SHOULD AMENDMENT #2 BE ADOPTED? A debate held September 17, 1992 Armstrong Hall, Colorado College Colorado Springs, Colorado Participants: AL JOHNSON, Moderator WILL PERKINS, Chairman, Colorado for Family Values (CFV), pro-Amendment #2 BRUCE LOEFFLER, Spokesperson, Equal Protection Campaign (EPOC), anti-Amendment #2 NOTE: This document was transcribed from a video tape of the proceedings by the Denver chapter of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (303/331-2773). Editorial and audience comments are indicated in brackets. Audience reaction times in excess of five seconds are noted. Background: Colorado for Family Values has proposed, through the citizen initiative process, and has placed on the November 3, 1992 ballot, the following amendment to the Colorado Constitution: Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado: Article 2, of the Colorado Constitution is amended by the addition of Section 30, which shall state as follows: NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of 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 any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing. The Equal Protection Campaign (EPOC) opposes the passage of Amendment #2. MODERATOR: I want to remind you, and those that know me know that I feel very strongly about the rights to free speech, you may have strong opinions about this, but all persons have a right to their free speech. Therefore any heckling, or anything else [not distinguishable] the speakers in my opinion is totally inappropriate and I ask that there be none of that during this time. You're welcome to during the question period ask questions, but we are a country that believes strongly in free speech, the right of everyone. I've always been kind of worried wondering about hecklers, if the person has something to say, then maybe we ought to listen to them and find out what it is. If they don't have anything to say, then obviously let them say it. [audience laughter] Our two speakers are going to debate tonight the proposition "Resolve that Amendment 2 be adopted." We'll have the speaker for the affirmative argue that it should be adopted. That speaker is Will Perkins. I've known Will for quite a while because we were students together at Colorado College -- I'm not going to tell you how long ago, but he was in the class of 1950. [audience laughter] He's chairman of the board for Colorado for Family Values. He's a local businessman who owns Perkins Motor Company. And, I might pass on, that he was also at one time a baseball coach at C.C. as well as the assistant basketball coach. Upholding the opposite side of this, that the proposition should not be adopted, is Bruce Loeffler, a professor of Geology at Colorado College. I did not go to school with Bruce. [audience laughter] He's a spokesperson for the Equal Protection Campaign whose acronym is EPOC. Now the time limits that we will have for this debate, and I have told both candidates it will be strictly enforced -- I have someone with a hook to get them off the stage if necessary -- and I think it's only fair and that both candidates agreed to this. There is a time keeper sitting down in front of the podium who has assured me that he will give his full attention to timing this. He will hold up the cards showing the appropriate amount of time and I have asked both speakers when the stop time comes up that they finish the sentence that they are in and then please be seated. We will begin with the affirmative and will end with the affirmative with the following format: Each speaker will have six minutes beginning with the affirmative to state their position, then each speaker will have two four minute rebuttals, I believe that will take a total of 28 minutes, then we will have approximately twenty minutes for questions, and each person will have two minutes, if they wish to, to respond to a particular question. So, let me, without further ado, begin this debate by the affirmative, Will Perkins. MR. PERKINS: Thank you Mr. Johnson. I hope there's some Sigma Chis out there... I was a Sigma Chi... but, no Sigma Chis. Could that be personal? [audience laughter] As I start here I want to assure you that I understand very well that this is a very sensitive, tender subject. It involves a lot of love, it involves families -- on both sides of this issue -- and I approach this with that very much in mind. And also I'd like to remind you that, because this issue is... has pros and cons to it, that it's very important to remember that in a debate the purpose of a debate is to seek truth and we have to remove emotions from this and look at the evidence and that's what I encourage you to do tonight. I think that most of you have a copy of the amendment so I won't refer to that other than to say, "Why is Colorado for Family Values sponsoring this amendment?" Now the charge has been made that we are trying to build discrimination into the [Colorado] Constitution. As you'll notice that what is stated here in this particular proposed amendment specifically refers to homosexuality, [sic] lesbian, and bisexual orientation. Now why did we do that? Because the reason is pretty simple... The homosexual community is the only [not distinguishable] pushing for special status -- special protected status -- based on the fact of sexual orientation. And I think it's important that we remember that sexual orientation includes everybody. No one is left out. Even if you participate in no sex, that's an orientation. So sexual orientation includes everybody. Now, does this amendment discriminate against the homosexual community? The answer is "no." The reason for that is because when this amendment passes, homosexuals, bisexuals, lesbians, heterosexuals, and all other sexual orientations will be equal, the same way they are today. [audience laughter - 4 seconds] [To Time Keeper] I assume that I'll have extra time for that. As American citizens you have the same rights as any other citizens. Now civil rights, which is what this issue is about, is granted to classes of people who have proven as a class, that they have been discriminated to a point against [not distinguishable] to a point where they have not been able to make an average income, they have not been able to have the availability to have educational opportunities, they have been deprived of social amenities that are available in society, and the fourth point is the fact that you have to possess a clearly identifiable, visible physical characteristic which identifies you as a class of people that has protected status. Now the Supreme Court set these aside because when you give special rights to someone, you take those rights away from someone else. Now does the homosexual community qualify for special rights? Do they qualify to be considered equivalent to an ethnic minority? By their own research, the average income of a male homosexual is over $50,000 per household income. [audience laughter] The second thing is that over 49% have college degrees, 47% have either served in a professional capacity or they serve as a supervisor. Actually, there's 63% have college degrees. So they're not discriminated against, they're not under privileged in any of these areas. And they certainly do not qualify as having a particular characteristic that can be identified. Now, I would ask in that situation, Bruce... I would like for you to explain to me in the process of your discussion, how can you feel you're being discriminated against, how do you prove that you're a homosexual? Thank you. [audience applause - 8 seconds] MODERATOR: I will announce the speaker for the opposition, but from there on I would ask for the rebuttals --for the speaker to simply come up without further introduction. Speaking for the opposition, Bruce Loeffler. [audience applause - 18 seconds] MR. LOEFFLER: I appreciate the applause, but I think Mr. Perkins will appreciate if there's a little less laughter and more serious attention. [audience laughter] Let me first reiterate Al's welcome to Colorado College. I'm glad that you can be here tonight Mr. Perkins to discuss Amendment 2. While I vehemently disagree with you views, I do respect your right to say them. I would like to convince you -- the audience, not you Mr. Perkins -- I don't think... [audience laughter] I would like to convince you of three things this evening: First, Amendment 2 would legalize discrimination against gay men and lesbians, and would legitimize prejudice against them. Second, Amendment 2 is rooted in the religious belief system of one group and therefore is an attempt to impose religious beliefs on everyone through the political process. And three, that CFV's rhetoric surrounding Amendment 2 paints gay men and lesbians as sub-human. Amendment 2 specifically singles out gay and lesbian people for blatant discrimination and in so doing legalizes second-class citizenship. It acknowledge... It's acknowledged intent is to preclude any future civil rights protection and to eliminate all existing civil rights protection for gay and lesbian citizens. Discrimination against any group is morally wrong and counter to the ideals of a democratic society. This measure legitimizes prejudice, it codifies the assertion that gay and lesbian people are inferior, even dangerously so, and deserve specific legal condemnation. Stigmatizing an entire group rather than evaluating members of the group as individuals is the essence of prejudice. Once prejudice against any group is legitimized, there will be no limits to the expansion of prejudice against other groups. CFV says Amendment 2 is about [not distinguishable] special rights. However, you can not have special rights if you do not first have equal rights. In Colorado, gay men and lesbians can be denied jobs or be fired from a job arbitrarily simply because of their sexual orientation. We can be denied housing or evicted arbitrarily simply because of our sexual orientation. And we can be denied service in a restaurant or other places of public accommodation simply because of who we are. Gays and lesbians clearly do not have equal rights, and the passage of Amendment 2 will guarantee that we could never have equal rights in the state of Colorado. It would, in fact, write discrimination into the state Constitution. CFV attempts to cloud the issue by stating that Amendment 2 is about preventing gays and lesbians from gaining minority status or from having affirmative action programs. These are separate issues. For instance, you, Mr. Perkins, as a Christian, are protected from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations by the 1964 Civil Rights Act which makes discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and religion, among other things, illegal. Yet nearly 30 years after the passage of that act, Christians do not have the status of a minority group, nor are there affirmative action programs for Christians. But someone cannot be fired from their job simply because they are Christian. It is that simple, basic protection that gay men and lesbians need and want. And Amendment 2 would forever deny such basic civil rights protection to Colorado's gay and lesbian citizens. Mr. Perkins, you have argued that this is a political and not a moral or religious issue, but Kevin Tebedo, Director of CFV, has said that Amendment 2 is, and I quote, "A question of whose authority prevails in this society. Is it the authority of man, or is it the authority of God?" Tebedo, in his appearance at the First Congregational Church, went on to quote scripture and said that homosexuality was an abomination before the Lord. To me that sounds like homosexuality and Amendment 2 are religious issues for CFV. Amendment 2 is about one group's religious beliefs and about how they interpret the Bible. But not all Christians have the same problems with homosexuality. And a large number of mainstream Protestant denominations have come out against Amendment 2, including the Lutherans, Methodists, and Congregationalists. We have a strong nation with strong religious traditions. That strength, however, is based on the fact that no one religion controls the State. Amendment 2 is the attempt of one group, CFV, to legislate their religious beliefs into law. Finally, CFV says that this proposed amendment is not about hate and yet they have spent considerable time disseminating a barrage of misinformation about homosexuality. In press conferences, letters to the editor, and in letters sent to pastors in [not distinguishable]. They take data out of context, distort the facts, and generalize from specific individual behavior to the entire group. This stigmatization of an entire group is the essence of prejudice. CFV would have you believe that homosexuals are sub-human and therefor not deserving of basic civil rights protection. There are dangerous precedents in history, however, when one group is made to appear sub-human. Jews were seen this way in Germany before the holocaust. Black men in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century in America, like gay men today, were assigned a rapacious sexuality and this was used to justify lynching. What CFV is doing is very, very dangerous. You claim you are not motivated by hate. I do not doubt that you yourself believe this, but I personally cannot believe this. So I urge the citizens of Colorado to resist this attempt to enshrine discrimination in the state Constitution, this attempt to impose specific religious beliefs through the political process, and this attempt to define an entire group as sub-human. Thank you. [audience applause - 20 seconds] MR. PERKINS: Bruce, you may call me Will. I won't address the religious part of your questioning there because you mentioned it yourself. This is not a religious issue as is evidenced by the fact there are people on both sides. This is a civil rights issue. If it were a religious issue there would be only be [sic] religious people on one side or the other. [audience laughter] Now, as far as a person being fired because they are a homosexual, that's true. You can be fired in the State of Colorado because you are a homosexual. You can be fired in the State of Colorado because you're too fat, you're bald, you have too much hair, you're too pretty as a female, or you're not pretty enough. You can be fired for any reason that you can imagine. That you're a Democrat, that you're a Republican -- for any reason. Now theoretically, you can be fired in the State of Colorado. Realistically, there's not an employer in this state, there's not a supervisor, there's not a department head, and most importantly, there's not an attorney in this state that knows, if you're fired without just cause, it can be very expense for the employer. And believe me, being fired because you're a homosexual is not just cause. I don't think there is anybody who will argue that. I certainly wouldn't. I've been an employer for 47 years. I've never asked anybody whether they were homosexual. I just ask you to ask yourself if you've ever been asked if you are a homosexual when you rented a hotel room? Have you ever been fired from a job because you're a homosexual? Have you ever been deprived of being able to rent an apartment because you are a homosexual? So just ask yourself those questions and I'm sure you'll come up with some answer. [audience laughter] Now, as some... You never did answer my question, Bruce. One of the problems with granting civil rights -- special civil rights to homosexuals -- is the problem of identification. The reason that the Supreme Court set those very specific criteria -- you never addressed any of those -- you gave some general statements, Bruce, but you never addressed those specifics. And they're very important because they are the basis of civil rights legislation in this country. Civil rights is very important. Very important. Now, as we sit here today, there are two things in Congress -- Senate Bill 574, House Bill 1430 -- in which this is promoted and sponsored by the Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington, D.C. The purpose of those bills is to add "sexual orientation" to the Civil Rights Law of 1964. If those bills come out of committee and were [sic] passed by the Congress, in one sweep of the pen you would wipe out civil rights in America because "sexual orientation" includes everybody and "sexual orientation" is granted special civil rights we're back at square one. Again, I will ask you, Bruce, how do you identify and prove that you're a homosexual when you're discriminated against? [audience applause - 7 seconds] MR. LOEFFLER: First, I will reiterate that this does seem to be a religious issue. Kevin Tebedo said, I quote, "CFV is a Christian organization." He also said, and I quote, "Homosexuality is a moral problem for America." And I've already told you his quoting of scripture. So, I disagree that this is simply a civil rights issue. You say that gay men and lesbians cannot be fired arbitrarily from their job, that this won't happen... MR. PERKINS: I said they can. MR. LOEFFLER: In point of fact, it does happen. And there is no recourse against it if there are no laws to protect people of gay and other sexual orientations. Employees of Cracker Barrel Cheese [sic] were fired and told that they could not sue to get justice because there was no protection in their state. You say that the inclusion of "sexual orientation" would vitiate civil rights law because it includes everybody. "Sexual orientation" includes gay people and it includes straight people. Well, you're right. But so do a lot of other protected classes. Gender includes men and women [audience laughter/applause - 6 seconds] race includes everybody -- black, white, brown, and a few other colors -- that's a pretty inclusive category [audience laughter] the categories that are included in civil rights protection are, in fact, inclusive. You can't refer to this [not distinguishable] as special status. You say in order to be protected as a class you have to be disadvantaged, you have to have lower than average income, you have to have a lower than average education, and so forth and so on. Parenthetically, you misquote the data on average gay male income. It's not individual income, but household data. Most gay households... and most gay households have two incomes. You compare that to data for other families that don't have two incomes so it looks distorted -- once again you distort data. But in any case, we cannot extend civil rights protection based on economic status in this country. Since when were Christians, as a group, economically disadvantaged? Or under privileged? Or under educated in this society? And yet the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects them from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodation. And that's what we're talking about. We're not talking about getting minority status. We're not talking about taking rights away from anybody -- other minorities. We're talking about having the same, basic civil rights protection that every American citizen should have. Amendment 2 would write discrimination into the state constitution. It would disallow civil rights protection based on "sexual orientation," particularly homosexual, bisexual, and lesbian orientation. That would be a terrible, terrible thing. You ask how I know that I'm gay. I think that's for how [sic] anybody would know that I was gay. How would I be identified as a member of a class to be made a protected class? That's a very easy question to answer, but I would like you, Will, to [not distinguishable] explain to me how people would know that you are Christian. [audience applause - 16 seconds] MR. PERKINS: Bruce, I'm impressed by the fact that your biological training is adequate to address the difference between men and women. [audience applause/boos - 6 seconds] But I would call to your attention that your understanding of civil rights laws is lacking. The idea behind setting up a criteria for civil rights is because this is the criteria the Supreme Court has determined identifies classes of people who can demonstrate by historically [sic] this type of discrimination. Actually, it's not a discrimination because of affluence -- if you have enough money, you can overcome a lot of other things. [audience laughter - 5 seconds] The fact that you, you've been able to make a much higher household income -- thirty, uh, $55,000 for male homosexuals as opposed to the average household -- household, do you see that, household income -- is $32,000. And when you look at the traditional minorities, they're down in the ten, eleven, twelve range. So, you have not proven that the homosexuals, that whatever discrimination they're experiencing is making them an underprivileged class. Now, there's another thing that you've overlooked, Bruce. And that is the fact that there are no partial classes of people that are protected against discrimination -- you're either a protected class or you're not. You're either protected against discrimination and if that's the case you fall into the special rights that would be... that were granted by civil [not distinguishable]. There is no such thing as we just want protection in housing and we just want protection in employment. I've proven to you that you have the same protection in employment as everybody else. This is a scam, Bruce. That's why this [not distinguishable]. You're not looking for those, you're looking for endorsement. Now, it's important to remember, ladies and gentlemen, that I'm sure that everyone of you, college students in particular, are interested in civil rights. And we all are. It's very important. And we're no [sic] one here tonight... no one, whether they're wearing the same "YES" badge that I'm wearing or the "NO" badge that you're wearing, is interested in discrimination. We abhor discrimination. That's what this country is based upon. We fought wars... [audience laughter - 7 seconds] I... Again, Bruce, you said it's easy for you to know that you're a homosexual. How do I as an employer know that you're a homosexual when you come to find a job? Just... That's all I want to know. [audience applause - 7 seconds] MR. LOEFFLER: Well, once again we're worried about the criteria for creating a protected class in terms of civil rights. And again I would point out, not to keep using the same example, but Christians are protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act; they cannot be fired arbitrarily from jobs or denied housing or denied public accommodations. And yet I don't think anyone could argue that as a class they are underprivileged. But they still have civil rights protection; they are protected from basic discrimination. Gay men and lesbians, despite what Will says, are not. We can be fired arbitrarily from our jobs. We can be denied public accommodations. And if we pass Amendment 2 it will stay that way forever in the State of Colorado. Amendment 2, if it passes, will mean that no city, county, or any governmental agency will ever be able to extend civil rights protection based on "sexual orientation." There are three or four cities in Colorado that have already done this. So the passage of Amendment 2 will in fact enforce the repeal of existing civil rights protection for gay men and lesbians. I don't think that's a good idea. I don't think it's good to say to the voters of Denver, "We don't like what you have decided for your community." The voters of Denver did not come down here to Colorado Springs and say to us, "We don't like what you decided for you -- your community." And Colorado Springs decided not to include "sexual orientation" in its non-discrimination policy last year. So, I don't understand what the problem is. Furthermore, if we defeat Amendment 2 -- and I certainly hope we do -- it's not that gay men and lesbians will suddenly get equal protection. It would just be possible that it could be discussed in the future at the state level or at some other governmental level. A "YES" vote on Amendment 2 says that it can never be discussed and it will take away your right as citizens of Colorado to think about this issue, to debate this issue [not distinguishable] very complex. We do not extend civil rights protection based on income. Bill Cosby is one of the wealthiest men in America, and yet he still has protection as an African-American against arbitrary discrimination based on race. So I think it's important to recognize what this issue is about. I think before... that I thought the Colorado for Family Values was creating a very negative image, in fact they were constructing homosexuals as depraved people with all kinds of data. A quote from the editorial that you [Mr. Perkins] wrote in the Denver Post says that "homosexuals clearly show a radically deviant obsession with sex." [audience laughter] This is very typical for discriminated groups, that you try to make them hypersexual. [audience laughter] One of your major spokespeople, Paul Cameron, says, "I think homosexuality increases murder." [audience laughter] And Tony Marco writes, "Gay men can only be equated and compared logically with other sexual behaviors like heterosexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, rape, pedophilia, and, even in the case of a Jeffery Dahmer, who is sexually [not distinguishable] serial murder and cannibalism. [audience laughter] This is like defining the heterosexual community by Ted Bundy. [audience laughter/applause - 12 seconds] If Colorado for Family Values had spent half of the time it has spent defaming gay men and lesbians in spending time learning about homosexuality, learning the facts, getting some information, then maybe you would be less prejudiced. [audience applause - 18 seconds] MODERATOR: Since I believe both speakers used less time than they had [not distinguishable] informed. I'd ask the timer when we get to the last statements that you would give each of the speakers, starting with Bruce Loeffler, five minutes. We will now take questions from the audience. Questions? QUESTIONER #1: [To Mr. Perkins] Well, thank you for coming. I was at your home in young life and I'm a homosexual and I'm unemployed. I don't want to make speeches about myself, but my question to you is, "Do you believe that in the democratic system today, that should Church and State hold hands?" MODERATOR: [Repeats question] Mr. Perkins? Would you... MR. PERKINS: [not distinguishable] MODERATOR: [To Questioner] We might have a little bit more elaboration, please. QUESTIONER #1: Would you say that the Church and State in regards [sic] to being run solely by the government or solely by a Christian organization? MODERATOR: I think that's all the clarification we will have. [audience laughter] MR. PERKINS: I... You look familiar, but I don't know your name. What is your name? AUDIENCE MEMBER: Michael Gr... [not distinguishable]. MR. PERKINS: Michael Grable? Well, I'm sorry I didn't recognize you and I apologize, but [not distinguishable] glad you came to my house. Uh, Mike... I want you to remember that the Constitution gives us religious freedom. Now Bruce has assumed that I am Christian. And I am a Christian. [audience laughter] I don't know what Bruce is and I... as far as I know he may be a Christian also. He attends a Christian church. I will remind you that atheists are protected under religious freedom. And any other kind of religion. So, I am not sure what Bruce is trying to get at when he talks about religious... religions being protected by the Constitution. I think that protects everyone. Now in relationship to the Church and the State, I think that the [not distinguishable] that the country was founded on religious principles. It was founded by people who were seeking religious freedom. When they left the old country and came to America. So, I... but I think it was intended by the founders of our nation were to have government stay out of the Church which is what they were experiencing in Europe. And have the Church and men of principle, all kinds of principles, involved in government. [audience applause - 6 seconds] MR. LOEFFLER: Well, I agreed with Will wholeheartedly. And as I said before, this is a country with a very strong religious tradition -- it's part of what makes us so strong and it certainly is imbedded in our history. But a central element of that religious tradition is the First Amendment to the Constitution which guarantees the separation of Church and State. And the reason all religions are strong in the United States is that no one religion controls the State. And so I think [not distinguishable] encroachment of religion upon the State is dangerous. As I said before, from statements of the Director of Colorado for Family Values, Kevin Tebedo, that he clearly frames Amendment 2 in a religious context when he argues that homosexuality is an abomination before the Lord. And I think therefore it is clear that the position that Colorado for Family Values takes on Amendment 2 comes from their moral convictions that homosexuality is a sin which comes from their particular religious beliefs. I therefor see Amendment 2 as an attempt to impose one religious belief system on everyone else using the political process. I think that is inappropriate and I think it's even dangerous and detrimental to our society. I do think religion is important... I think it's important to our society, but I don't think any one religion should control the beliefs of everybody through the political process. [audience applause - 12 seconds] QUESTIONER #2: I have known a number of people who have been fired from their jobs, who are HIV positive, maybe a week after they've made their first claim on their insurance. And these are businesses in Colorado Springs. Can you tell me that there's nothing that would keep people who [not distinguishable] hire people and fire people because they fear that they may come down with HIV? MODERATOR: [Repeats question] I think it's more [not distinguishable] for a comment, starting with Bruce Loeffler this time. MR. LOEFFLER: I think discrimination based on HIV status is a very terrible thing. In fact, under the American Disabilities Act it is in fact prohibited. But it does go on. It's very interesting to me that in Colorado for Family Values literature they go on in great lengths about AIDS and HIV infection. And while they don't actually blame the gay community for AIDS, they certainly construct the gay and lesbian community as diseased and dangerous: "We don't want them around children, We don't want them in the military -- people get contaminated blood, people on the battlefield." And it goes on and on and on. It's a leitmotif in all of their literature. So in a sense, I think Colorado for Family Values is also playing on prejudice and misunderstanding around HIV infection. [audience applause - 7 seconds] MR. PERKINS: I guess you're making a lot of assumptions up here Bruce and I... it sounds as though you're assuming that the HIV people they are talking about are homosexuals. I don't think you can make that assumption. AIDS is something that the whole country's exposed to. I think it's just a matter of record that it started in the homosexual community. It could have started other places, but in America it started in the homosexual communities. That doesn't mean that it couldn't of started someplace else. The facts are that in America it started with homosexuals [not distinguishable]. I'm not a medical expert. I'm not an insurance expert. There are lots of conditions that insurance companies set up. Those conditions are set by the companies and not by employers. I don't know any of the situations that you're referring to, so I really can't comment on... If most insurances [sic]... with which I've had an experience with do not accept insurees that have a particular problem at the time that you buy insurance... I don't know whether that would be involved with this or not. So I can not... I can't comment on that. MODERATOR: Way in the back. QUESTIONER #3: Being someone who is handicapped, I have that right to bear the placard in my vehicle to use handicap zones. But if you were to look at me you could not tell that I was handicapped. Only between my physician and myself can you tell that I need that special protection. Whether or not I have [not distinguishable] ever, or ever had [not distinguishable]. If we pass this now, are my rights as a handicapped person going to be threatened because now you can't tell that I'm handicapped so if you can't tell we don't have to worry about me? MODERATOR: The question deals with since you cannot always tell people are handicapped, would they be affected in anyway by Amendment 2 since you would not tell. Starting with Will Perkins. [audience applause] MR. PERKINS: Thank you [not distinguishable/audience laughter]. The purpose for identification of course is to be able to know and so that you're dealing with someone who is entitled to special privileges. And I'm sure it's possible to have a physical handicap that's not easy to identify. But let me tell you why, when you expand civil rights to include "sexual orientation," which is, I said, by definition we're talking about everybody in this room, everybody. There's only a certain amount of money to deal with civil rights problems. I attended a meeting of the [Colorado] Civil Rights Commission -- the last meeting -- in which Jack Martin... Lange Y Marquez, who is the Executive Director, was complaining about the fact that in that particular month they had 150 some cases as compared to 100, which is a normal case load. He said our people are overworked, we don't have time to handle the cases promptly, so there is a limit to the potential to meet the needs of people who are entitled to civil rights. Now if you throw everybody in that basket, we're back to square one. And if I were black, if I were Hispanic, if I were physically handicapped, I would be very, very concerned about that. [audience laughter/applause] MR. LOEFFLER: I'm glad you mentioned the Civil Rights Commission because they did vote 6-1 in favor of opposing Amendment 2. [audience applause - 9 seconds] I think being certain about the resources available to fight on [sic] civil rights cases is very important. But I don't think you can use that argument to say we're going to write-off an entire class of citizens and not honor their claims to discrimination enforcement to prevent a whole class of citizens from ever making a claim of discrimination. So I think that the thing to do is to beef-up civil rights enforcement if that's what you're really worried about. Because I don't think that extending civil rights protection takes anything away from any other minority. [audience applause - 7 seconds] Furthermore, if you say there's a group of people against whom you can discriminate, that is a group of people who are unprotected from discrimination, then there are some potentially dangerous consequences because it creates a climate where discrimination is in fact allowed. In Springfield, Oregon, [not distinguishable] city-wide ordinance that precludes the extension of civil rights protection based on "sexual orientation." There has been an enormous increase in violence against lesbian and gay citizens and no matter how bad things seem to be in Colorado, it looks like they're worse in Oregon. It's hard to believe. And I think that you have to worry about that. You have to worry about the climate you create. And so laws often serve as models -- as goals for society -- as directions in which the society wants to go. And so civil rights protection, although it's valuable for protecting individual classes of people in specific instances, also says something about what the values of society are. Are we a society that condones discrimination? I think the answer to that is "no." If that is true, then your vote on Amendment 2 must also be "NO." [audience applause - 10 seconds] QUESTIONER #4: [To Mr. Loeffler] Does EPOC endorse or condemn the continued widespread discrimination in employment against pedophiles? UNIDENTIFIABLE VOICE: Did you get that? MR. LOEFFLER: I did. MODERATOR: At this time I think that... [6 seconds of overlapping, undistinguishable comments from audience] MR. LOEFFLER: I believe that... I think I got this right. Does EPOC... QUESTIONER #4: Support. MR. LOEFFLER: Well, would you restate it just to make sure I have it right. QUESTIONER #4: Does EPOC endorse or condemn the continued widespread discrimination in employment against pedophiles? MR. LOEFFLER: Well, this is sort of an old chestnut and it's not surprising that it should come up. Colorado for... AUDIENCE MEMBER: [not distinguishable] MR. LOEFFLER: Oh, I'm sorry. The question is, I'm sorry, the question is "Does EPOC endorse or condemn the discrimination against pedophiles?" Pedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to children, as a point of clarification. And what I want to say is that it's sort of an old chestnut. Colorado for Family Values has been talking about pedophilia for, oh, a long time. And often... and in the media a lot lately. And basically they find and quote data that has been widely discredited to say that the majority of pedophiles are in fact homosexuals and in fact homosexuals commit the majority of sexual abuse in this country. This is not a new charge. It is one of the major stereotypes that are leveled against gay community in particular and also the gay and lesbian community... QUESTIONER #4: But that's not my question. MR. LOEFFLER: But I'm getting to that. The point is that sexual abuse of children is a crime and there's no reason why people who commit sexual abuse against children should have civil rights protection. So no, EPOC would not concern itself with employment discrimination against pedophiles. I'm not [not distinguishable] that happens. [audience applause - 7 seconds] MR. PERKINS: Bruce and I seem to agree with CFV that child molestation should be prosecuted under the law. Bruce, I think that... I don't know where EPOC's position is and I won't attempt to define it. You have continually used adjectives like "enormous increase" in crimes and so forth. I haven't heard any statistics that you use as evidence in any of your discussion. So, perhaps you have those some place, I don't know... But let me, let me address this thing [not distinguishable]. The homosexual community is the only group in America that has an important branch of its organization that is actively promoting pedophilia... [audience boos - 5 seconds] Now [not distinguishable] if this is news to you, you need to know this. [audience laughter] The North America Man-Boy Love Association, which marches in all the homosexual parades, whose motto is "Sex after eight is too late" -- they're not talking about the time of day -- they are advocating the removing [sic] of all age restrictions as far as sexual activity. That this deprives children of their right to make their choices... This is all a matter of record. That this is news to you, it's important that you know this. [audience applause/jeers - 6 seconds] MODERATOR: [not distinguishable]...That each speaker will have an opportunity to respond. However you feel on this, lets hope that they will respond in a way that satisfies you. I promised this lady and then this gentleman next. Yes... You had your hand up a long time. QUESTIONER #5: Yes. I'd just like to say that I [not distinguishable] a civil suit for public accommodation and discrimination that upholds the right of children with developmental disabilities and its been a long, hard, complicated fight. And I just like to say that both [not distinguishable] I've heard that there are no easy answers and -- to anything -- and the one answer is education of everyone of all [not distinguishable]. And I would like to know how you see the role of -- and I'm a teacher and I [not distinguishable] had to really fight for it -- I'd like to know how you see the role of education fitting into this [audience applause - 5 seconds]. MODERATOR: The question is how... [not distinguishable] "How does each speaker see the role of education fitting into this dilemma?" MR. PERKINS: As in most things I think education certainly has a role. We see our role, in Colorado for Family Values, one of our main objectives is education regarding this subject. We feel that... Bruce says that we're trying to force our morals on the State of Colorado. I can tell you that there's a majority of the people out there that think the homosexuals are trying to force their concepts on the State of Colorado... QUESTIONER #5: [Not distinguishable]...both sides. MR. PERKINS: So, somewhere along the line the people of Colorado have to make a decision. And education... if they... a decision based on as much information as they can get from both sides. Then they need to make a decision. And that's the crux of... will be the crux of our campaign as we move toward the elections [sic]. [audience applause] MR. LOEFFLER: Well, I think, obviously, that the teacher's role in education is essential and it's important to learn, to educate themselves. In fact, I firmly believe that the root of all prejudice is misinformation and the lack of education. And so I think if we want to overcome prejudice we need education. People need to discuss these issues. And we've got to recognize also that prejudice is rooted in fear of people who are unlike yourselves [sic]. So it's important to reach out, to learn about other people... QUESTIONER #5: Fear is the worst [not distinguishable]. MR. LOEFFLER: And I think that fear certainly is a major part of it. So, I think what we're doing tonight is really good. We're discussing issues. We're hearing both sides of an issue that's critical in the upcoming election. You have before you two very opposing views in terms of what the nature of Amendment 2 is. From my point of view Amendment 2 will in fact -- especially because of its last clause "or any claim of discrimination" -- will write discrimination into the Colorado state Constitution. I think it's very interesting that an organization that says they abhor discrimination would concoct such an amendment. I also find it interesting to hear Will begin tonight by talking about love and then repeat lots and lots of misconceptions about what lesbian and gay men are all about. [audience applause - 9 seconds] MODERATOR: We'll have one more question. [And then] beginning with Professor Loeffler and ending with Mr. Perkins they will each have five minutes. Sir, you had your hand up the whole time. QUESTIONER #6: My name is Stewart Cresden [?] and I am in very opposition [sic] to this amendment and at a recent meeting at the Fine Arts Center at which the Governor was present [not distinguishable] he spoke out very strongly against Amendment 2. And much of the help with this [sic] group is receiving is coming from our Catholic church, especially down at St. Mary's, the [not distinguishable] house, the Marion House, the... MODERATOR: Sir, what is your question? QUESTIONER #6: ...and [not distinguishable] there are many of the recognized religions that are also opposed to this. [audience applause - 8 seconds] MODERATOR: I don't think that was a question. I'll take the one upstairs. QUESTIONER #7: A point of clarification: I personally would like to understand what your mission is of Colorado for Family Values so that I can [not distinguishable] and that when Amendment 2 is defeated in November [not distinguishable] go on to the next campaign and CFV will [not distinguishable] [audience applause/laughter - 11 seconds] MODERATOR: The last question is "What is the mission of Family Values and if Amendment 2 is defeated, will Family Values embark on another campaign?" The first commentor [sic] on this will be Bruce Loeffler followed by... [audience laughter - 10 seconds] MR. LOEFFLER: I think I'll let Mr. Perkins answer... [audience laughter/applause - 7 seconds] MR. PERKINS: That gives me four minutes. [audience laughter] At least I know I'm not home on the range because that sounds like a discouraging word. [audience laughter - 7 seconds] The mission of Colorado for Family Values we... we're kind of have [sic] a one-string guitar. We were formed as a result of the thrust of the homosexual community in Colorado Springs. I personally got into it [not distinguishable] without having given "sexual orientation" any thought at all. I was just appalled at the fact that the [Colorado Springs] Human Relations Commission was setting up what looked to me like a Gestapo operation which if any one... if any employer had a complaint filed against him... [To Time Keeper] I have four minutes... TIME KEEPER: No sir, you [not distinguishable]. MR. PERKINS: If someone had -- had a complaint filed against him -- that the Human Relations Committee [sic] was also the judge and jury and they were to process the whole case without -- and they expressly stated -- without due process of law. That's what upset me as a business person. They could come into my house, into my business, and confiscate any records they wanted without due process of law. And I resent that. And that's why I got involved in this protesting from that standpoint that "sexual orientation" was something that I wasn't even interested in until I got to thinking about it. And realizing, as I stated before, that Bruce refuses to acknowledge is the fact that Federal law does not include "sexual orientation." Bruce specifically stated that the handicap law which was recently passed specifically excludes "sexual orientation." Because these people know that if you include "sexual orientation" in the civil rights legislation you destroy civil rights. [audience laughter] Because everybody is included. [audience laughter] Now that's the mission of [not distinguishable]. I hope I answered your question. QUESTIONER #7: What's the [not distinguishable] of CFV after [not distinguishable]. MR. PERKINS: I just told you. Our mission is to pass Amendment 2, which will not discriminate against homosexuals. It will bar them from using homosexuality as a basis of discrimination. It will bar heterosexuals from using that as the basis of discrimination [audience laughter] or any other sexual orientation as the basis of discrimination. That's our mission. [audience applause] MODERATOR: While they take the questions, I cannot guarantee that either person's answers will satisfy you [audience laughter]. At this point, beginning with Bruce Loeffler, each person will have five minutes to give their final concluding statements. [audience applause - 9 seconds] MR. LOEFFLER: I again would like to thank Will Perkins for coming to Colorado College tonight to talk about Amendment 2 and to share from his [not distinguishable] Colorado for Family Values. I think it has been very enlightening and I do appreciate his taking the time to come here, especially considering it seems to be an audience that maybe is a little predisposed against him. [audience laughter] MR. PERKINS: You notice that too? [audience laughter] MR. LOEFFLER: Amendment 2 will do several things. First of all, passage of Amendment 2 will force the cities of Boulder, Aspen, and Denver to repeal their civil rights which now include "sexual orientation." In a sense it disenfranchises the voters of those cities who had voted for or who had their representatives vote on including "sexual orientation" in their non-discrimination policies. I do not think we as citizens want to have our vote taken away from us. So if you value your vote and if you want to be able to consider this issue locally or at the state level, then I think it's important to vote "NO" on 2. Secondly, Amendment 2 would enshrine discrimination against one group into the state Constitution. We are not a society that condones discrimination. We're talking about basic civil rights -- employment, housing, public accommodations. We're not talking about minority status. We're not talking about affirmative action. We're talking about simple discrimination. We're not a society that condones discrimination. And so again I think we must vote "NO" on 2. Thirdly, we are a society with rich religious traditions, but in which no one religion controls the state. In as much as the Director of Colorado for Family Values, Kevin Tebedo, describes it as a Christian organization, in as much as their views on homosexuality are clearly rooted in their interpretation of scripture, that I think this has to be looked at as an attempt to impose one set of religious beliefs on everybody else using the political process. We have the First Amendment of the United States Constitution which says we have separation of Church and State. So, if you value that amendment, I think it is vitally important that we vote "NO" on 2. And finally, as I have mentioned, although I haven't had time to go into it in great detail, I hope you will be very careful when you look at the literature Colorado for Family Values puts out in terms of the way they describe the gay and lesbian community. They've gone to great lengths to misinterpret data, distort data, and to assign individual behaviors to an entire class of people. Not one thing they say about lesbians and gay men applies to me or relates to my life or any other gay man or lesbian I know. If you want information on homosexuality, I think you should talk to gay men and lesbians. And since I don't like the attempt on the part of Colorado for Family Values to stigmatize and entire class of people, I also hope you will vote "NO" on 2. Thank you. [audience applause - 26 seconds] MR. PERKINS: I think they like what you had to say, Bruce. [audience laughter] This is now [not distinguishable]. I assume that you are conceding the debate to me because you were... spent most of your time talking about what you think we are going to do in our campaign. [audience laughter] And I know that since you have not answered my questions and you have not given any evidence to substantiate the claims that you made. Now you say that Colorado citizens will never get a chance to vote on this. You know, for some reason I thought Prohibition was no longer in effect. [audience groans] It is ridiculous to say that you'll never get a chance to vote. [audience laughter] That's what the whole process is about in America. The initiative process is set up so that if the citizens of any state want to vote on something they bring that issue to light. That's what it's all about. It's nonsense to say you'll never get a chance to vote. You know that's not true. Now, you don't have to worry about religious people running this country. I can tell you this: You get 250 ministers in a meeting and you even can't find an agreement on when they ought to have lunch. [audience laughter/applause] I can tell you this, that there just is no consensus when it comes to religion in this country. And that's the way it oughta [sic] be. And I [not distinguishable] that religious freedom involves everybody. Because everybody has some kind of religious orientation. So keep that in mind. Now, Bruce, you and I have a similar problem. I'm a used car salesman and you're a homosexual... [audience laughter] AUDIENCE MEMBER: He's a professor, you idiot! [audience laughter - 21 seconds] MR. PERKINS: [To Time Keeper] I get an extra 30 seconds. [audience laughter] Now let me tell you something about a used car salesman. We are discriminated against [audience groans/jeers - 8 seconds]. Let me tell you why we're discriminated against and if you look at this... Traders... T-R-A-D-E-R-S... traders -- It sounds like "traitors" but I'm saying traders -- have had a poor reputation down through history. They've always been suspect. You know that homo... that used car salespeople are always the butt of jokes. Cartoonists have a great time. Comedians have a great time. [To Time Keeper] You're not giving me my allotted time. [audience laughter/undistinguishable comments] The... So, used car salespeople are discriminated against... AUDIENCE MEMBER: They're never thrown out of the military! [audience hushes heckler] MODERATOR: Hey! Please remain [not distinguishable]. MR. PERKINS: They make fun of us. They ridicule the way we dress. And whenever there's a... there's a... hope comes out of giving the reputation and status of a... an employment group, you start feeling what all these [not distinguishable/audience laughter]. Now, we would have every right to go to the city council and say, "We want a law that says you can't discriminate against used car salesmen." [audience laughter] We want you to think of us in the light of everybody else. Quit making jokes about us. [audience laughter] Now what would happen? The council would say, "Well, how do you prove that? What evidence do you have that you're being discriminated against to the extent that you deserve special rights?" And they would nail me. There wouldn't be any evidence. That's where you are Bruce, you don't have any evidence. Now here's the problem. We are discriminated against because what the used car salesmen have is a lousy reputation because we've earned it. [audience groans] Now, if we want to get the social... we want to get the acknowledgment and endorsement of society, we have to change that image by changing the way we do things. And I would suggest, Bruce, that you have the same problem. [audience groans] When the homosexual community earns -- the old fashioned way -- they earn the right to be endorsed, to be accepted by society, then there won't be any problems. [audience groans/boos] Bruce, I'm going to give my last ten seconds for you to say "yes" or "no." AUDIENCE MEMBER: [not distinguishable] MR. PERKINS: You know, [audience laughter] I'm accused of being hateful. Several months ago at a meeting of the school board -- you remember this? You threatened me and said that you were going to boycott my business [Holds up leaflet urging a boycott of Perkins Motors] and that you were going to apply a national boycott [audience applause - 16 seconds] Now, I want you to know... [Time Keeper signals to stop] AUDIENCE MEMBER: Sit down! MR. PERKINS: Yes or no? Are you behind this? Are you behind it? MR. LOEFFLER: No. [Also motions head side to side indicating "no"] AUDIENCE MEMBER: No. The citizens of Colorado are, Will Perkins! [audience cheers/applause - 10 seconds] MODERATOR: [Motions for silence] Let me thank both the candidates and thank the audience. I know this is an emotional issue, but let me remind you again that I feel very strongly about my First Amendment rights and those of yours. I don't think it's ever hurt me to listen to both sides of the question. They don't always convince me, but I have a feeling on this amendment I didn't change it tonight, but I welcome the opportunity to hear both of these people. Thank you and good night. [audience applause]