frequently by both sides during the debate that we got very tired of hearing it, and very tired of trying to determine exactly what was meant when it was used. Conservatives would say, "They are trying to create a police state where no one can discriminate, where no one can make any choices on anything." The Colorado Springs human rights ordinance that was defeated was called a gestapo tactic because of the way that it would have been enforced. The liberal side's first reaction is to call Colorado for Family Values "Nazis" or "Fascists." Once this sledgehammer word is used, there is no way to get beyond it. It is the ultimate weapon because there is nothing worse in our history than what the Nazis did. So this term implies a horror that is unimaginable. How can you discuss a point after that? Quoting the Bible is another tactic that is very difficult to get around and stifles further debate. The group that promoted Amendment 2 and many of their supporters believe that everything in the Bible is literally true--this is a very fundamentalist point of view. Therefore, in discussing an issue they always have an alternative position in quoting the Bible and if the Bible says it is true, there is no room for further discussion of the matter. This is another tactic that should be kept out of future political debates because it stifles genuine debate. Such people never allow themselves to change their position because they have a document in front of them that they consider to be the ultimate truth. They will not move from that position because they think that doing so would be a sin. So, it is very difficult to talk about anything once people start quoting the Bible. The liberal groups and moderate groups that were arguing Amendment 2 also used the Bible, but they used it differently. They were willing to engage in a theological debate about what exactly the Bible might mean in a certain section. That debate cannot take place with people who are on the far right side of the issue. A fundamental thing that needs to change if we are to get anywhere near mediation is for people who are on the liberal to left side of this debate to strive to come to some kind of understanding of the people who are in the middle, the right, and the far right side of the middle. That seems to happen even less frequently than it happens with the people on the right side of the issue trying to understand the left-wing side. The right clearly has its misconceptions about what gays are like, they have their stereotypes, and to them it is all about sex. On the other hand, there are people who fought against Amendment 2 and are still fighting against Amendment 2, who think that everybody that voted for Amendment 2 and advocated it is a card-carrying member of the either the Christian Coalition or Colorado for Family Values. That is simply not true; 810,00 people voted for it in Colorado--they are not all members of these groups. We have to keep repeating that over and over again if anybody wants to get beyond the present impasse. The philosophy that was espoused by Colorado for Family Values reached deep into the mainstream of Colorado. That is why it passed. It cut across economic and educational lines. The demographic studies done from polls after the election show that it cut across minority lines as well. The voting for this issue crossed over any expectations of ideology or patterns that one can think of, except perhaps, geographic ones. Denver, Boulder, Aspen, and all of the ski counties except Grand County and a couple of others here and there voted against Amendment 2. But everywhere else in Colorado, the majority of people voted for it. Even in places like Denver the vote against the Amendment was less than 60 percent. To understand this means realizing that not everyone who voted for Amendment 2 or has some problem with homosexuality comes at it from a religious perspective. Many of the phone calls and conversations at the paper are with people who say, "I'm not a religious person." That is their first comment. Their second comment and the comments that lead off from there indicate that they have a gut reaction to homosexuality that prevents them from being tolerant. There is this gut reaction, right or wrong, among a large number of Americans. That is why movements like this are spreading to other states. Some people have some flutter in their gut when they think about homosexuality; it is just not homosexuality, it is about sexuality in general. Americans have a very difficult time talking about these issues. But when talking about a minority view of sexuality and a sexuality that has been criticized for centuries as homosexuality has been, it gets even more difficult. That gut feeling will have to be addressed if there is to be a rational mediation of the dispute. Is homosexuality a choice, or is it genetics? Ultimately, Joe's1 conclusion was that the answer may not be that important right now. Even if it is a choice, what does that mean in terms of discrimination? We don't allow discrimination against other choices, such as religion. But there is another reason that the answer can be important. It is not the most important issue right now, because it is no where near being solved, but it can be important in the future. I spent a lot of time in the last few weeks talking to various religious groups, not fundamentalist religious groups necessarily, but everyone from Presbyterian Church USA which has a very strong liberal streak in it, to a lot of other churches that vary greatly in their views on homosexuality. Many do not consider themselves fundamentalists, but within their congregations, there is great variance when they talk about official church doctrine. The Presbyterian Church for example, has had a running dispute on this issue for several years. They considered a new report on sexuality in America and the recommendations in that report which advocate an end to discrimination against homosexuals and the ordination of gay ministers before their General Assembly. These recommendations were adopted and have been upheld. They ended discrimination in the Presbyterian Church. One of the ministers describing this issue focused on the fact that the difference between choice and genetics can be very important to a certain portion of the congregation that are uncertain about their beliefs on the issue. They may want to be tolerant, but they still have this gut reaction. If it was proven to them to a reasonable degree that homosexuality is genetic and that there is no way to change it, many problems would be solved for the Presbyterian Church. Their view is that if it is genetic, if it is inherited, it cannot be a sin. Therefore, it would take away the disapproval that is currently attached to homosexuality in their church. If homosexuality is no longer a sin then they can get beyond that issue. Thus, there will be another group that is perhaps willing to come to a more rational conclusion to this debate. So the genetics versus choice issue, although it is not the burning issue right now, is potentially a very important question for a lot of mainstream religions in America. Another common view fueling the impasse in the Amendment 2 debate is the assumption that what happened in Colorado was part of a conspiracy by the religious right manipulated through lines leading directly to Pat Robertson's group in Virginia. This conspiracy context, more adamantly proclaimed immediately after the election than now, portrayed the Amendment as part of a carefully orchestrated plan. There is certainly collaboration among the groups. Colorado for Family Values agrees with most, if not all, of what Pat Robertson says on television everyday, along with other groups in Idaho and Oregon. Colorado for Family Values did coordinate some of the legal wording of Amendment 2 with the National Legal Foundation, which used to be a branch of Pat Robertson's group and is still very conservative. Also, they had support from groups around the nation for everything from the way that they wrote their literature to the way that they ran the grassroots campaign. But, I'm not sure if that's any different from a liberal in one part of the country consulting with the ACLU on how to write a piece of legislation or another group in Washington, People for the American Way, about how to get their issue passed and how to get support from mainstream voters. But, with the amount of reporting that I have done on it, I don't see it as necessarily more of a conspiracy than has occurred among other groups that have fought for political change in different parts of the United States. There are eight states now (Minnesota just passed such protection) and more than one hundred cities that have passed gay rights protection. This equally could be considered a conspiracy among liberals to pass gay rights legislation around the country. But it is not seen that way; it is seen as a political movement, as an evolution of values. Over time we may see that is simply what has been happening with the religious groups on the right-wing side of the issue. So, the conspiracy issue should also be set aside in order for people to get a better understanding of what exactly did happen and, therefore, how to change what happened. In the matter of responsibility, gay activists and their supporters in Colorado could also have done more with respect to a measure that we haven't mentioned--Greg Walta's compromise. Walta is a Colorado Springs attorney who has been very active in civil rights issues. He wrote a compromise measure. Walta called it a compromise; Colorado for Family Values called it a capitulation. Many people had trouble with the compromise measure because Walta specifically mentioned the term "special rights." Those unsure of the measure felt that in trying to achieve a compromise this loaded term should not be used. What Walta was trying to do was to diffuse "special rights." In the compromise he pointed out that there is no such thing as special rights and there is no such thing as job quotas for gays right now and it is unlikely that there ever will be. Walta also addressed the issue of discrimination and the extension of discrimination protection throughout the state. He was hoping to get this measure on the 1993 ballot in order to end this controversy. Walta ran into trouble for a number of reasons and it looks like now he might not have been able to get it on the 1993 ballot because of the way the legislature is interpreting Amendment 1 and some other laws. But, even if he had been able to get it on the ballot, he faced a lot of opposition from groups in the liberal community in Boulder, Denver, and Aspen and especially the gay activist community. This opposition stemmed from the fact that he had written some exceptions and exemptions into the law for who would not be covered by the discrimination clauses. Even though most of the laws I have ever seen do include exempted groups such as religious organizations, small apartment buildings or two-family homes, etc., there was an immediate protest on the exemptions. Many gay activists adopted the stance, "We can't compromise on civil rights; the minute you start to compromise you are giving up something." Well, the fact is that people have always compromised about civil rights in order to get things passed. Every civil rights bill that has been passed is some form of a compromise because that is the way things work when things have to be voted on. Walta since has withdrawn the measure, and has said that he will not come back with it until 1994, if ever. There was a responsibility in the liberal community and the gay community to take a closer look at the measure drawn up by Walta and to give it more consideration, to spend more time talking about it, and to more carefully consider what kind of compromises they were willing to make in order to have this situation go away. ________________________ [1] This paper is an edited transcript of a talk given by Mike Booth for the Intractable Conflict/Constructive Confrontation Project on April 10, 1993. Funding for this Project was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the University of Colorado. All ideas presented are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Consortium, the University, or Hewlett Foundation. For more information, contact the Conflict Resolution Consortium, Campus Box 327, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0327. Phone: (303) 492-1635, e-mail: crc@cubldr.colorado.edu. Copyright. 1993. Conflict Resolution Consortium. Do not reprint without permission. [2] See CRC Working Paper #93-27 by Joe de Raismes. >From jrhelie Tue Oct 12 21:45:53 1993 Received: by igc.apc.org (4.1/Revision: 1.110 ) id AA21750; Tue, 12 Oct 93 21:45:50 PDT Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 21:45:50 PDT From: John R. Helie Message-Id: <9310130445.AA21750@igc.apc.org> To: suev Subject: CONSTRUCTIVE RESPONSE Status: RO Even more /* Written 7:24 pm Oct 11, 1993 by conflictnet@igc.apc.org in igc:cn.research */ /* ---------- "CONSTRUCTIVE RESPONSE " ---------- */ CONFLICT RESOLUTION CONSORTIUM INTRACTABLE CONFLICT/CONSTRUCTIVE CONFRONTATION PROJECT Developing Constructive Approaches for Confronting Seemingly Intractable Conflicts Working Paper 93-29, July 20, 1993 [1] CONSTRUCTIVE RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT 2 By Ann Sebren Boulder Organization for Non-Discrimination (BOND) I'm with the Boulder Organization for Non-Discrimination (BOND). I'm a lesbian member of that organization. I would like to say that as a lesbian I could not and do not speak for the gay and lesbian community because we are an incredibly diverse group of people. We cut across many different lines of the population from class and gender to economic status and religion. There is no way that I could have one voice for that extraordinarily disparate community so I speak as a white, post-Protestant Christian, middle- class, Southern, lesbian academic. That will give you some clue as to why I say some of the things that I do. This conflict is multi-faceted, multi-layered and multi- colored; it can be seen many different ways depending how it is presented and the social conditions framing it. That it is why it is so incredibly complex. I will outline some of the dimensions that frame this conflict. Historically, probably the most important dimension of the conflict over homosexuality in this culture has been religious; this particular aspect should not be underestimated. The orientation about homosexuality in this culture has religious roots. People who might say that they are opposed to Amendment 2 because they have a gut reaction to homosexuality and not because they are really religious, have a consciousness that has been passed down through the ages because of a particular religious orientation whether one is practicing religion or not. So the religious dimension is a core aspect of this whole conflict. To do any kind of mediation, this particular facet of the conflict will have to be dealt with. What this implies are questions and beliefs about ultimate reality: Is there a God? What is God's role in the world? What is God's role in this nation? How is the world supposed to be ordered? How should this culture be ordered? Who decides that? How is that justified? From a religious orientation, often times the conflict becomes one of interpretation of particularly relevant Biblical verses. People often have a very compelling reason not to go further in examining their beliefs about certain topics--they believe they will go to hell. So, the fact that people have that particular practicing religious orientation is another aspect of the conflict that is going to have to be considered. Also, the religious aspect involves the fact that no longer is it just about relevant Biblical verses; it is a question about what role Christianity is going to play in this culture, in this government, and in this nation. That is not an irrelevant question to this issue over the rights of gay and lesbian people. This cannot be overlooked. There is also a political dimension to the conflict. It is really about the issue of citizenship. We are at a time when we, as a society, are trying to sort out which citizens are going to be granted the right to privacy, which citizens are going to be granted the right to access to the judicial system to make a case on their own behalf, and which citizens are going to be given the right to equal opportunity for jobs, housing, and public accommodations. Who gets to decide these issues of citizenship is also at stake. Thirdly, there is a psychological dimension. Partially this conflict revolves around our beliefs about what it means to be human. We have an orientation by the majority of the people that to be human is to be heterosexual; therefore, to not be heterosexual is to be less than human. That is a fundamental belief that has to be examined when we talk about this conflict. Again it comes down to who is going to decide that in this culture. Who is going to decide what it means to be fully and acceptably human and how we are going to think, feel, and respond to each other on that basis? The other psychological dimension is the way we emotionally respond to the issue of sexuality. This response surrounds all of our very human fears and joys and the way we engage in being intimate. There is also the dimension of diversity. The gay and lesbian community is a very diverse group of people. There is absolutely no consensus in our own community about what we need to do in this crisis. We are still in a state of crisis this many months after the election; so we are scrambling individually and as a community to figure out how we need to take care of ourselves and what we need to do to protect ourselves. Consequently, we have many different groups with many different perspectives on how this conflict should be approached in the gay and lesbian community. There are many differences in the heterosexual community opposing Amendment 2 and they, as well, differ in their opinions on how this conflict should be approached. I had the dubious privilege of going to the Colorado for Family Values seminar held here in Boulder at Bethany Church. What I discovered at that event was that there is a real distinction between those who are leading and those who are listening and following. That seems to indicate that there is a middle group of people constituting the majority on this issue that can create the change. Change will not come from groups existing on the extremes of this matter. Historically, there is some reason to believe most social change has come about through such middle, mainstream groups coming to consensus. That fact should frame a constructive approach to mediation. That will be the target audience. Finally, from my perspective, I need to talk about deception. In the case of Amendment 2, much of what framed this particular conflict has been an outrageous display of stereotypes, distortions, and lies about the gay and lesbian community. No meaningful dialogue can occur without taking that into account; it is very difficult to further dialogue when there is an entrenched position based upon inaccurate information. Often in such circumstances people have no compelling reason to think otherwise. All of these dimensions are interconnected and need to be considered in any kind of constructive approach toward mediation or resolution of this conflict. Although there is no way to be certain that this is a conflict that can come to any real resolution, there may be some aspects of it that may be amenable to mediation, but here again, we are not talking about the broader social issues. The places where mediation may be possible is at the very micro, very local level where there exists disputes between two individual parties. Mediation or resolution at the state level will not occur in the near future. In thinking about what constructive approaches might be possible, sometimes I may seem quite optimistic and naive about the actual possibilities. But, it is necessary to state those ideas even if they may not be truly possible in a real world. First, before any constructive approach to mediation is possible, we have to define what is debatable. From a gay and lesbian perspective our right to exist and our right to full citizenship in this country is not a matter for debate. For us to even engage in debate with groups like CFV on that issue is to legitimize the view that perhaps our right to exist and our citizenship is a matter for debate. It is not debatable, that is a given. I would suggest that the gay and lesbian community take a position that says that this is not debatable. That is part of the intractability of this conflict because those opposed to gay and lesbian rights think that our forthright and accurate existence, much less our citizenship, is much disputed. Defining the debate and defining what is debatable must be part of any constructive approach. Also, language must be defined in any constructive approach to this conflict. Language has played such a powerful, powerful part of this issue that it can't be overlooked. For example, both sides, in some context or another, talk about the issue of family or use the word "family" but no one is really defining what they mean by that. Does family really mean male, female, and child--that's a family? Or does family mean the qualitative aspects of relating? How are we going to define that language? We have the same word being used on both sides without any real way of getting to what we are actually talking about. So, when we can get some distinct definition of what family means we can start talking about what the important, definitive characteristics of family are. This issue of language is even more important when the same accusations are being hurled in both directions. For example, it would be very easy for me as a lesbian to say, "Oh, describing this conflict is real simple. It is between those that want to do harm and those being harmed." Listen carefully to the rhetoric of those supporting Amendment 2 and you will hear the same thing. They oppose gay and lesbian rights because their perception is that they are going to be harmed in some way. What we don't have is a discussion about what "harm" means and the difference between perceived harm and actual harm. One of the core deceptive features of the pro-Amendment 2 argument is that granting gay and lesbian people their right to exist as full citizens is the same as giving gay and lesbians license to have sex with children. That is a core emotional piece of their argument and it can't be disregarded. There is abundant evidence to demonstrate that this is a falsehood; but, it is a perceived fear supported by information that has no basis in reality. If Amendment 2 is allowed to stand, gay and lesbian people in this state will not have full participation in our government. It will be legal to discriminate against us: we can lose our jobs; we can lose our homes. In turn, we will have no legal recourse in the court system to make a case on our own behalf. That is actual harm. There must be a discussion about perceived harms and actual harms so that we can bring this to a state of reasonable dialogue. In terms of strategies from a gay and lesbian perspective, I would love to speak about what I think the other side could do, but I think that is their responsibility. I can't speak to that, but I can speak about my views about what the gay and lesbian community can do. I would again like to say that a lot of my views will not be shared by everyone in the gay and lesbian community, so these are thoughts from my own lenses. The first strategy, as gay and lesbian people, involves the fact that we have to start speaking our lives. We must start telling our stories, be out, and be visible. This means being present both personally and, when we can, publicly. Of course, that needs to happen only when gay and lesbian people can do so without severe risk or retribution, because we should not demand of ourselves that we put ourselves at more risk. Secondly, and I have been thinking about this aspect since I went to the Colorado for Family Values seminar, there is especially a need to start defining common ground. There are some people in the gay and lesbian community who would suggest that finding common ground with the CFV types is a matter of selling-out and trying to make ourselves like them so they will like us. But, I believe that finding common ground doesn't mean pretending to be like someone. Finding a shared commonality is absolutely a precondition for any kind of communication. We have many things in common with the people who voted "yes" on this Amendment. We have shared pains and experiences, we are as afraid of job loss as they are, we have all lost people to death, we all, as humans, have the experience of what it feels like to ostracized. There ought to be a way that we can begin to talk about this in some way. We should have some shared beliefs because we are all American citizens. We should at least have some shared rhetoric about democracy, about the right to individual privacy, the right to individual choices, and in some cases, gay and lesbian people are going to have shared religious beliefs with those who voted "yes" on the Amendment. We have shared social concerns about violence and crime and child abuse. At the CFV seminar a core piece of a film that they showed and a core piece of their rhetoric was the issue of gay and lesbian sexual molestation of children. I realized then that we are all very concerned about the abuse of children. What would happen if we approached the members of Bethany Church with a plan that would incorporate gay and lesbian organizations in working with the church to address child abuse in Boulder? They wouldn't know how to respond to that. But there has to be some place where we can invite them to come work with us on a shared social issue. Lastly, we have to begin to reframe the issues. This entails the role of the media. We have to start holding the media, and those in influence, accountable for actual and not stereotypical portrayals of the issues. For example, the issue of child molestation is an issue of abuse, it is not an issue of sexual orientation. Also, there is the issue of the images broadcast from the San Francisco gay pride march containing what most of us would call bizarre behavior. But they are no different than heterosexual behavior during Mardi Gras in New Orleans. This then becomes a cultural commentary about what we think about in engaging in sexual relationships. The issue is not about sexual orientation, yet, you never see those parallels made in the media. Also, gay and lesbians need to determine if there are some legitimate criticisms that we need to be willing to look at. For example, there is an organization that CFV uses in their rhetoric. This organization is a group of men who engage in child sexual abuse. Not all gay and lesbian publications allow this group to advertise in their publications but some do and when gay and lesbian publications allow that in their publications, we are implicitly condoning such behavior. That is a legitimate criticism we need to consider. But, because our community is so diverse we are not yet at a stage within our own community and development that we can even begin to talk to each other about that. While some things are not a matter for debate, we also have to be willing to examine our actions to see whether or not we are contributing to the derogatory perspectives about gay and lesbians. __________________________ [1] This paper is an edited transcript of a talk given by Ann Sebren for the Intractable Conflict/Constructive Confrontation Project on April 10, 1993. Ms. Sebren is currently working on a major revision and extension of this paper, which will be available from the CRC in a few months. Readers wishing a copy of the revised version should call or write the Consortium to obtain it when it is available. Funding for this Project was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the University of Colorado. All ideas presented are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Consortium, the University, or Hewlett Foundation. For more information, contact the Conflict Resolution Consortium, Campus Box 327, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0327. Phone: (303) 492-1635, e-mail: crc@cubldr.colorado.edu. Copyright. 1993. Conflict Resolution Consortium. Do not reprint without permission.