Newsgroups: bit.listserv.gaynet
Date:         Sun, 23 Aug 1992 19:40:37 -0400
From:         gaynet@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Subject:      GayNet Digest Volume 5 Issue 650

In this issue:
                             Rejected mail
                              ny gay mags
     Amnesty International Update on Nicaraguan Homosexuality Laws
          Amnesty Investigates as More Gays Murdered in Mexico
                             please add me
                     How Evil are the Republicans?
                            Gay magazines...
                     IUPUI Accounting Major wanted
                         The Electoral College

Please send messages for the entire list to gaynet@ATHENA.MIT.EDU,
requests to be added or deleted to gaynet-request@ATHENA.MIT.EDU, and
personal replies directly to the other person, not the entire list.
Postings to GayNet are public communications.  If you must keep your
privacy, send your messages to gaynet-anonymous@ATHENA.MIT.EDU.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 12:23:14 -0400
From: Michael G. Maki <am250@nextsun.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Subject: Rejected mail

am250 is rejecting mail from you

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 92 12:30:41 EDT
From: Thanalakshmi.Subramaniam@Dartmouth.EDU
Subject: ny gay mags

u shld be able to find QW ( used to be New York Queer), the Advocate, Genre,
Frontier to name a few. maybe u need to be looking in gay bookstores instead
of Waldenbooks or something. cheers!
shimi

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 13:35 GMT
From: Diane Bailey <dbailey@cix.clink.co.uk>
Subject: Amnesty International Update on Nicaraguan Homosexuality Laws

Amnesty International
International Secretariat
1 Easton Street
WC1X 8DJ
United Kingdom

AMR 32/WU 04/92 EXTERNAL

14 August 1992

UPDATE
NICARAGUA: AI CONCERNED AT PROPOSED TIGHTENING OF LAWS ON
HOMOSEXUALITY

Follow-up to AMR 43/WU O2/92 and 03/92

Amnesty International has recently learned that the package of
proposed reforms to the Nicaraguan Penal Code, including an
amendment to Article 205 concerning homosexuality, has been
ratified by President Chamorro. Al is concerned that the
amendment to Article 205 could lead to the prosecution and
imprisonment of individuals for advocating homosexual rights or
for practising homosexual acts between consenting adults in
private.

The reforms to the Penal Code were approved by the National
Assembly on 11 June and ratified by the President on 8 July.
However, news of the ratification was not made public, and did
not reach sources in Nicaragua until early August. The
legislation has not been published in the off1cial diary La
Gaceta.

Amended Article 205 (now Article 204 of the reformed Penal Code)
provides that "anyone who induces, promotes, propagandizes or
practices in scandalous form sexual intercourse between persons
of the same sex commits the crime of sodomy and shall incur 1 to
3 years imprisonment". It also states that if one of the people
engaging in sexual intercourse is in a position of power or
authority over the other, even if in private, s/he will be
punishable with 2 to 4 years in prison for unlawful seduction.

In a letter to President Chamorro on 30 June, Amnesty
International expressed its concern that the broad and undefined
provisions of the proposed legislation could be applied in a way
that would criminalize the expression of homosexual identity in a
broad range of forms. Individuals detained or imprisoned solely
on the basis of their homosexuality, including for homosexual
acts between consenting adults in private, would be considered by
Amnesty International to be prisoners of conscience. The
organization would demand their unconditional release

Ends


Footnote, by Diane Bailey

The secretive way in which this legislation has been handled by
the Nicaraguan government is illustrated by the fact that,
although the law was signed on July 8, Amnesty International
received a fax on August 5th from the Embassy to the United
States of the Republic of Nicaragua, dated that day, stating, in
effect that the law had not yet been signed.  The text was as
follows:


\\The Government of Nicaragua sympathizes with the concerns of
the demonstrators opposing the recent initiative by the National
Assembly to reform Article 205 of the Nicaraguan Criminal Code.
However, the issue is more complex than it may seem at first
glance.

It is understandable that the United States and other countries
are more open to homosexual lifestyles. But it would be unfair
for the standards of other countries to be forced upon Nicaragua,
a predominently Catholic country where the vast majority of its
citizens disagree with these standards. We are merely asking that
people demonstrating against Nicaraguan mores examine the issue
more deeply, taking into consideration Nicaraguan culture and
history.

As of today, the Executive branch of the government has not
ratified the reform as law. The Embassy of Nicaragua is open to
discussion with interest groups concerned with this issue.

For further information:
Maria Teresa Nigro
Embassy of Naicaragua
+1 202 939 6570//

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 13:29 GMT
From: Diane Bailey <dbailey@cix.clink.co.uk>
Subject: Amnesty Investigates as More Gays Murdered in Mexico

Amnesty Investigates as More Gays Murdered in Mexico

Mexican gay groups have called upon Amnesty International to take
up the cases of two gay men being held by police in Mexico on
suspicion of multiple murders of AIDS workers, despite no
apparent evidence to link them with the crimes.

The head of the Mexican research department of the London based
human rights organisation is understood to be investigating their
situation in Mexico this week.

As the two men remained in detention, another in the apparent
series of murderous attacks was committed.  0n August 10, a
22-year-old gay activist became the latest victim in a wave of
anti-gay violence in the state of Chiapas in southern Mexico.
Martin Balesca Dominguez was severely beaten and stabbed many
times by unidentified attackers, who Ieft him for dead near the
town of Arriaga. The victim, a member of the AIDS organisation
Piscis de Arriaga, is in critical condition in a local hospital,
according to the latest information from Colectivo Sol, Mexico's
largest Iesbian and gay group.

A dozen other gay men and nine prostitutes have been assassinated
in Chiapas in the past year, most of them shot with high-calibre
weapons. None of the cases has yet been solved by local police,
who consider these murders to be crimes of passion or vengeance
within the gay community, despite clear signs of professional
marksmanship and the striking similarity among thc cases. Local
gay leaders report increased harassment by police as a result of
the publicity surrounding the violence.

Leaders of Circulo Cultural Gay, a Mexico City gay organization,
recently presented the National Commission on Human Rights with
documentation of the assassinations in Chiapas. They demanded an
investigation by the Commission of what they call the "systematic
and often silent genocide suffered by the gay and lesbian
population of the country." In an open letter to the Governor of
Chiapas published in the newspaper La Jornada, many of the
country's leading intellectuals pleaded for a more thorough
investigation of the crimes in order to bring the murderers to
justice.

Violence against homosexuals and transvestites has been rampant
in other parts of Mexico as well. On June 18, a young
transvestite was beaten to death on the streets of Oaxaca. Three
gay men were murdered in Mexico City on July 13, including Dr.
Francisco Estrada, founder and president of Grupo Ave de Mexico,
an AIDS prevention organization. And two gay men were found bound
and shot to death in Guadalajara on August 9.

Demonstrations have been organized by gay groups in front of
Mexican consulates and embassies in the United States and in
Europe, in an attempt to force the Mexican government to act to
stop the homophobic violence throughout the country. Enrique
Asis, Latin American Coordinator of the International Gay and
Lesbian Human Rights Commission was widely quoted when he said:
"It's time for the Mexican government to take seriously the
epidemic of anti-gay violence throughout the country and to force
the police to fully investigate the murders of gay men".

The response of the Mexican government has been to set up a
special investigative commission, but local police are still
detaining, and apparently seeking to place the blame upon gay men
that the gay community are convinced are quite unconnected with
the crimes.

For further information contact Enrique Asis at the International
Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, Tel: +1 415 255 8680,
Fax: +1 415 255 8662, or Colectivo Sol, Fax: +52 5 605 8299.

Diane Bailey
dbailey@cix.compulink.co.uk

------------------------------

From: Paul Bobbitt <paul.bobbitt@canrem.com>
Date: 	Sat, 22 Aug 1992 20:00:00 -0400
Subject: please add me

Subscribe

Please add me to this list.

Paul D. Bobbitt
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.25 #7722 ~ paul.bobbitt#canrem.com  70733,2234@compuserve.com
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

------------------------------

Subject: How Evil are the Republicans?
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 12:45:23 -0600
From: Chris Petrilli <petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu>

Here ya' go... I thought it was excellent, and when I talked to
Michael last week, he said the local (Austin, TX) paper is going to
carry itt sometime this week.

From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: How evil are the Republicans?

I don't know about anyone else, but the Republican convention has
frightened me.  We hear how all our country's problems are because of
someone else and how if only President Bush could do whatever he wanted the
country would be okay.  We hear how all the good things that have happened
in the world are because of President Bush.  We hear how a return to a
narrow definition of "family" will improve our economy and help our
country.  Now, of course, the Republicans offer no reasons or evidence for
any of these statements.  But what else is new.

However, this particular Republican convention reminds me of another time.
A leader who claimed that if you followed him without question, even if you
disliked a couple of things he stood for, he would improve the economy and
make his country powerful again.  He would make certain that those that did
not represent his definition of "good", and who he blamed for the country's
woes, would be kept carefully in check.  He talked of forcing religion,
albeit just his view of religion, back into the lives over every citizen,
especially the captive audience of unsuspecting children.  He had the
support of many of the fundamentalist Christian religions.  Who am I
talking about?  If you haven't figured it out by now, it's Hitler.  And
while there are some differences between Bush and Hitler, the similarities
are infinitely more frightening.  The Nazis even went so far as to attack a
group which Quayle has had no end of enjoyment in attacking:  the media and
entertainment "elite."  Bush speaks out of both sides of his mouth on
abortion.  And his attitude towards the rights of gays and lesbians reeks
heavily of a fascist attempt to repress a minority; there is little
difference between Republican attacks on my sexuality than Hitler's attacks
on the "evil" of the Jews in pre-Nazi Germany.  He claims he represents the
'majority', but did that make the Nazis (who also represented the
'majority) _RIGHT_?  Fascism, unfortunately, is very seductive, and Bush
has seduced many of the moderates of the Republican party.  Let us hope
that the American people are not as easily seduced, for the world does not
need another demagogue with too much power.


   _______________________                             _________________
   \        \            /  Michael Lax                |    ACT UP!    |
    \        \          /  12514 Esplanade St., #B     |  FIGHT BACK!  |
     \        \        /  Austin, Texas 78727-4409     |  FIGHT AIDS!  |
      \      / \      /  U.S.A.                        =================
       \    /   \    /  512.837.1596 (h), 512.836.9715 (fax)
        \  /     \  /  email:  lazarus@wixer.cactus.org
Please,  \/       \/
do not    \       /   "If the opposite sex is *supposedly* so much fun,
feed or    \     /     than why does everyone MASTURBATE?"
tease the   \   /
straight     \ /      "Never let the bastards get you down"
people.       V                      (or is that GO DOWN?)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 13:46 EDT
From: SCHANK83%snypotva.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Subject: Gay magazines...
X-Organization: Potsdam College of the STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK (SUNY)

To the person who was looking for gay magazines in NYC:

They're there.  :)

A few I can think of right off are Genre (a self-dubbed gay GQ, or is that
redundant?) and QW.  Then, of course, there's the Advocate (and all their
different types - Advocate, Advocate Men, etc.)  I'm sure there are a lot
others that I've forgotten, but since I'm not longer in NYC, I can't
check for you...

As to where to find them, I'd think Greenwich Village would have at least
ONE place that would have them... :)

Hope this helps..

Andy

"I dunno about the film, but the title
alone gets two snaps up!"

------------------------------

From: rjones@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rex A. Jones)
Subject: IUPUI Accounting Major wanted
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 19:28:01 GMT

This is a shot in the dark, but...

You: IUPUI Accounting major, 30, from Lebanon, working and wanting to
finish your degree NOW, (all of that and handsome, too).

Me:  The person you were talking too at the end of Saturday (last night)
at Our Place.

What: You seemed really cool, and said some things that I could relate to
very well.  I'd like to meet you again and maybe do dinner, etc. without
having to worry about your needing to leave with others to go to an after
hours party...

(you know, the go to dinner, see if we get along, date, fall in love, move-in,
get married, buy a house {or condo in Chicago}, etc thing...)

(ah...the romantic in me...   :)   )

later,

Rex

------------------------------

From: Mark Hertzog <mwh8h@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 19:19:52 EDT
Subject: The Electoral College

Howdy!  In reply to Leo at Albany's post:
     SIMPLIFIED ANSWER:  The Electoral College actually elects the president
and vice president of the United States.  In plain English: You don't vote
for a ticket, but for a slate of electors in your state that's pledged to
vote for that ticket.  The slate that gets the most votes in your state wins
all the state's electoral votes.  Each state has as many electoral votes as
it has U.S. senators and congressmen combined, so each state has at least 3;
D.C. also is allowed 3 electoral votes.  Whoever gets an absolute majority of
the nation's electoral votes wins.
     WHY:  When the Constitution was first drafted it was assumed that the
people, even the limited number of people with the right to vote, would not
be informed/wise/smart enough to choose the chief executive directly.
Furthermore, travelling conditions in those days made nationwide campaigning
a virtual impossibility.  Finally, there was strong concern by the small
states that their interests would be totally ignored in favor of those of the
large states.
     HOW: Therefore, the Founding Mothers devised this system: Each state
would choose a number of "electors," equal to the total number of U.S.
senators and representatives the state sent to Congress.  How the electors
were chosen was left up to the states; in many they were chosen by the state
legislatures, but by 1828 the electors were elected by the people in all
states except South Carolina, which came around only after the War Betwixt
the States.  These electors would cast their ballots in their respective
state capitols, then send the returns to Congress, where a joint session
would count the votes and certify the winners.  Every state has at least 3
electoral votes.  This works somewhat to the advantage of small states.  For
example, Wyoming, with 1/60th the population of California, has 1/18th the
electors of California (3 for Wyoming, 54 for California).  Today it takes
270 electoral votes to win.
     [What if no one gets a majority?  Hang on--I'm getting to that.]
     HOW IT REALLY WORKS:  Originally the electors were free to vote their
consciences, and in the most technical sense they still are.  However, early
on the parties organized slates of electors; and nearly all states, in order
to maximize their influence in the Electoral College, provided that the slate
receiving the most votes--whether it was an absolute majority or not--won all
the state's seats in the College.
     Take Virginia, which has 11 representatives and (like all states) two
senators.  That gives us 13 electoral votes.  Each party nominates 13
electors.  When you vote, you vote either for the Democratic slate of
electors, or the Republican slate, or the Perot slate (it's still on the
ballot), or the LaRouche slate, or the Libertarian etc. etc. etc.  The slate
that gets the most votes wins.  If the GOP <GAG!> gets the most votes in
Virginia, then all 13 Republican electors are elected, and they are expected
to vote for Bush and Quayle <AAAAAAK!>.
     POSSIBLE F***UPS:
     (1) If there're three strong candidates, an entire state could go to a
candidate with a substantial minority of the vote.  Say Perot had stayed in.
Say the vote in California was 35% for Perot, 31% for Clinton, 29% for Bush
and 5% for various other wackos.  Perot would win ALL of California's 54
electoral votes, even though 65% of Californians voted against him.
     (2) If there're three strong candidates, it could be that no one would
end up with an absolute majority (270 votes) in the Electoral College, and
the election *for President* then would be thrown into the House of
Representatives and the election for *Vice President* would be thrown into
the Senate.  Before you Democrats cheer that prospect, remember that, in the
House, the vote for president would be taken *by states*, not by individuals.
Wyoming's one (Republican) congressman would cancel out California's
52-member (majority Democratic) House delegation.  If a state's delegation is
split, it abstains.  It requires an absolute majority of states (26) to elect
a president.  Remember as well that Republicans are much stronger in the
smaller, rural states, and that no one knows how the congressional election
will go between redistricting, retirements and public disgust over the House
scandals and "gridlock".  Also: The president is chosen by the House from the
top three finishers; the Vice President is chosen by the Senate from the top
*two* finishers.
     IN OTHER WORDS: We potentially could have had an election in which Perot
got the largest number of the people's votes, Bush got the largest number of
electoral votes, and Clinton won the Presidency in the House, with the Senate
choosing Perot's vice-presidential nominee over Dan Quayle and Al Gore not
eligible to be considered.
     *Who, then, would have the legitimacy to govern?*
     Mercifully, we've only had two presidential elections go to the House,
in 1800 and 1824; and in only two other instances (1876 and 1888) has the
candidate with the most popular votes lost the election.  However, it could
happen again, and if Perot had stayed in the race, it durn well might have.

     One other thing: Perot remains on the ballot in about two-thirds of the
states.

Sleep well tonight.

Mark, in the land of the Founding Fathers

------------------------------

End of GayNet Digest
********************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU