From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht)
Subject: Re: difference between Democrats and GOP
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: not very organized
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:16:37 GMT

StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:

>stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

>: Who?  I haven't heard anyone call for making homosexuality against the
>: law.*  If any do, they are certainly not in the mainstream and it is
>: certainly not the position of the Republican party.
>: 
>: * I know some states have laws against certain homosexual (and
>: heterosexual) acts, but these laws were passed last century or longer ago,
>: are generally not enforced (yes I know they have been used against some
>: people and I think it is terrible) and I haven't heard anyone call for
>: their active enforcement or the passage of more such laws.  

>Have you been to Oregon recently?  There is a proposal on the November
>ballot there that would amend the state constitution to basically
>_require_ the state to discriminate against people of "abnormal"
>sexual preferences -- including homosexuality and bisexuality.
>The last poll of any kind I heard from there said that the proposal
>had the support of about 50% of the people there.

One person who is a strong "backer" of what's being attepted to pass
in Oregon was also a speaker at the RNC.  He also has a television
show and on his show has stated how proud he is about the "progress"
being made in Oregon on the issue and also how proud he is of the
effect his group has had in drafting the GOP platform this year.
Any guesses who that person might be?  Also, does Colorado have
something similar?  This is 1992 legislation (current century,
current year)...alarming?

>Yes, I will agree that the Republicans probably did not explicitly say
>that they want to outlaw homosexuality and bisexuality at the convention,
>despite the signs some delegates were holding, that said things like
>"Family rights, not gay rights."  I can't be sure because I got nauseated
>very quickly watching the convention on C-SPAN.  However, there are
>right-wingers out there who are trying to get homosexuality and bisexuality
>outlawed.

To have someone represent the GOP by speaking at the convention who
also is involved with trying to get laws in place that require denial
of rights and is pleased with having his views represented in the
platform is truly a reflection of the GOP and the RNC as well--
whether something was specifically stated or not.  He was not the
only speaker at the RNC who has at other times publicly spoken out
in support of denial of rights.  This too is a reflection and will
cause people to draw conclusions.  The signs that you mention in the
convention hall are a reflection.  Remarks made in a negative way about
the DNC's inclusion of homosexuals will give people the impression
that the RNC is against such a thing.  If this is not the view of
mainstream Republicans, perhaps it's time for mainstream Republicans
to take their party back from the hands that are portraying these views as
the mainstream Republican position.

Now, because I have still yet to receive a copy of the GOP platform
in the mail, does the platform state support to continue the ban in
the military on certain groups of people?  I've seen and read that
it does but have not yet been told any exact wording and have not
heard anyone deny this.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton