NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/motss/58658

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 3.6 KB | 73 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: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:59:43 GMT
Lines: 62

[e-mail] (Robert Coren) writes:
>[e-mail] (Bob Donahue) writes:
>>     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.

>There's a couple of things about this line of argument that I find
>very troubling. You're proposing that we concede ground on a
>high-visibility item -- one with very strong *symbolic* effect -- for
>fear that it will encourage a backlash. But the appearance of weakness
>if we lose this one will encourage a backlash anyway.

    I never proposed that.  If I were to propose *anything* it would be
that we have to get off our asses and start making sure that we aren't
victimized by Congress.  I'm in agreement with the sentiment of other
posters: we can't sit by and wait and hope that everything will work out.
If Clinton stands firm (as he should) and there is a backlash (which
I expect) we have to make it clear that we won't accept that as "the
country's word on the matter".

    Backing out would be weak.  Sitting by and hoping for the best
is IMHO also weak.  Now more than ever we have to write Congress
and make them see that this *is* an important step, and urge
THEM not to be weak by bowing to the ultra-right-wing by
attempting (and possibly getting) a presidential override.

>>     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.

>This is the "don't be too pushy" argument. If we're not pushy, we will
>get *nothing*, and deserve it. I'm fed up with this one.

>Anyway, at this point, the issue already has high visibility, and
>Clinton is already out front on it. If he backs down on this one, the
>damage to our causes will be incalculable.

    I agree --- I watched the press report on C-Span today.
With all else that's going on (Yugoslavia, the Palestinian refugees,
health care, the FBI director, the Attorney General opening,
the report on the deficit, etc.) the press kept coming back to this
issue, over and over and over and over again.  It was incredible.

    But my point was and still is, that this thing can blow up
in our faces.  IT won't be our fault for asking for something
that makes sense, and it won't be Clinton's fault for doing the right thing.
The timing of this is critical - we have to make our voices heard.

BBC