From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Lovely things found in my mailbox
Date: 30 Aug 92 22:49:19 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <64934@cup.portal.com> Drakon@cup.portal.com (HARRY BENJAMIN GIBSON) writes:
+
+There was an article in the SJ Mercury News some weeks ago about 
+gay Republicans. It made some good points, among them 1) To the 
+Democrats, we are just another "special interest group" to be 

The 'negro' of the post civil war south found how far the 'big tent'
stretched in their direction. Emancipating them was one thing, but
giving them 'equal' status was another. The blacks left and have
been 'democrats' since, along with southern whites. Seems so
strange, but being a 'special interest' group may not be all bad. 

+placated and tossed bones to. 2) While the "God Squad" have a lot
+of pull, they do not speak for the majority of rank and file party

While the SS had a lot of pull, it should not be thought that all
the party members supported the extent of genocide, monolithic
thinking, and the use of force to gain the party's ends.

+members. And 3) The "principles" of the Religous Right" are incon-
+sistant with conservitive values.

If the 'religious right' has more of an agenda than the 'rank and file'
member is willing to support, then the majority seem not to be
concerned. Well, so what if a few groups don't have equal status,
we'll get 'business' on it's feet and we'll all be drinking
bubble-up(at small free-market pice), and eating frozen rainbow
stew(just heat for pennies in your microwave appliance).

+Conservatism means less government interferance in my everyday
+life. It means me keeping more of my money. I can waste it on
+better things than Washington. It means believing in a free
+market and free exchange of ideals. It means Equal rights for
+all, reguardless of race, creed, color, religion, sex, or sexual
+orientation. It means not penalizing folks who play by the rules
+and do so quite well.

Unfortunately, here it has been my experience that such is not forth
coming from either 'conservatives' or 'republicans'. You are naming
'libertarianism'. The current vogue of 'republicans support 'small'
government' was blown away in the civil war. The use of the army
relative to labor unrest is a long republican history of supporting
the 'small' group of 'business men' at the expense of the mass of
'laborers', all the while that government should be out of the daily
life of the governed. Well, from some obscure point one could
concede that allowing capitalistic concentration of wealth is
allowing for ultimate individualism. It is true that the 19th
capitalist where the ultimate in American Individualist, and they
kept the state out of their business as long as posible.

As for the 'moral' aspect, the Republicans have publicly held
various narrow views of sexuality, family life and the control
therein, and who should be allowed to marry whom. The Democrats for
that matter have don't very little more, and southern Democrats are
essentially no different than most Republicans (except geographic
concentration). Some of the most unfortunate victims of the
Rebublican narrowness on these issues have been homosexuals. Out of
one side of their mouth they've had to sing the pean of heterosexual
supremicy and out of the other side utter sweet nothings to their
same sex partners. Well, you choose, a party which at least has you
sexual identity as a 'special interest group', or has your sexual
identity hanging in a closet, preferably with a noose around it's
neck.

+The thing that really bugs me about the "God Squad" is that such
+hate filled "family values" is such an antithesis to the acual 
+teachings of Christ. And it seems like a very few have picked this
+up.

Christ may have said a number of things. That fact has not stopped
the development of aggressive justifications for the common practice
of eliminating the opposition as the Christians have done. Since I
was raised in a society which is predominantly Christian I can only
speak or criticise this culture, however, I haven't found any
others which on the one hand preach acceptance of others, and haven't
also found some way to eliminate the opposition. 

In the case of Christians, they have not really as a group, looked
into the matter of Christs teachings and their pursuit of warfare
since Augustine pronounced that 'a just war could be pursued with
out sin'. There have been a few pacifist groups, but none of them
have gained control of any of the dominant religious bodies for any
long term effect, there's always some 'satan' to deal which will
require that they bang their ploughshares into swords.

As for Christ's teachings on morality, there seems to be a large
number of Republicans who will cast the first stone. I have yet to
hear from the Republican party that what people do in the privacy of
their own homes is up to the individuals, unequivacally. Why else
would they be against legislation which would include sexuality
discrimination to be legal item. On the one hand the conservative (as
was defined, 'keep government out of private affairs'), would say
that 'it's my right to do business with whom I please'. But the
homosexual claims that it his right to be who he is and be
able to conduct business with an individual or entity, which is
stated as a 'public' provider of goods or sevices, or an employer
for the public at large. (There is a bit of a question about
'private' groups and interactions with the 'public').

There have been numerous cases which involve the eviction and
dismissal of homosexuals, by that fact alone, which have been
supported by Republicans on the basis that the government should not
interfere with the private individual who owns the property or the
business. We can talk about tax dollars spending, use of military
force, economic policies, etc. and be concervative or liberal, or
beyond the lunatic fring. But in the social area where the
Republicans have over and over demonstrated a complete negative view
towards multipicity of modes of life, they must not be supported,
and I beleived condemned.

-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu