Newsgroups: bit.listserv.gaynet
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:17:02 EDT
From:         gaynet@GALLIFREY.KENT.EDU
Subject:      GayNet Digest Volume 6 Issue 16

In this issue:
             LL Bean, Miss Manners, California rights bills
                        ontario marriage rights
                    GayNet Digest Volume 6 Issue 15
                     The Lesbian in the GOP Family
                                 access
                              Miss Manners
                       Au Contraire, Miss Manners
                    GayNet Digest Volume 6 Issue 15
                    GayNet Digest Volume 6 Issue 16

Please send messages for the entire list to gaynet@GALLIFREY.KENT.edu,
requests to be added or deleted to gaynet-request@GALLIFREY.KENT.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@GALLIFREY.KENT.EDU.

For those restricted to 8 characters for addresses, Requests can be sent
to GAYNETR@gallifry.kent.edu, and those who need to send anonymously may
send to GAYNETA@gallifry.kent.edu.  Please note the 8 character spelling of
GALLIFRY  (Gallifrey minus the E before the Y).

If you have problems any of these addresses, please contact me directly at:

perkins@ksuvxa.kent.edu (Internet)
ksuvxa::perkins (DECNET)
perkins@kentvms (BITNET/J-Net)

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

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 09:58:50 -0700
From: jnrg@ocf.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: LL Bean, Miss Manners, California rights bills

LL Bean: Thanks to Braddlee for his initiative.  I think you are
right: it is not enough for LL Bean to say they are unhappy
with Linda Bean's anti-lesbigay stance.  They must
DO something about it.

Miss Manners: Loren, thanks for citing this.  Let me be among
the first to BEG you (or someone else) to key this in whenever
you can.  Thanks!

California Rights Bills: Ron Buckmire, to reply to part of your
question: there are three bills related to lesbigay rights
currently on the guv's desk awaiting action.  In addition to
the two already discussed, there is a so-called "omnibus"
civil rights bill carried by Assembly Speaker Willie Brown.
This includes protections for other groups (such as racial
groups and women, I believe).  It had a rocky course
through the legislature since it also includes provisions
protecting lesbigays (or, more correctly, lesbians and gays
but not specifically bisexuals) and State Senator Ayala
of Chino vociferously objected to those clauses.  So, they were
dropped to get it through the Senate and then restored
in the Senate-Assembly reconciliation conference.
ANYWAY, Wilson is likely to veto any or all of these
three bills on or about Thursday.

Finally, it is ok that Newsweek featured a cover story on "Gays Under
Fire" but must the Time-Newsweek folks ALWAYS put on ly white men
on the cover??? Remember the cover story which had the guys
walking away and holding hands, tag line something re
"tolerance increasing"?

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

From: Paul Bobbitt <paul.bobbitt@canrem.com>
Date: 	Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:00:00 -0400
Subject: ontario marriage rights

UG>Couldn't these people have saved themselves a lot of time and effort
UG>by simply allowing same-sex couples to get married?  (Granted, I don't
UG>know the ability of the body making the decision to do this, but you'd
UG>think that if they're going to go this far, they might as well just
UG>save themselves a lot of hassle with regard to re-interpreting and
UG>rewriting laws by just allowing same-sex couples to get married in the
UG>first place.)

This case took place in Ontario, and the Ontario government does not
have the right to make laws regarding marriage, which is a
responsibility clearly given to the Federal government in the
Constitution Act 1867 (British North America Act).

The Premier of Ontario has not given a definitive answer as to whether
or not the Province will choose to appeal the case.  A meeting set for
yesterday was postponed until October, presumably to allow the
government the time to study all the ramifications of the decision.
At one point, the government was claiming it could not apply this
new decision because it didn't have the capacity to locate all the
laws that would have to be changed.

I don't really think that last excuse will go very far.  Too many Gay
groups are willing to go through the law books page by page to track
down the offending laws.  My suggestion is just let Gays and Lesbians
do what they want, and when it conflicts with a law strike the law down.
We should be able to find all of them in about a week that way.  <grin>
In addition, the lawyer who won the case stated that it would have an
impact on 73 statutes.  I expect they can get the list from him.

Of course, all this just points out the fact that we need our law
libraries transferred to CD-ROM as quickly as possible.  A search for
"Spouse" and "Marriage" would turn up all the offending laws in about
five minutes.  Unfortunately, the Ontario Statutes do not currently
exist on CD-ROM.  <sigh>

Happily in Ontario,

Paul D. Bobbitt
---
 ~ DeLuxe} 1.25 #7722 ~ Int: paul.bobbitt@canrem.com  GEnie: P.BOBBITT
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario, Canadas
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044

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

Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 13:41:21 EDT
From: georgick@hal.hahnemann.edu
Subject: RE: GayNet Digest Volume 6 Issue 15

I loved the article on the world's oldest sperm bank!  I just have one question
for you scientists out there-is it *really possible to carbon date sperm?
This sounded a bit suspicious to me.  I thought they determined his age by
dating the artifacts he was found with, I didn't think it was possible to
carbon date human cells.  Perhaps there is a lab tech out there with a real
penchant for "older men".

Tamara
georgick@hal.hahnemann.edu

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

From: august@leland.stanford.edu
Subject: The Lesbian in the GOP Family
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 10:50:39 PDT

The Washington Post last Thursday, 3 Sept 92, published a long piece on
Diane Mosbacher, the lesbian (presumably Democratic) daughter of Robert
Mosbacher, chief fundraiser for the Bush reelection campaign effort.

I have a transcription of that article  if anyone is interested in reading
it.  Please send a request to my address august@leland.stanford.edu.
--
nGUYen QUang tuE, august@lEland.stanfoRd.edu
Unexotic Oriental Boy, (415) 325-9227

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

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:02 EDT
From: ER3230%ALBNYVMS.bitnet@UACSC2.ALBANY.EDU
Subject: access

Hi!...Can I gain access to your system?

Thank you!

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

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Loren Meissner <lmeissne@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Miss Manners
Mime-Version: 1.0

At the SACRIFICE of my lunch hour (I hope I don't starve as a result) I
have found a few minutes to type in excerpts of the MISS MANNERS column
scheduled for release SUNDAY Sept 6, 1992 (i.e. it may run on a different
date in your home town.

Please note: The usual disclaimers apply:
- used without permission from clarinet news service (if you republish,
seek permission from them,etc).
- I am posting this for informational purposes only and do not endorse or
concurr with Miss Manners' views.
-Please no flames or arguments on this subject to me. If you want to
debate/argue/discuss, please write:
     Miss Manners
     P O Box 91428
     Cleveland, OH 44101-3428
  She (Miss Manners) says to only write her by hand in black or blue-black
  ink on white writing paper (her requirement-NOT mine).

Excerpt follows (typos mine):

     Didn't Miss Manners admonish you to not go around broadcasting the
details of your private life?
........
And now look what has happened. We are having a variety of unseemly public
debates in which fitness for one's professional life -- the very opposite
of private life, requiring quite different abilities and attractions -- is
measured in terms of one's sexual conduct or sexual orientation.  What
does the personality of someone's spouse say about his or her character?
Are adulterers fit for public office? Should gays serve in the military?
These questions arise from a self-righteous but distasteful defense of
what the etiquette business calls nosiness.
........
That is not to say that people should not announce their marriages or
other stable partnerships. Society has a legitimate claim to know whether
an individual lives as part of a couple, because social life is based on
these social units.
.........
By no means does this [social] disapproval have to be limited to your
partner's gender or maritial status: Any individual can and will inspire
disapproval. Your choice is too young for you or too old for you [etc.]...
...........
Putting private life on the public agenda legitimizes discrimination. Yet
it is difficult to defend the victims who bring their private lives into
places of employment and demand approval. Privacy is what is needed, not
approval....In professional life, it is one's actions, not one's
proclivities, for which one should be held accountable.

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

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Loren Meissner <lmeissne@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Au Contraire, Miss Manners
Mime-Version: 1.0

My personal opposition to the MISS MANNERS column on "gays in the
military" is the fact that it is not the "gay in the military" who is
usually making an issue of his/her sexuality, it is the military which is
prying where it really hs no business to pry. Case in point here in
Washington State (Colonel?) Cammermeyer of the National Guard kept her
sexuality to herself for over 20 years and would have continued to do so,
had not the military pried. Thus I think MISS MANNERS is off her rocker on
this subject, and I have written her to let her know.

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

Date:         Wed, 09 Sep 92 13:39:21 EDT
From: Bill Beeman <WBEEMAN@BROWNVM.brown.edu>
Subject:      Re: GayNet Digest Volume 6 Issue 15

I hope everyone saw Nightline last night.  It dealt with the new
school curriculum for the New York Public Schools in which 4
out of 600 approved texts for use in the elementary school
system dealt with families headed by same-sex couples--
Daddy's Roommate etc.  William Bennett was the opposition,
and claimed that these books were attempts to proselytize children.
The New York head of curriculum was very good in response, saying
that these books were included to give teachers the opportunity
to teach children about the varieties of families that exist
in the world today.  In all, the discussion was balanced, but
I think Bennett got the worst of it.

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

Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 16:56:03 EDT
From: flg <flg@lan.asc.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: GayNet Digest Volume 6 Issue 16

          Desparately Seeking Sheldon.

          I need copies of any letters/statements by Our Friend, the
          Rev L. Sheldon. I know some of you have posted these
          previous items on gaynet, but I've not kept many of them,
          and I can now put them to good use to embarrass Lou and his
          colleagues. If anyone has copies on file I'd appreciate
          receiving copies at: FLG@ASC.UPENN.EDU. (hardcopies can go
          to: Larry Gross, Annenberg School, U of PA, 3620 walnut st.
          Phila. PA. 19104.).
          Now I know someone (Ron Buckmire?) will tell me to get this
          stuff from some e-archive, but I'm not on a Unix system and
          as far as I know can't access those archive.
          Thanks in advance.
          Larry Gross

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

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