The Denver Post, January 9, 1993

By Sue Anderson

When Nelson Mandela was asked by the media why a boycott was important in South 
Africa when it was going to hurt his people as well, he responded that this 
sacrifice was important and necessary in the struggle for civil rgihts.  It is 
about the right of lesbian, gay and bisexual people not to be fired or evicted 
because of their sexual orientation.  Jobs, housing and access to services are 
basic civil rights--nothing more and nothing less.

The recent discussions, charges and counter-charges about the boycott often 
seem to ignore the core issue of basic civil rights protections.  This is, in 
part, because many voters continue to believe that this vote was about "special 
rights" rather than the real issue of basic civil rights.  Mnay people believe 
that lesbians, gays and bisexuals are asking for something different in terms 
of civil rights protections.  The reality is that lebian, gay and bisexual 
people are not protected from discrimination in any way--federally, in 
Colorado, and in all but seven states.  This means that they can be fired, 
evicted or denied access to services solely on the basis of being lesbian, gay 
or bisexual and they have no recourse.

Right wing Coloradans, with their "special rights" media messages and "no 
protected status" initiative language have successfully equated protected 
status with special rights.  The ramifications of this to many other 
communities are far-reaching.  Do persons in protected classes based on 
ethnicity, race, marital status or religion also have "special rights?"  These 
people are more vulnerable than ever to attacks from the religious right.

Many voters do not understand the real agenda of the far right in placing these 
initiatives on the ballot and want to believe that their agenda is benign.  
Denying civil rights is not benign.

I do not believe that most people cast their votes out of hate, nor do I 
believe that people in other states really think Colorado is full of bigots.  
What many people who are calling for a boycott do understand is that the right 
wing stealth strategy is dangerous.  The strategy of placing ballot initiatives 
in Colorado and Oregon which were markedly different from each other in 
language was not accidental.  It was well-planned to call national attention to the 
vehement, noxious language in Oregon while letting the seemingly benign ballot 
initiative in Colorado slip by.  The reality is that these ballot initiatives 
have the same effects of denying basic civl rights protections to a partiuclar 
class of people.

The stage is now set to continue these ballot initiataives in other states.  In 
fact, work already is under way in at least eight to 10 other states to do the 
same thing.  I do not believe for a moment that th 1964 Civil Rights Act would 
have passed had it been put to a vote of the people.  Since when should the 
rights of any minority be decided by the majority?

The boycott of Colorado is something which began the day after the election by 
people who realize the extreme nature of what has happened here.  I am 
concerned about the trend in Colorado--several years ago with "English only" 
and now with the anti-gay initiative.  Many people fear that it might happen in 
other states and on other issues.  This fear is one of the major reasons why a 
boycott is useful.

This issue is not just about Denver, Boulder, Aspen or even the state of 
Colorado.  This is a national issue.  Sending the message to other states that 
this is an issue which is being taken very seriously by all who are concerned 
with civil rights is an important part of the boycott message.  It gives the 
message to chambers of commerce and other leaders in targeted states that they 
need to be active from the start, not after it is too late.  Some of our 
leaders were active all along the way in the fight against Amendment 2, but 
others stood by complacently.

The boycott is also a symbolic act of solidarity by groups and individuals 
saying that they are in support of civil rights for all people, with no 
exceptions.  This symbolism is a vital rallying cry to all people concerned 
with equality and justice around the country.  The boycott is not necessarily 
going to change votes in Colorado, but it is certainly provoking discussion and 
conversation about the issues.  These discussions and real education about the 
kinds of discrimination and other issues faced by lesbians, gays and bisexuals 
are what will change votes.

The boycott endorsed by many national and local groups encourages people to 
come to Colorado to help undo the anti-gay initiative.  This is especially true 
of entertainers and other celebrities who own property in this state. They have 
an obligation to help with the efforts to undo this law and the effects it 
already is having on lesbian, gays, bisexuals and our allies.  An in-state 
boycott is designed to support those businesses which support equal rights for 
all people and to boycott those which do not.  The boycott may hurt some 
people, but this anti-gay law also hurts people deeply.

The right wing extremist agenda must be stopped.  This boycott is merely one of 
many strategies to bring an end to discrimination, but hardly the only one.

     Sue Anderson is the former executive director of the Denver Gay
     and Lesbian Community Center and a member of the board of 
     directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.