From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Gayspace
Date: 27 Jul 1992 21:08:26 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

I was tired and cranky when I started all this.  I'm still a little
tired and cranky, so forgive me.

In article <1992Jul28.014856.4343@macc.wisc.edu> 
anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
|
| In article <l78d51INNavl@mizar.usc.edu>
| adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (Arne Adolphson) writes:
|
| >It's my understanding that the city council approved placing
| >the monument on city property, but that the monument itself
| >was paid for by gl organizations.
|
| To play the Devil's advocate, what's so different about the
| OCA putting up a monument on city property in Springfield,
| Oregon, then, if political clout alone is enough to ratify
| such a step?

Political clout alone does not justify anything.  In this
particular instance -- commemorating several months' worth
of demonstrations against bigotry and oppression by the
placing of a monument on the site where those demonstrations
began -- is entirely appropriate.  The commemoration, worthy
as it is, however, would not happen were it not for the fact 
that we *do* have political clout.  It's all very well and 
good to have a just cause -- and that is precisely what the
monument will point out -- but without clout, without power,
where are we?

The OCA may have clout in benighted townships, but they
most certainly are not interested in furthering the cause
of liberty, in promoting tolerance, in bettering this 
world for anyone but their fellow-travellers.

[...]
| >Now, whether 
| >they act out of a desire to promote social justice (remotely
| >possible) or to keep their seats on the city council (more
| >likely, say I) it doesn't really matter to me what their
| >motivations are.
|
| It's up to you, of course, but I think it should matter to
| you what their motivations are.  You're as much as saying
| the distinction is superficial, yet it doesn't seem at all
| superficial to me.

I don't think the distinction *is* superficial.  Although I am
pleased by the city council's pro-gl stance, I take note of
the cynics among them ("If I vote against this I'll have all
those ACT UP people breathing down my neck") and I vote against
them.  But while they're on the council, of course I welcome
their votes.

| >>>>And if the phobes don't like it, they're welcome
| >>>>to move to a city 35% of whose residents are not gay.  I'm
| >>>>sure they'd be able to find such cities. 
|
| >>Carl is right to call this a bigoted remark.  It's analogous
| >>to "If those folks are annoyed by the Stars and Bars, let
| >>'em get up north."
|
| >Perhaps it was a bigoted remark.  I'm not terribly
| >concerned, though.
|
| Well, perhaps you should be.  How can you have such a
| callous disregard for the results of bigotry as to feign
| being unconcerned at the same time as you complain about
| being discriminated against?  Being unconcerned about it is
| to have no moral stature at all.  You're surely not that
| much of a cynic nor a nihilist, Arne.

I will not cmpromise when it comes to gl issues.  Quite simply,
in fact, there *is* no compromise.  There is nothing to argue
about; phobes have no position worth listening to.  If a
homophobe does not like the fact that the gay and lesbian
community has some power in West Hollywood -- power to push
through domestic partnership laws, power to insist that the
city fund HIV clinics, power to insist that the city heirarchy
respect us for who and what we are -- then he/she can leave
town.  I really do mean that.  Nothing is being taken *away*
from said homophobes -- their protest is that we exist and that
the city treats us like human beings.  I say "fuck you" to the
phobes and I invite them to leave town on the next available bus.

--Arne
Newsgroups: soc.motss,talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism