Newsgroups: bit.listserv.gaynet
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:40:50 EDT
From:         gaynet@GALLIFREY.KENT.EDU
Subject:      GayNet Digest Volume 6 Issue 17

In this issue:
             NEWSWEEK-GALLUP Poll on GAY RIGHTS in America
      *THREE* GAY RIGHTS BILLS AWAIT WILSON'S VETO IN CALIFORNIA!
                               NO SUBJECT
                              miss manners
                                  Test
                     Newsweek Poll: Gays Under Fire
                         Newsweek Cover Story
                       world's oldest sperm bank
                  Bush/Robertson Zap: Small Correction
                              Miss Manners

Please send messages for the entire list to gaynet@GALLIFREY.KENT.edu,
requests to be added or deleted to gaynet-request@GALLIFREY.KENT.EDU, and
personal replies directly to the other person, not the entire list.
Postings to GayNet are public communications.  If you must keep your
privacy, send your messages to gaynet-anonymous@GALLIFREY.KENT.EDU.

For those restricted to 8 characters for addresses, Requests can be sent
to GAYNETR@gallifry.kent.edu, and those who need to send anonymously may
send to GAYNETA@gallifry.kent.edu.  Please note the 8 character spelling of
GALLIFRY  (Gallifrey minus the E before the Y).

If you have problems any of these addresses, please contact me directly at:

perkins@ksuvxa.kent.edu (Internet)
ksuvxa::perkins (DECNET)
perkins@kentvms (BITNET/J-Net)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: NEWSWEEK-GALLUP Poll on GAY RIGHTS in America
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 18:36:24 -0400
From: Ron Buckmire <buckmr@rpi.edu>

Should homosexuals have equal rights in job opportunities?
78% YES
17% NO

Are Gay Rights a threat to the American family and its values?
44% YES
51% NO

Is homosexuality an acceptable alternative lifestyle?
41% YES
53% NO

Which apply to you?
43%	Have a friend or acquaintance who is gay
20%	Work with someone you know is gay
9%	Have a gay person in your family

Should homosexuals be hired in each of the following occupations (percent saying
yes):

83%	Salesperson
64%	A member of the President's Cabinet
59%	Armed forces
59% 	Doctors
54%	High-school teachers
51%	Elementary-school teachers
48%	Clergy

How do you feel about each of the following homosexual rights?
					APPROVE		DISAPPROVE
Health insurance for gay spouses	67%		27%
Inheritance rights for gay spouses	70%		25%
Social security for gay spouses		58%		35%
Legally sanctioned gay marriages	35%		58%
Adoption rights for gay spouses		32%		61%

In general, how important is the issue of gay rights to your presidential vote?
40%	Very, or somewhat important
57%	Not too, or not at all important

Do you think the candidates have:
					CLINTON		BUSH
Gone too far in supporting gay rights	16%		5%
A position that is about right		44%		41%
Gone too far in opposing gay rights	3%		27%

NEWSWEEK Poll was conducted by the Gallup Organisation of 547 registered voters
by phone August 27, 1992. Margin of error +/- 5%.

Letters to the Editor, with the writer's name, address and daytime phone number,
 should be  sent to:
			Letters Editor
			NEWSWEEK
			444 Madison Avenue
			New York, NY 10022

Or faxed to: 		212-350-4120

You may also phone NEWSWEEK's Telephone Mail Desk, 1-900-990-MAIL and voice your
comments. The cost is $1.95 for the first minute, $.95 each additional minute.
Calls and letters may be edited for space and clarity.

- -
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
"We oppose efforts to include sexual preference as a protected minority
receiving preferential status under civil rights statutes at the Federal, state
and local level." --1992 Republican National Commitee campaign platform.

------------------------------

Subject: *THREE* GAY RIGHTS BILLS AWAIT WILSON'S VETO IN CALIFORNIA!
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 18:15:56 -0400
From: Ron Buckmire <buckmr@rpi.edu>

Well, I taped THIS WAY OUT, the international gay and lesbian radio newsmagazine
today and they had the details on California's attempts to get legislative
protection for glb-folk.

There are THREE BILLS on Pete Wilson's desk.

AB-3825: Omnibus civil rights measure that contains the measures of AB-101 that
were vetoed by Wilson last year. Sponsored by Assembly Speaker Willie Brown.
The business community is opposed to it and Wilson is likely to veto it.

AB-2601: Based on the wording of Wilson's own veto message from last year that
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was illegal according to
California's labor code. This codifies this fact. [Wilson was basing his
position on court cases which have since been put on hold as the State Supreme
Court considers the matter]

AB-3019: Started off as a carbon-copy to AB-2601 but has been amended by the
conservative state Senate. Probably the most likely for Wilson to sign.

Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Activists expect him to veto ALL THREE BILLS, but not till
after the State Republican meeting in mid-September. Wilson has until September
30th to veto the bills.

The numbers to call Pete Wilson [this can be done even if you don't live in
California!!] are:

        (916)445-2841   Gov's Sacramento Office VOICE number
        (916)445-4633   Gov's Sacramento Office FAX number
        (916)445-5106   Gov's Chief of Staff's Office
        (916)445-0658   Gov's Legislative Office
        (415)703-2218   Gov's San Francisco Office
        (213)897-0322   Gov's Los Angeles Office
        (619)525-4641   Gov's San Diego Office

The address to write letters are:
	Governor Pete Wilson
	State Capital
	Sacramento, CA  95814

CALL NOW! WRITE NOW! RIGHTS NOW! :-)
---
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735.  ***Clinton-Gore 92!***
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
PrinceMADONNAMariahCareySineadO'ConnorGeorgeMichaelKateBushEnyaCocteauTwins
MTVCNNFOXNBCCBSVH1RobertBarnardIsaacAsimovGoreVidalGlennCloseMerylStreep

------------------------------

Date: 09 Sep 92 18:57:28 EST
From: Rick Fleming     <H190@DMT03.mcc.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: NO SUBJECT

Hey y'all,
    Since I once regarded Miss Manners as the be-all and end-all of
guidance through the pitfalls and mazes of contemporary mores, I was
troubled by the post saying she'd written a column against gays-in-
the-military.  Having read the column, I think you'll agree that
*whatever* the not-so-divine Miss M. is saying, it isn't quite as
bad as all that.

 By Judith Martin, copyright (C) 1992 United Feature Syndicate, Inc.
 Reprinted (from The Washington Post for 9/6/92) without permission.
 Typos and Ybracketed comments" are mine.

   Didn't Miss Manners admonish you not to go around broadcasting the
details of your private life?
   And isn't "private life" a quaint term for the first thing everybody
tells everybody else these days?
   Nobody listened to Miss Manners' old-fashioned plea for personal
reticence.  Drunk with the concept of openness, people can't imagine
a reason other than false shame or silly sqeamishness to prevent the
national flow of intimate information.  Those few who wish to be
conventionally circumspect are prodded and exposed, and even black-
mailed with the argument that not confessing is tantamount to admitting
that one has something dreadful to hide.
   The telling of private emotions to strangers is put forward as
evidence of fine feeling.  Surely Miss Manners is not the only person
who considers that, for example, love of one's own child is a minimum
requirement for humanity, not something to brag about.  The blabby
bathos of expecting to be admired for harboring normal human emotions,
or for confessing to human weakness, is what makes her wonder what
might be hidden. YWhereas in the previous paragraph, it was _circum-
spection_ which made it look as if "one" had something to hide...?"
   And now look what has happened.  We are having a variety of
unseemly public debates in which fitness for one's professional
life--the very opposite of personal life, requiring quite different
abilities and attractions--is measured in terms of one's sexual
conduct or sexual orientation.  YIt surprises me to learn that the
abilities and "attractions" required for personal and professional
life are quite different.  Depends on the profession, I suppose."
   What does the personality of someone's spouse say about his or
her character? YSurely this refers to Hillary."  Are adulterers fit
for public office?  YSlick Willie (or Bush, for that matter), and
Gary Hart before him."  Should gays serve in the military?
   These questions arise from a self-righteous but distasteful
defense of what the etiquette business calls nosiness. YFrom this,
one might argue that Miss M. is on our side--but read on."
   It is not from pure prissiness that Miss Manners argues against
private life being made public.  She does it because she sees what
surely ought to be an obvious correlation between disclosure and
disapproval:
   If you open your public life to debate, you cannot then become
indignant because not everyone agress with the way you conduct it.
   This society went through a period of falsely declaring itself
to be "nonjudgmental."  Judging the proclivities of others is
inevitable; respecting others only requires that one make the
essential distinction between holding an opinion and expressing
it.  YThis sums up the hypocrisy which makes many people find
etiquette such a hollow concept: it's OK to *feel* whatever you
want about people, as long as you don't *tell* them.  Hatred is
fine; only hatefulness is ill-Mannered."
   YFour paragraphs omitted: Miss Manners grants you her leave to
disclose your "marriages or other stable partnerships", but warns
that even this disclosure will subject you to "judgments about
the taste or lack of it demonstrated by Yyour" choice of a
particular person.""
   Putting private life on the public agenda legitimates discrim-
ination.  Yet it is difficult to defend the victims who bring their
private  lives  into  places of  employment and  demand  approval.
YAs L. Meissner pointed out, not all military gay men and lesbians
(sorry, TWP, haven't heard of any military Bi cases) by any means
"demand approval"--what they do demand is to be tolerated or more
accurately, simply to be afforded equal protection under the law
with their Tailhooking colleagues."  Privacy is what is needed, not
approval (which provides the option of disapproval).  YAgreed--
privacy, and again, just plain ordinary old equal rights."
   Surely the zeal with which people speculate on the unfathomable
relationship between private behavior and its possible public
consequences could be well applied to punishing actual cases where
private behavior--from innocent mutual flirtation to criminal
sexual harassment or rape--is practiced on the job.  In professional
life, it is one's actions, not one's proclivities, for which one
should be held accountable.  YHear, hear!  She got it right in the
end, after all. As, btw, did the fellow in prehistoric Switzerland."

   Punctiliously,
Rick Fleming, U Va                       <H190@DMT03.mcc.Virginia.edu>
<<-------- Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit.---Horace --------->>

------------------------------

Date: 09 Sep 1992 18:17:53 -0500 (EST)
From: HARKINS%BUTLERU.bitnet@UICVM.UIC.EDU
Subject: miss manners
Mime-Version: 1.0

Miss Manners has overlooked something else significant:

>     Didn't Miss Manners admonish you to not go around broadcasting the
>details of your private life?

Excuse me, Judy dear, does this also mean that hets must keep *their*
private lives under wraps, not revealing even the slightest hint of
their relationships in any kind of social setting?

If it's a closet she wants, then it should be a closet for everyone,
including straights.

James Harkins -- HARKINS@BUTLERU.BITNET

PS Thanks, Loren, for posting this...

------------------------------

Subject: Test
From: IF25094@FARMINGTON.CAPS.MAINE.EDU (Duey Duey)
Date:    Wed, 09 Sep 92 19:50:01 EDT

Hi!  I am glad to be a new subscriber!

Thanks!

Duey

------------------------------

Subject: Newsweek Poll: Gays Under Fire
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 18:46:49 -0600
From: Chris Petrilli <petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu>

Gang,

I just read the current Newsweek (September 14th, 1992) whose cover
story is ``Gays Under Fire: What America Thinks.''  Overall the story
is excellent and very accurate in its telling of views on both sides.
It tends toward being pro-queer, and the small editorial after by a
gay couple is excellent.  They conducted a poll, and I decided to
forward the results.  I think overall the poll is very positive
towards gays/lesibans, and shows that society is slowly coming to
terms, however some of the ``sacred cows'' such as marriage are still
shakey.  I would suggest that everyone read the article. :-)

                           GAYS UNDER FIRE
                         Newsweek/Gallop Poll
                           August 27, 1992

Should homosexuals have equal rights in job opportunities?

        78% - Yes
        17% - No

Is homosexuality an acceptable lifestyle?

        41% - Yes
        57% - No

Which apply to you?

        43% - Have a fried or acquaintance who is gay
        20% - Work with someone you know who is gay
         9% - Have a gay person in your family

Should homosexuals be hired in each of the following occupation
(percent saying yes):

        83% - Salesperson
        64% - Memeber of the president's cabinet
        59% - Armed forces
        59% - Doctors
        54% - High school teachers
        51% - Elementary school teachers
        49% - Clergy

How do you feel about each of the following homosexual rights?

                                              APPROVE DISAPPROVE
        Health insurance for gay spouces        67%     27%
        Inheritance rights for gay spouces      70%     25%
        Social security for gay spouces         58%     35%
        Legally sanctioned gay marriages        35%     58%
        Adoption rights for gay spouces         32$     61%

In general, how important is the issue of gay rights to your
presidential vote?

        40% - Very, or somewhat important
        57% - Not too, or not at all important

Do you think the candidates have:

                                             CLINTON   BUSH
        Gone too far in supporting gay rightts  16%      5%
        A position that is about right          44%     41%
        Gone too far in opposing gay rights      3%     27%


                    A RECORD OF GAINS---AND PAINS

States with statutes outlawing sodomy (including nine that prohibit
only homosexual sodomy):

        24

Gay and bisexual men who have died of AIDS since 1980:

        91,789

Openly gay elected officials nationwide--congressmen, judges, mayors,
city councilors:

        61

Rise in anti-gay crimes reported between 1990 and 1991 in five major
cities (New Yourk, San Fransisco, Boston, Minneapolis-St. Paul and
Chicago):

        31%

Gay men and lesbians expelled from U.S. military each year because of
sexual orientation:

        1,000

Gay and lesbian organizations nationwide, including political, social,
activists and student groups:

        1,580

Chris
--
| Chris Petrilli                                             ____
| petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu             ``Quayle is a bozoe.'' \  /
| I don't even speak for myself.                              \/

------------------------------

Subject: Re: Newsweek Cover Story
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 19:58:43 -0600
From: Chris Petrilli <petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu>

>>>>> On Wed, 09 Sep 92 07:52 PDT, Ron Biduk <ECZ5RAB@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU> said:

Ron> I personally found the article to have a very hateful tone to it.
Ron> I'd be curious to hear what everyone else thought.

I don't think the article itself was very hateful, though I do think
that many of the people quoted were hateful.  The article itself I
think was done in one of the better journalistic methods... present
the views and avoid any conclusions.  In fact, I think their language
choice was slightly positive about gay rights, especially their choice
of the editorial after the main article.

Chris
--
| Chris Petrilli                                             ____
| petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu             ``Quayle is a bozoe.'' \  /
| I don't even speak for myself.                              \/

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 09 Sep 92 20:03:25 MST
From: "Gabriel (in New Mexico)" <G9348712@nmsuvm1.NMSU.Edu>
Subject:      world's oldest sperm bank

If anyone has seen this story in a "mainstream" newspaper, please let me
know; I want to xerox it (and our U library carries some of them).

As for carbon-dating of sperm:  You can carbon-date anything that has
carbon in it, and that surely includes all organic matter.

      Gabriel (in N M)

------------------------------

From: Mark Hertzog <mwh8h@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 22:02:58 EDT
Subject: Bush/Robertson Zap: Small Correction

Howdy.  I goobered.  Pat Robertson owns the CBN complex, not CNN.  Oh Lord, I
am heartily sorry.  I beg Ted Turner not to sue.

Mark

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Loren Meissner <lmeissne@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Miss Manners
Mime-Version: 1.0

I'll try to upload the full Miss Manners Column now.  Here goes........
 Article 52 in clari.feature.miss_manners (moderated):  From:
clarinews@clarinet.com (Judith Martin) Subject: Personal matters should be
kept private Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 22:44:41 PDT Note: SUNDAY, Sept. 6, 1992
 SUNDAY, Sept. 6, 1992 Lines: 97
        Didn't Miss Manners admonish you not to go around broadcasting the
details of your private life?
        And isn't ``private life'' a quaint term for the first thing
everybody tells everybody else these days?
        Nobody listened to Miss Manners' old-fashioned plea for personal
reticence. Drunk with the concept of openness, people can't imagine a
reason other than false shame or silly squeamishness to prevent the
national flow of intimate information. Those few who wish to be
conventionally circumspect are prodded and exposed, and even blackmailed
with the argument that not confessing is tantamount to admitting that one
has something dreadful to hide.
        The telling of private emotions to strangers is put forward as
evidence of fine feeling. Surely Miss Manners is not the only person who
considers that, for example, love of one's own child is a minimum
requirement for humanity, not something to brag about. The blabby bathos
of expecting to be admired for harboring normal human emotions, or for
confessing to human weakness, is what makes her wonder what might be
hidden.
        And now look what has happened. We are having a variety of
unseemly public debates in which fitness for one's professional life --
the very opposite of private life, requiring quite different abilities and
attractions -- is measured in terms of one's sexual conduct or sexual
orientation.
        What does the personality of someone's spouse say about his or her
character? Are adulterers fit for public office? Should gays serve in the
military?
        These questions arise from a self-righteous but distasteful
defense of what the etiquette business calls nosiness.
        It is not from pure prissiness that Miss Manners argues against
private life being made public. She does it because she sees what surely
ought to be an obvious correlation between disclosure and disapproval:
        If you open your personal life to debate, you cannot then become
indignant because not everyone agrees with the way you conduct it.
        This society went through a period of falsely declaring itself to
be ``non-judgmental.'' Judging the proclivities of others is inevitable;
respecting others only requires that one make the essential distinction
between holding an opinion and expressing it.
        That is not to say that people should not announce their marriages
or other stable partnerships. Society has a legitimate claim to know
whether an individual lives as part of a couple, because social life is
based on these social units.
        And yes, the result will be that many people will form judgments
about the taste or lack of it demonstrated by anyone's choice of a
particular person. Contrary to the belief that all the world loves a
lover, all the world thinks the lover could have made a better choice.
There is hardly anyone who does not disagree with anybody else's taste in
partners.
        By no means does this disapproval have to be limited to your
partner's gender or marital status: Any individual can and will inspire
disapproval. Your choice is too young for you or too old for you, only
after your money or only after your body, too flighty or too stodgy, too
flashy or too mousy, obviously unreliable or obviously boring. If you want
to know which, just ask people.
        Miss Manners' point is that you shouldn't. They'll tell you.
        Putting private life on the public agenda legitimates
discrimination.  Yet it is difficult to defend the victims who bring their
private lives into places of employment and demand approval. Privacy is
what is needed, not approval (which provides the option of disapproval).
        Surely the zeal with which people speculate on the unfathomable
relationship between private behavior and its possible public consequences
could be well applied to punishing actual cases where private behavior --
from innocent mutual flirtation to criminal sexual harassment or rape --
is practiced on the job. In professional life, it is one's actions, not
one's proclivities, for which one should be held accountable.
        Are you unsure about tipping? Miss Manners' pamphlet, ``On
Tipping,'' explains who should be tipped and how much. Send $1.50, plus a
long self-addressed stamped envelope, to Miss Manners, in care of this
newspaper, P.O. Box 91428, Cleveland, OH 44101-3428.
        Feeling incorrect? Address your etiquette questions (in black or
blue-black ink on white writing paper) to Miss Manners, in care of this
newspaper. The quill shortage prevents Miss Manners from answering
questions except through this column.
        Copyright 1992, United Feature Syndicate, Inc.  End of article 52

------------------------------

End of GayNet Digest
********************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU