The subtle logic of Oregonians
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 93 17:51:34 PST
Subject: The subtle logic of Oregonians
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Rich Schaefer)
From: rudolph (David Rudolph)
From: email@example.com (Barry Blanchard)
This is all taken directly from the State of Oregon voter's pamphlet.
In Oregon, as in several states, we have what is called an
initiative process. This allows anyone who can collect enough
signatures on petitions to put anything they want up for a public
vote. The first part is the measure itself.
The second part is one of the arguments in favor. You can have one
of these put in the voter's pamphlet for $300.
This measure failed by only a 10% margin.
Measure No. 9, State of Oregon
AMENDS CONSTITUTION: GOVERNMENT CANNOT FACILITATE, MUST DISCOURAGE
HOMOSEXUALITY, OTHER "BEHAVIORS"
QUESTION-Shall constitution be amended to require that all
governments discourage homosexuality, other listed "behaviors," and
not facilitate or recognize them?
SUMMARY-Amends Oregon Constitution. All governments in Oregon may
not use their monies or properties to promote, encourage or
facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism, or masochism. All
levels of government, including public education system, must
assist in setting a standard for Oregon's youth which recognizes
that these "behaviors" are "abnormal, wrong, unnatural and
perverse" and that they are to be discouraged and avoided. State
may not recognize this conduct under "sexual orientation" or
"sexual preference" labels, or through "quotas, minority status,
affirmative action, or similar concepts."
ESTIMATE OF FINANCIAL IMPACT-Minimal financial impact. The
Department of Education expects to make some in curriculum changes
valued at $210,000 Federal Funds if this measure passes.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
According to the book of Leviticus in the Bible, Oyster eating,
crossbreeding cattle, shaving a beard, wearing clothes made of
mixed fibers, cursing one's parents and adultery are just as
immoral as homosexuality. If the OCA's "No Special Rights"
Committee wants to take one of the 3,000-year old laws of ritual
holiness from Leviticus and put it into the Bill of Rights in the
state constitution, they should be sincere enough to put all the
rest of Leviticus into the constitution as well. It's simple
matter of respect for these historic laws to treat them
We at the Special Righteousness Committee are just as offended
by oyster eating, shaving and mixed fibers as the OCA is offended
by homosexuality, and we have just as much right as the OCA does to
change the state constitution to require government discrimination
against people whose behavior we don't like.
My friends, do you want the public schools teaching your
children that shaving is a legitimate and equal alternative style
to a normal healthy beard? Would you want to be forced to hire an
oyster-eater to direct your church choir? Adam and Eve wore fig
leaves--100 percent fig leaves--and this is divine proof that those
disgustingly unnatural cotton/polyester blends are sinful. And
when the OCA was analyzing the threat to traditional family values,
we don't know how they managed to overlook adultery! Why there's
a lot more adultery than homosexuality going on out there, and
extrapolations from the OCA statistics show that 90 percent of the
people who have engaged in sexual perversions are heterosexual
The state condones adultery by not punishing it by death as
required by Leviticus. It promotes oyster-eating by licensing
seafood restaurants, it allows people to take mixed fibers out in
public without being fired or evicted! The state is encouraging
If the OCA can have the special right to make their personal
moral agenda into public policy, then anyone else also should be
able to amend the state Bill of Rights to eliminate basic rights
for people who they don't like.
Let's put ALL of Leviticus into the constitution! A "yes" vote
is the first step in facilitating our militant moral agenda.
AGREE WITH US OR BURN IN HELL!
Special Righteousness Committee
© 1993 Peter Langston