From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: The MOW Platform (was Re: NOTICE - Details...)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:54:07 GMT

  Oh bother. Why do even try.

In article, jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin) writes:
> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> >  Then why have a platform at all?
> 
> bingo.  the platform doesn't make much difference in
> my decision to march.  in my mind, the platform is a loose
> framework to bring together the diversity of the gay and
> lesbian community.  is there really so little for you in the
> platform that you'll miss this opportunity to hit washington?
> why don't you want to send a strong message to clinton and
> congress?  the sheer numbers of people will send more of a
> message than the damn platform.
  
  Look dearie, some of us with a conscience want to know *why*
we are doing something -- especially if it is in a political
context. And the fact that it is "sending a message" is exactly
the point. If you haven't noticed, those sheer numbers are going
to be defined as supporting said platform. If you support it
(or enough that it's worth the compromise) that's fine. If you
don't you're either a bloody hypocrite or a moron.

> >If the media pays attention to the
> >march at all (which seems likely) you can rest assured they will
> >focus on the _stated_ agenda. They aren't going to take a poll
> >of 1 million queers to ask them to state what it means in *their*
> >words.
> 
> drag queen comment take #2 -- sounds a lot like the Gay
> Pride Parade to me.  you know, we *all* show up, but the media
> focuses only on drag queens and leather men.  the media chooses
> to focus on whatever will sell interest (personally, half a
> million to a million people converging on washington is interesting
> to me.)  so why should your decision to march focus on the media
> when it cares more about drag queens and child molesters than
> whether or not gay people are struggling for equality.  (why go to
> Gay Pride?)

  Are you on drugs? Try again.
  There is precious little in common to Gay Pride Parades. Gay day
parades are a celebration of Stonewall and the emancipation of the
many diverse sets of gay people which that event precipitated. Gay 
pride parades are celebrations of diversity where, basically, anybody
with any sort of gay connection is allowed to strut their stuff.
   The MOW, on the other hand, is a singular event with the express
purpose of getting enough people together to show support of the
March's platform. It would be no different then if 1 million democrats
marched on Washington -- you'd use the platform as a metric to see
what these people want. 
   The only thing these things have in common is the large number
of queers in one place. That may be enough for your skewed perspective
but the rest of America is going to want to know what all those faggots
are whining about. Guess what they are going to be told.
   Gay pride parades, on the other hand are not for the het community
and we could give a damn what "message" we send out. The MOW is a
different animal altogether.

> >   A more inclusive platform would certainly help. Not all gay
> >people's political philosophy are the same, and "demanding" socially
> >volatile issues like abortion rights and universal health care which
> >are only tangentally related to gay rights seems rather, well,
> >presumptuous.
> 
> how do you make it more inclusive by avoiding "socially volatile
> issues" when those issues are linked to socially "benign" issues
> like gay rights?  [i guess we have to argue now about the "supposed"
> links between abortion rights and the various crimes against
> nature laws, and a universal health care system which would help
> underpriviledged PWAs.]

  Where did I say that gay rights are "socially benign"? Nowhere.
Adding superflous or only vaguely related issues detracts from the
real point of the march: gay rights. In doing so the march's platform
becomes an agenda of the organizers who get to claim there is some
sort of unity for their platform, when in fact probably half of the
people are there for your reasons. 
  Those of us who have half a conscience about not become utter
hypocrites are thus excluded because of a whole laundry list of
superficial and irrelevant issues are tacked on like an Omnibus
Funding Bill. Tacking this bullshit on is exclusionary, plain and
simple.
  Not that I would expect you to care; you've got your's after
all.

> geesh, this sounds a lot like the republican party.  "dress for
> success; wear a white penis." (courtesy of max vasilatos)

  Are you really this dense?

> >I don't think that it would be particularly difficult
> >to craft a platform which most queers would support -- like the
> >end on the military ban, and repeal of sodomy laws etc.
> 
> so it *is* the racism, sexism, and "transgender" issues which
> offend your sensibilities, huh?  do you and sarver play strip
> poker?

  Listen you twit, when you see that in my writing you can take
me to task for it. Until that time, I will ask you to keep your
delusions to yourself.

> >  Big deal. Why not ask for a philosophical revolution while
> >your at it.
> 
> gasp! and in my next posting, i'll stuff a piece of cake in
> your mouth and send you to the guillotine.

  Feh. You really Don't Get It.

		Mike, not holding his breath.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)