home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!reed!nelson
- From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
- Newsgroups: soc.motss
- Subject: Potential fallout from lifting the US military ban (was Re: Into the streets!)
- Message-ID: <1993Jan26.221051.7439@reed.edu>
- Date: 26 Jan 93 22:10:51 GMT
- Article-I.D.: reed.1993Jan26.221051.7439
- References: <C1DHHu.EDn@agora.rain.com> <RHAYDEN.93Jan25141553@hqsun2.oracle.com> <1993Jan26.181703.19147@spdcc.com>
- Reply-To: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
- Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR
- Lines: 67
-
- In article <1993Jan26.181703.19147@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
- >The whole "gays in the military" stuff has serious consequences.
-
- Yes, it does. Serious positive ones.
-
- >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.
-
- And last year, the phobe backbone used different things as tools to
- motivate people to actually pass CO-2, as well as trying to pass OR-9.
- If it's not faggots in the military, it's queers recruiting children,
- or eating two tablespoons of shit, or turning our nation into Sodom.
-
- >I'm hoping they find some compromise that avoids a blood-bath or a
- >gay witch hunt at the domestic level.
-
- You seem to be arguing that overturning the ban on gays in the
- military, with this much fighting and this much publicity is a bad
- thing. I emphatically disagree.
-
- Media attention about gay rights is good. It is always good. The fight
- that's going on right now in the public arena is actually making
- people think about a specific issue of discrimination against gays.
- Not all of the media attention is going our way, but in the end, we'll
- win. We have to, because we're right.
-
- Our position couldn't be better. There's a job - being a soldier. I
- can't have this job because of my sexual orientation. It's that
- simple, and ultimately I think the American public will grasp it.
-
- >From what I understand in DC, the Pentagon is already lobbying
- >Congress to overturn or nullify *any* Presidential edict on the
- >military ban.
-
- That's just hot air. It won't happen. Seriously, think about it - a
- Democratically controlled congress passing a law that is in direct
- conflict with the executive order of a Democratic president, about an
- issue of civil rights? Even if it did pass, they could never get the
- 2/3 needed to override a veto.
-
- >Other ultra-right-wing groups are forsaking other fronts (e.g.,
- >abortion) to work on stopping us from invading "their" space
-
- Other ultra-right-wing groups are forsaking other fronts, particularly
- abortion, because the abortion issue is not working for them. People
- are tired of it. Pro-choice is winning.
-
- >If Clinton fails, that sends the message that it's a very bad
- >political manuver to stick your neck out for gay people.
-
- This is the biggest danger I see right now, that Clinton will back
- down on this. That would be bad for us. Solution? Make sure he doesn't
- back down.
-
- >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.
-
- I don't understand this claim at all.
-
- Bob, don't let the phobes scare you. We're in the middle of a very
- public, very powerful fight right now. High stakes. But you know what?
- This is good. We're actually having a national discussion about equal
- rights for gays and lesbians. I think this is amazing.
- __
- nelson@reed.edu \/ What in this room is alive and what doesn't have life?
-