HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: balistik@big-brother.nevada.edu (Shawn Hicks)
Subject: How to prevent anti-gay laws
Organization: Not yet, but we're working on it...
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 06:42:50 GMT


There is something I've noticed about queer activism: either 
it's protests directed outward, or overwhelming help directed
inward.  IOW, we march against things in public, or we rally
around a queer community need in private.  Neither of these
are bad in themselves, but the difference in what we do in
public vs private may well be.

AIDS is a subject very familiar to the queer community. 
Outside our community it is commonly associated with us
as a matter of course. Not because we are the foot
soldiers in this war, but because we are seen as the 
Typhoid Marys.  Every queer community group I've been
a member of did two main things: _fought_ for changes
in law or policies to give us equality, and raise money,
volunteers, and awareness of AIDS.  What I have never
seen was a group of queers sponsoring highway cleanup,
helping the elderly shop for groceries, volunteering
at the local zoo, participating in county fairs, 
sponsoring grants to local public radio, etc.  Sure we
do all these things, but do we do it as the Queer Scouts,
or some other openly Queer group?  What about the student
organizations?  "Queer College Students Help Elderly" 
would sound really good on the front page.  If my 
Baptist grandmother can get angry at Oregon 9, any
65 year-old can.

It seems that part of the reason OR9 and CO2 did so 
well in the polls was because queers weren't the
girl next door that always sat the kids, the boy
at the market that bagged your groceries just right,
the college student that mowed your lawn, or the
elderly gentleman that brought your dog home when
it ran away.  Queers were only the raunchy, bawdy
hooligans doing disgusting things in a parade, 
demanding special rights, taking jobs from men
with children.  The parades are *fabulous*, but
they shouldn't be the only face the rest of voting
America sees.

Because of the last 12 years of neglect, PWA's have
needed every spare cent, second, and person we as
a community could spare.  Maybe with Clinton in the
White House, we will be able to devote a little time
to the larger communities we live in.  Perhaps we
can put a more realistic picture in the minds of
most voters, not just to pass Equal Rights laws, but
to create an atmosphere that we can all live in without
worrying who will throw a burning cocktail through our
window next.

Kenny Kerr, a famous drag artist who performs on the
strip, had his home firebombed and the words "die fag"
were painted on his driveway.  Two nights later the
Jewish Antidefamation League, and the NAACP held a
rally on the steps of the burned home protesting the
discrimination.  Not one single queer organization was
there with them.

Someone mentioned coalition building in an earlier post.
Maybe it's time to reach out from behind the "pink"
curtain and look for other organizations who support us.


I'm over this victim stuff.  


Shawn
Newsgroups: soc.motss,ne.motss
From: thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance)
Subject: Re: GOP's future; living with the enemy
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 02:15:31 GMT

anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:


>In article <1992Nov6.231031.22752@gordian.com>
>mike@gordian.com (Michael A.  Thomas) writes:

>>In article <thaaang.721089376@cwis>,
>thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance) writes:

>>> John, in bisexual woman drag (icepick in clutchpurse, of course)

>>  Now stop that. You'd make a fine first lady -er- love-thang.
>>Put your icepick back. You could be the most shameless corruptoress
>>in the history of America if only you play your cards right :-)
> 
>What's that "could be" shit?  Anybody can see the future Mr^2
>Kemp-Thaaang *is* playing his cards right.

That's Mzzz. Thaaang-Kemp, buster.

John, wearing *real* pearls, thankyouverymuch.

--
John Dorrance        * Sexyfunky Motherfuckerdiva *   thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu

		I bet if you threw that ass into the air
			It'd turn into sunshine!
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: phi@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Aeleck)
Subject: Re: ***Accessories!!!***
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:54:01 GMT

thaaang@cwis.unomaha.edu (John Dorrance) writes:
> What's your favorite kind? Handbags? Belts? Shoes? Watches? Jewelry?
> Any favorite pieces?
>
> John, trying to make Arne's soc.motss.real.world a better place
> (and who's been drooling over shoes'n'jewelry lately)
>
> (motss-relevance: puh-LEASE!!!)
>

Favorite?   Hmm....
Ok, let's start with outerwear,  my favorite coat is a black oil-skin 
australian duster.  And you can just bet that I look great in it.  (All this
and modesty too!  :))

Jewelry?  Usually, one ruby stud-earring, a watch, and my mother's old mother's
ring.

That's about it.  :/

Patrick                                      /  
                      /          /          /        
     __      __    __/_  _          __     /         
    /  \    /  \    /   / \    /   /  \   / \        "If you're not having
   /   /   /   /   /   /  /   /   /      /\_/         fun, you're doing some-
  /\__/\__/\__/\__/\__/   \__/\__/\___/ /   \__/      thing wrong." -Patrick
 /
/            Hate is not a family value.  Boycott Colorado
Xref: sparky soc.motss:47440 co.politics:1970
From: kpm@druhi.ATT.COM (Kevin Malloy (DoD #106))
Newsgroups: soc.motss,co.politics
Subject: What good is a right if it isn't protected?
Date: 13 Nov 92 17:39:05 GMT

in article <1992Nov12.191913.8438@ncar.ucar.edu>, gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) says:
> Xref: drutx soc.motss:5828 alt.politics.homosexuality:7578 co.politics:291
> 
> rm> Randy Murrish
> gs> Gary Strand
> 
> gs> I don't see the relevance of the suicide of a troubled man with what the
>     true effects of #2 are going to be.
> 
> rm> What ARE the true effects of CO-2 going to be?  It already denies homosex-
>     uals equal rights, what else do you want CO-2 to do?
> 
>   It does not deny homosexuals equal rights. It denies the the ability of the
>   state to create quotas for gays, or give gays minority status, and it denies
>   gays the use of the legal system to correct alleged cases of discrimination.
>   It does not permit gay-bashing.

Untrue, for what good is a "right" if laws protecting that right are
illegal?  Colo-2 takes away my ability to seek redress if I am fired
from my job, thrown out of my home, or denied access to public
accommodations simply because I'm gay.  If that's not denying civil
rights protections, I don't know what is.  The amendment also
decriminalizes so-called "hate crimes" against Lesbians and Gays, which
to me, is tantamount to permitting "gay-bashing" (hate-crime laws with
respect to Lesbians and Gays are unenforceable in Colorado now).

I don't know how many times it has to be said, but I'll say it again.
There has _never_ been any law, requirement, or regulation that has
required "quotas" or "special preferences" for Gays or Lesbians.
Never.  The California and Virginia handlers (i.e. the Traditional
Values Coalition and the Christian Coalition) of Coloradans for Family
Values told them to include "quotas, special preferences, and minority
status" in their amendment to obsfuscate the issue of discrimination,
which is what this amendment is all about.  The inclusion of these
words allowed CFV to play on an Affirmative Action backlash, and this
strategy clearly worked.

And I don't know what "minority status" is.  This term has never been
defined, to the best of my knowledge, and is not defined in Amendment 2,
Series 1992 (it's not yet officially Article 2 Section 30) of the Colorado
constitution.

					Kevin

P.S.  I'm working on an article on "what happened" from an insider's
      point of view.  Hopefully I'll be able to shed some light on
      the matter...

Kevin Malloy  kpm@druhi.att.com  AT&T Bell Labs, Denver  (303) 538-3511
633 E. 11th Ave.					 1991 BMW K75RT	  
Denver, CO  80203	_NOT_ a 2nd Class Coloradoan!	       DoD #106
(303) 830-2937	 1932 Germany   1962 Alabama   1992 Colorado
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern)
Subject: Boycott of Colorado / Amendment 2
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:29:59 GMT

Someone posted to rec.skiing, asking that skiers boycott CO resorts
because of the recent passage of the anti-gay-rights Amendment 2.  I'm
posting this to ask you not to do this, to tell you why, and to
suggest alternative boycotts that might be better.

1) Most of the ski resorts are in counties where the vote was against
Amendment 2.  These are Pitkin (Aspen, the city of which has a gay-rights 
ordinance which will be overturned under this amendment), Summit (Keystone,
A-Basin, Breckenridge, and Copper), and Boulder (Eldora -- also, the
city of Boulder has an existing gay-rights ordinance).  I don't know
about Vail, Steamboat or Crested Butte.  I will check the report that
was in the paper.

2) Most Coloradans against Amendment 2 are fighting this amendment now.
The mayor of Denver is filing suit against the governor (symbolically,
because he [Romer] is sympathetic to gay rights) and the state.  They
are claiming that the law is not valid under the 14th Amendment to the 
US Constitution.  

3) The places that you should boycott, if you want to try to hurt the
people who passed this amendment, are Colorado Springs, the eastern
plains cities and farms, and to some degree the Western Slope area.
Write to the Colorado Springs tourist board, maybe.  Don't buy Colorado
produce, which is mostly from eastern plains farms and Western Slope
orchards.  Colorado Springs is where the CFV group is based in the first
place, by the way.

I don't read this group, so if you would like to reply to me or ask
questions, email please.  I voted against Amendment 2, and I sincerely
hope that it gets thrown out on the basis of constitutionality before
it can do any damage.  I am embarrassed to be a Coloradan, but I am
proud that my city (Boulder) overwhelmingly voted it down.  I am also
proud that I along with the rest of my congressional district overwhelmingly
returned David Skaggs to Congress, where he has introduced legislation
that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.  So please
don't judge us all by the action of a bunch of homophobic pinheads.

-- 
/\     There may be honor among thieves, but there's none among politicians.
  \_][ <--NCAR Ilana Stern dod#009 r.b. cliff swallow ilana@ncar.ucar.edu    
      \______________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: discrimination at CMU
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 12:47:51 GMT


In article <mattm-111192151418@mcmelmon.apple.com>
mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:

>In article <1992Nov11.215211.14314@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>,
>ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark) wrote:

>>Oh, yes!  Any of them Faggots who can't be retrained to be
>>closet cases and act like strayt white min will just have to
>>be THROW OUT!

In reading Scott's postings about the CMU acting program, it
has seemed to me likely discrimination occurred, although
it's of a type difficult to prove, since an effort could
easily have been made to sanitize the reasons for
terminating men and women in the program.

But looking out into the real world of acting, one certainly
sees plenty of "effeminate" men and plenty of "overweight"
women, all employed and doing fine jobs in their profession.

>Very slowly, now - so as to make sure none of the words fall
>through cracked minds: actors assume the lives of people
>*other* than themselves.

You, and Steve, and Arne, and others, all seem to feel that
learning to be an actor must involve turning out people who
are interchageable units, that each student of acting must,
to be well trained, be capable of anything.  This is clearly
absurd, and in real life some kinds of actors play some
kinds of roles, other kinds play other kinds.

>Telling an actor to carry himself in a 'manly' way during
>the course of a part is *not* the same thing as telling the
>actor to change the way he lives his *own* life.

The flaw in this argument resides in the fiction "manly
way."  Actors, incidentally, include women.

>Where is the conceptual difficulty in that?

I didn't go too fast for you, I hope.

-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
<>  <>  <> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <>  <>  <>
From: jaw@castle.ed.ac.uk (Graeme Wood)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: left-handedness [ was Re: ""Gay rights group files complaint""]
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:59:01 GMT
Organization: Distributed Unix Support, Edinburgh University Computing Service

In article <1992Nov10.140942.23156@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, dh0a@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DONALD L. HARDY) writes:
|> 
|> I found it most interesting that the percentage of left handed people in the
|> general poulation roughly corresponded with the percentage of gay people in
|> the general population, running at about 10 - 11 %.  Not that the groups
|> overlap, just the percentages are similar.  I use this example (illogically,
|> probably) in discussions in my office of choice and non-choice (funny how the
|> conservatives are pro-choice in THIS matter).  Left handedness used to be
|> perceived as bad, wrong, a choice, a behavior that could and _should_ be
|> corrected.  And any left handed person will tell you that it just is
|> something that is.  I am sure this argument has been aired here frequently,
|> and I am merely beating a left handed horse, but this thread raised the
|> thought for me again.  And, as I tell one heterosexist fellow in my office,
|> some of my best friends are left handed straight people.   ;>

Actually the groups do overlap. Studies (I can't remember which, sorry) have
shown that a higher proportion of gay *men* are left handed than in the general
population.

Graeme
(Right-handed, to the left in everything else.)
From: mush@craycos.com (Randy Murrish)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Private CO anti-disc. policies
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:25:20 GMT
	<BxKsww.MD8@world.std.com> <1992Nov12.190936.11018@spdcc.com>
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation


Just a nit, but an important nit:

In article <1992Nov12.190936.11018@spdcc.com>
rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:

>	   (Remember 2 *does* say discriminatees do not have any legal
>   recourse under the law on the basis of orientation.  It does not
>   claim this is so only for public employees of the state/local 
>   governments!)

CO-2 says nothing about generic "sexual orientation", it specifically
mentions homosexuals and bisexuals as targets of the amendment.

The Amendment:

It would amend Article 2 of the Colorado Constitution by the addition
of Section 30, which states: NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON
HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION. Neither the State of
Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its
agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school
districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation,
ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual
orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or
otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any person or class of persons
to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected
status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution
shall be in all respects self-executing.

(the caps are not mine, they were on the amendment like that)

From my understanding, you can discriminate against homosexuals,
lesbians, and bisexuals, but those of other sexual orientations are
still protected under the laws in Boulder, Denver and Aspen.

>   BBC

Randy
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cray Computer Corporation                                Randy Murrish
1110 Bayfield Drive                                   mush@craycos.com
Colorado Springs, CO 80906                                719.540.4274
From: steven@cray.com (Steven Levine)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Lesbian Visibility on Roseanne
Summary: Sandra Bernhard's character comes out
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:07:58 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

I occasionally watch the television show _Roseanne_, although
not enough to know the name of Sandra Bernhard's character
(or how to spell Bernhard), or what her character's relationship
to Roseanne is.  But I was watching last night when she told
Roseanne and her sister Jackie that she is a lesbian.  (Actually
she may have said that she is gay.)  Even more intriguing
to me, her cosmetologist lover was played by Morgan Fairchild.

I thought it was handled pretty well.  Roseanne asked her
what had happened to make her a lesbian, and she explained
that she had always been a lesbian but had denied it to
herself -- she referred to her ex-husband, played by
Tom Arnold, as "the phase."  Roseanne said something
about having seen a Sally Jessie Raphael show about that.

"Why didn't you tell us?"  asked Roseanne.  "I was worried
about how you would react."  "We'd react they way we always
do when you tell us something personal:  we make fun of it
for a while then we go on to something else."

At one point there was some wonderful suggestive dialogue
about the "free gift" Sandra had gotten when she purchased
moisterizer from Morgan Fairchild (which was how the
new couple met).  I say wonderful because it explicitly acknowledged
sexual activity between the two women, something that
has been avoided in other "sensitive" mainstream
tv shows -- the episode of _The Golden Girls_, for
example, which included a lesbian character.

There was even a scene in which Roseanne told her
high-school-aged daughter Darlene about Sandra
(Nancy?  Was that the character's name?) being
a lesbian.  Darlene asked how she knew -- did
Sandra tell her?  Roseanne said something like,
"No, we saw the 'I'm a big old dyke' bumper sticker
on her truck."

At the end of the show, Roseanne and Jackie told
their mother about Nancy(?) being a lesbian.  Their
mother thought they were joking, but as part of that
dialogue they used the word "lesbian" loudly and
distinctly and about a thousand times.  The word
rang out into millions of homes; _Roseanne is, I think,
one of the most popular shows in America at this point. 

I hope they continue the plot line.

-Steven Levine
 steven@cray.com
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Portland personal ads
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:11:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Nov7.001102.25977
Reply-To: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

Two ads from this week's Wilamette Week, a weekly free yuppie rag:

Men Seeking Men:
  Straight guys only! Between girlfriends? 18-35? Friendly guy takes
  care of your needs. No experience necessary - shy guy OK!

Personals:
  Sex! $50! That's both the title and price of Madonna's newest
  project. Come see the uncensored material (girl) for yourself. (Why
  blow $50?) 20 minutes. $7. Half of all proceeds go to the Cascade
  Aids Project.
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/                 Shame is playback: exposure to disapproval
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Possible legal tactic
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:47:19 GMT

In article <1deq80INN6ue@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> osborn@cs.utexas.edu (John Howard 
Osborn) writes:
>
>Is Spacely's perception of Jetson being gay sufficient for Jetson to
>lose employment protection?

What employment protection?  Arbitrary discrimination is not prohibited in
most jurisdictions.  You can be fired for wearing an earring (if you're a
man) or wearing pants (if you're a woman), or any number of other things
which are not relevant to job performance.  Jetson could probably be fired
because Spacely felt like it, unless Jetson had some other kind of
contractual protection (that's one reason why unions are useful - they have
contracts which forbid arbitrary discrimination).


-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton   jfh@netcom.com   P. O. Box 281107   SF, CA   94128-1107
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: beezer@cc.utah.edu (BEEZER)
Subject: [QUESTION]:  MAIN-STREAM PRESS ON 'CO-2' ??
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Salt Lick, UT
Date:  6 Nov 1992 13:47 MST  

I am suprised as hell to not have seen ONE article in any of
the gay/bi newsgroups/mail-lists...

Nothing pulled directly from Associated Press, or United
Press International... etc.  NOTHING !!

---

Am I just to get all my news from your angry little beating
hearts that cry for boycotts and vengence ?
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Colorado embargo?
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:20:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: lclark.1992Nov6.092043.18319
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

In article <Bx9Msv.9K2@world.std.com> entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one) writes:
>Are there any legal problems with a business refusing to do business
>with the residents/businesses of a particular state? 
>
>If not an embargo of Colorado might be another and very powerful approach.
>Basically convince companies such as Levi's, Geffin records etc to not
>sell to Colorado, in return get large numbers of queers to only buy from
>those companies whenever possible.
>
>An embargo would have an effect much more noticeable to the average voter
>than a boycott alone.when suddenly records by certain artists, certain cloths
>, etc could not be purchased in Colorado. 
>
>Obligatory Colorado company to boycott-
> Colorado memory systems-1-800-432-5858
>-- 
>----          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!         ----
>\  /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers        \  /
> \/   and bean eating ways. Accept the #4 into your heart! \/
>     Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568        


My opinion is that we need to do what San Fransisco did a few years
ago with GM and it's 'faggot' ad.  Cancal contracts!

Also, Eugene, Oregon is a nuclear free zone and I believe that
just doesn't mean they only oppose the bomb, but they also do
not look to finely on companies that have anything to do with the
bomb.  I think they lost a bid for Rohr a few years back because
Rohr has holdings in the nuclear arms business.  

My point is.  Here in Oregon the OCA is going to go the individual city
county route.  That is fine with me!   If Grants Pass and Medford 
vote in discrimination then I feel that Portland and Multnomah County
should not be able to buy anything from those two areas!  We can
call ourselves a bigot free city.  (well if we overlook the race issue
in this town, which seems to be a favorite past time, but that is 
another subject matter!)  Meaning we cannot do business with any states, 
companies, cities, counties or....who don't have anti-discrimination 
clauses in their charters.

Bil Snodgrass III
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: strong@apple.com (Bob Strong)
Subject: Re: more faces for the soc.motss photo archive
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:50:50 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Followup-To: soc.motss

In article <1992Nov10.072031.5145@spdcc.com>, dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
wrote:
> 
> b/bob_strong1.gif		Mystery man (a Brit?)

Nope, Heinz 57.  Born in Texas, raised in San Diego, broke in in New Haven
(and New York, thanks to Metro North), and now living in San Jose.
Newsgroups: soc.motss