On November 3, the United States made two radically different statements about its stance on gay rights.

The election showed that the virulent anti-gay rhetoric of Patrick J. Buchanan at the Republican convention was unacceptable to many U.S. voters, and that Americans could deal with a president who campaigned with the words "gay" and "AIDS" on his lips.

On a similar note, Oregon's Question Nine, which would have forced the state both to declare that homosexuality is "wrong, unnatural and perverse," and would have had this definition taught in public schools, was defeated.

This ostensible support of gay rights and concerns was undermined, however, by referenda passed in Colorado and Tampa, Fla.

Colorado's legislation makes it illegal for the state to adopt or enforce any laws that allow a bisexual, gay or lesbian person to claim discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Not only is the state prohibited from introducing gay right legislation, but the existing statutes in Boulder, Denver and Aspen were overturned by Colorado's referendum, known as Amendment Two.

Tampa voters also chose to overturn existing statutes which outlaw discrimination against gay and lesbian people in employment, housing, public accommodations and real estate transactions.

In essence, the basic civil rights of bisexual, gay and lesbian people in Colorado and Tampa have been denied.

There are three misconceptions that should be cleared up in considering the devastating impacts of this legislation. First, it's important to note that in both referenda, voting "yes" on the questions was a "no" vote for gay rights. Enough voters have complained about the confusing wording to provide a basis for taking the Tampa vote to court.

Second, both pieces of legislation were framed to invoke the idea that voters were merely choosing to cut off special privileges awarded to gay people. Colorado's legislation obscured its true message of legalized discrimination with a phrase about "quota preferences."

Anti-gay organizations in Colorado circulated information showing that gay people are wealthier than the U.S. average, again pressing the issue that gay people were getting special treatment which we do not need or deserve.

The inaccuracy of these attempts to hide the true nature of Amendment Two is damaging because people voted as they would on questions of affirmative action for a population which is perceived as privileged, and not as they would have on issues of fundamental civil rights.

The portrayal of gay people as privileged also excludes the large parts of the gay community whose socioeconomic background is no more privileged than that of the average American. This perpetuates a stereotype which allows people to ignore the desperate need for social programs dealing with gay-related issues.

Third, and most devastating of all, the legislation in Colorado and Florida strips fundamental civil rights from bisexual, gay and lesbian people, denying us housing, employment, health care and the possibility of adopting children.

Gay people in Colorado have already lost their jobs and been evicted from their homes. The idea that a person's sexual orientation provides grounds for these decisions is both a ludicrous invasion of privacy and a blatantly discriminatory policy.

At base, Colorado's Amendment Two and Tampa's revocation serve to legitimize prejudice and to encourage acts of discrimination against bisexual, gay and lesbian people. These two referenda dismiss the humanity and the civil rights of bisexual, gay and lesbian citizens of the United States.

It is alarming that a combination of misleading wording, diversionary claims about affirmative action, genuine prejudice and formerly illegal discrimination can create situations like the ones in Colorado and Florida. Even worse, these situations are unfortunately providing examples for right-wing activists who wish to spread this new form of legalized discrimination throughout the United States.

It is because we believe that this legislation is denying fundamental civil rights to bisexual, gay and lesbian people, and it is because we believe these actions to be founded solely on virulent prejudice, ingrained homophobia and manipulative and false campaigning that the Harvard/Radcliffe Bisexual, Gay and Lesbian Students Association, in its official capacity as one of the many gay voices on campus, joins with Mayor Sandra Freedman of Tampa, Rep. Sam M. Gibbons of Florida, Gov. Roy Romer of Colorado, Denver Mayor Wellington Webb and Rep. Patricia Schroeder of Colorado in calling for the repeal of Amendment Two and the reinstatement of Florida's anti-discrimination policy.

This kind of legal discrimination has no place in our society and we ask you to join us in our anger at this new manifestation of the denial of our common humanity.

Rachel E. Cohen '94 is the co-chair of the Harvard/Radcliffe Bisexual, Gay and Lesbian Students Association.