NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/motss/58530

Text File | 1993-01-27 | 5.8 KB | 115 lines

Newsgroups: soc.motss
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!spdcc!rdonahue
From: [e-mail] (Bob Donahue)
Subject: Re: Into the streets!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: insert anything here
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:17:03 GMT
Lines: 104

[e-mail] (Ronald Hayden) writes:
>[e-mail] (Brent Capps) writes:

>   I'm with you, Ron.  I'd also like to add that, even if Clinton turns out
>   to be really good on our issues, there's a danger that we'll get too
>   dependent on having a sympathetic party in the White House and be caught
>   napping some presidential election.  It takes time to build up a grassroots
>   support structure, we shouldn't let ours get neglected through complasancy.

>As Melinda Shore mentioned elsewhere:  A friend in the White House is
>not the time we get to sit back and watch the changes happen.  It's
>when we REALLY get to work and MAKE the changes happen.

>Now we don't have the same old barriers, but we can't expect others to
>do our work for us.

>Also, there are always new enemies.  Clinton is being told that there
>are enough congressional votes to overturn whatever he does on gays in
>the military.  We can't let ourselves be one of the issues that helps
>sink Clinton -- if that happens, the message to other politicians will
>be that gay issues are STILL death to the politician.

    It's worse than that.  The whole "gays in the military"
stuff has serious consequences.  The phobe backbone is now using
this as a tool to motivate people to pass CO2-like (and possibly
OR9-like) amendments in 1994 (or sooner) esp. if the ban gets lifted.
In other words, we might have a much harder fight on a much larger
scale if the ban gets lifted right away.

    Is the ban a good thing?  Of course not.  But pardon me from
wanting to rank things like equal rights for everyone against
a specific career opportuninty for a few.  I'm hoping they find some
compromise that avoids a blood-bath or a gay witch hunt at the
domestic level.  From what I understand in DC, the Pentagon is already
lobbying Congress to overturn or nullify *any* Presidential edict
on the military ban.  Other ultra-right-wing groups are forsaking
other fronts (e.g., abortion) to work on stopping us from invading
"their" space, providing fuel for Congresscritters to placate the
Pentagon.

    If Clinton pushes too hard, and Congress resets the policy
(they set the terms for military law and can outact an exec order)
it will send the message to every state that it is possible and
prudent to "stop" the gay agenda.  Or "gay people have pushed too far".
This will have an effect on the heterosexual clueless (presumably
the voting block that passed CO:2) who are easily swayed by any
anti-gay argument since 1) it doesn't affect them and 2) it's
safer [to them] to vote against something than worry about the
possible consequences to a bunch of people that are invisible anyway.

    Plus, if Clinton fails, that sends the message that it's
a very bad political manuver to stick your neck out for gay people.
That means any support we have in DC (with the exception of Frank and
Studds) could shrivel up.  We could end up being a political hot potato
(or more of one) that has no audience and little credibility.

    I really wonder what sort of effect CO:2 has had on all this.
Had that not passed I really think that the military ban would
be pretty much a done deal.  As it stands now, we will be up for
an all-frontal assault in all 50 states which could set back gay
rights 20 years.  I fear we're not adequately prepared for it.
Not when I see people almost weekly on the net asking questions like
"What's CO:2?".

    So for all the people rejoicing that Clinton is standing
somewhat firm on this --- yeah, great, but there's more to it than
that.  We may end up with a lot less and no ear in DC that will go to
bat for us.  Plus, I can't help but think that this is the only
"payback" we can expect from him.  I quite easily can envision
"what more do you want?  I overturned the military ban" from him
if he succeeds and "well I gave it my best shot" if he doesn't.


    On the birght side, with the MOW there will be the potential
to make some sort of statement.  I really hope people going to the
MOW will make it a point to flood their Senators and Representatives'
offices with house calls to make sure they have to confront gay
people face to face.  (I feel sorry for MOWers from NC in that regard...)
If the military thing gets dragged on for long it will run into the
MOW which could have quite a bit of an effect (I know the Pentagon is
huge, but I'm sure 1,000,000+ hands could encircle it.).

    It's a messy situation: the onyl real way for this to get fixed
is at the federal level (passage of an ERA for gays and lesbians),
but the only way to get to that point is to get enough states to
support it.  We have 43 states right now that still have not passed
a gay rights amendment.  If I'm not mistaken most haven't even
*attempted* to pass one.   What is holding the gay communities in
these states up?  Right now the only states I know of that have
legislation in the works are New Mexico, Iowa and Rhode Island
all of which narrowly missed passing the last time around.

    Where's New York?  Where's Texas?  Where's Illinois?
These states should have gobs of gay people...  I'd mention
California, but presumably they're trying to pass thru AB 101 II
(or AB 2601 plus).  Oregon is dead tired from November, COlorado is
trying to reclaim what they've lost, and roughly a s+dozen other states
are trying to ward off falling into the CO2 pit.  Like Owen said,
it's time we stopped thinking defensively and started being the
active player.  IF we lose being active we just stay in the same place.
IF we lose being passive, we regress.


BBC