Hello.  And now, for some more reporting on the FTR Conference...  :-)

During the conference, the question came up as to whether
the queer-friendly community in states that are now facing
amendment-2 equivalents should be encouraged to initiate a compromise 
amendment like the one that is now being considered in Colorado.
The compromise amendment in CO (authored by a lawyer named Walta) proposes 
that gays should not be discriminated against, while at the same time, 
gays are not to receive "special rights" such as quotas and affirmative 
action.  If the queer-friendly communities faced with Amendment-2
equivalents were to counter-propose such a compromise amendment as
a ballot initiative, it would have the advantage of forcing the religious 
right to be clear on the distinction between "special rights" and
discrimination.  

However, at the Fight the Right Conference this weekend,  Suzanne 
Goldberg (an attorney from Lambda Legal Defense Fund) strongly _opposed_ 
the adoption of similar compromise amendments on the part of the
queer-friendly community.  Goldberg's position was essentially this:  
NO people's civil rights should ever be compromised.  Even if the gay 
community, in general, doesn't care about having quotas and affirmative 
action, why should it be the only group that is legally singled out from 
ever receiving such remedies?  And as Goldberg stressed several times, it 
is important to remember that quotas and affirmative action are remedies
and not rights...they are remedies for past history of discrimination.  
Why should any group single itself out to be ineligible for such remedies?

At another session during the conference, the following point
was also made on this issue:  It would be easier for the Colorado queer
community to settle for the compromise amendment at this point, since we 
are all so tired of battling amendment 2, but it would indeed be just 
that, settling; we shouldn't give up on getting _full_ and equal 
protection under the law, as we deserve to get; we shouldn't give up 
until there is simply a ban against discrimination towards gays, with
no qualifications. 

Before this conference, I was actually leaning in favor of the
compromise amendment.  But after the comments by Goldberg and various
discussions on the issue, I now have come to agree that we should hold
out until we get what we are due. 

About what's happening with the compromise amendment:  My understanding
is that Walta may withdraw it this week because he has been getting
no cooperation from CFV (the group that proposed the original Amendment
2) and the gay community is not enthusiastic about the compromise.
(However, I haven't heard any further on this.)