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 18:08:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.043139.26068@tc.cornell.edu>, shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
> In article <1992Dec15.015407.16075@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> >Adding superflous or only vaguely related issues detracts from the
> >real point of the march: gay rights. 
> 
> Is that the "real" and only point of the march?  Those who
> are expending the energy to make it happen seem to be
> taking a broader view.  

  Let's turn this around, if the inner sanctum were run by
a bunch of libertarians and did some pretty good PR would
you feel quite as comfortable? 

> If you climb out of your gay box and try to place our gay
> experience in a broader context, it becomes almost
> impossible not to notice that we're talking about identity
> politics.

  You're telling a libertarian that issues aren't related in
a broader context? Snort. Yes, I'm fully aware that issues
such as abortion are indeed related to issues of individual
liberty etc. However, that was not my point. My point is
that the MOW is a gay event and trying to make it into an
all encompassing "indentity politics" is rather exclusionary
since it implies that there is some sort of consensus on what
those politics might be. There is not. 
  Adding things like universal health care to the list of 
demands is a pretty long stretch from what "gay rights" is. If
it weren't for AIDS I doubt that this would be an issue whatsoever.
There are, however, many issues which transcend immediate
accidental problems. The military ban, sodomy laws, and the
rise of intolerance from the religious right and their anti-gay
agenda are instances which I think most gay people can agree
are not right. There are even issues which are pervasive
within the gay community (such as anti discrimination laws)
which I could agree to disagree with and support the general
concept of the march. However when the focus of issues becomes
so hazy from the original purpose by attaching all kinds of
other demands, well, it loses it charm.
  Of course the organizers have their right to set up any
agenda they want; it just strikes me that they are being 
rather irresponsible by taking advantage of the situation.
Most people are of the Jake-go-because-of-the-party mindset
and will basically swallow any platform they are presented.
I'm sure this fact was not lost on the organizers, so they 
had pretty much free reign to do as they pleased.
  Yes, I know this is a whine and I'm not trying to hide
that; it's just that it didn't have to be this way. A little
consideration and focus would have gone a long way to including
all members of the gay community.

>  Like other minorities and women, we don't face
> disenfranchisement because of what we do, but rather who we
> are.  Given that, it becomes obvious that our struggle
> is the same.  And, if you try to advance the cause of only
> one group without providing that kind of context, you run
> the considerable risk of heading towards maintenance of
> existing imbalances with a reordered hierarchy.  Ick.

  And if it is an amorphous, disjoint set of demands people
will look at it as a broad fronted assault and will dismiss 
it out of hand. So what's your point?

> I don't believe that Jake has ever claimed to be a libertarian.

  I don't believe his brain is capable of forming the concepts
to know what it means one way or the other. But that's beside 
the point.
-- 

		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)