From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Potential fallout from lifting the US military ban (was Re: Into the streets!)
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:10:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1993Jan26.221051.7439
Reply-To: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

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?
Newsgroups: soc.motss