From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: The homophobia question comes to a stopping point
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:15:45 GMT

In article <1innuhINN7n1@flash.pax.tpa.com.au>
anon.526@pax.tpa.com.au writes:

>It appears that the the homophobia question comes to a stopping point.
>My bets are that it's there in the NRA and it's taking it's toll, and
>my main reason for thinking so is admittedly circumstantial:  One, the
>NRA, while exteremely sensitive of its image, seems unconcerned that it
>appears right-wing to most gays (and most other people) on the basis of
>which Congressmen it funds, and two, I noticed some comments about
>Barney Frank in Guns and Ammo which seemed extraneous to the great gun
>crusade of that magazine and the organization to which its writers
>belong.

      I've got some bad news for you, Mr. Anon.526, far more people
consider the NRA right-wing based solely on it's anti-gun control
stance.  Given that situation, I don't expect the NRA is too concerned.

>While no one else has presented any substantive evidence to the
>contrary, the majority feeling here is that the NRA is on trial and is
>innocent of homophobia until proven guilty.

       Personally, I generally consider anybody innocent of whatever
they're accused of unless somebody produces evidence to the contrary,
regardless of whether you want to call the question a "trial."

>Ok, I'm convinced.
>The NRA has no image problem with its members and sympathizers.
>
>Anyway, since I'm out of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise,
>I have nothing more to add for the moment.

       Does this mean you're going away?

>The only remaining point I want to mention is the proposed litmus
>test of whether gays discharged from the military can retain their
>membership in the NRA.  By my feeble memory the cases who
>were mentioned in the papers were dishonorable discharges, but
>Chris Luchini, whose assertions I respect despite his boycott of me,
>insists that gays are honorably discharged.  If that is so then
>the NRA would not automatically have to face the sexual orientation
>issue in this case.

       There are primarily two ways of being removed from the military
based on being gay.  One is the adminitstrative ban on homosexuals, which
I believe allows an honorable discharge.  The other invovles "homosexual
activities" such as sodomy, etc. which is a violation of the Uniform Code
o' Military Justice, and has been used agianst both heterosexuals and
homosexuals, and involves a dishonorable discharge.

>But there are almost certainly other potential
>conflicts, among them the status of AIDS in its insurance programs.

       Never having seen the actual paperwork on the NRA's insurance
program, I can't say for certain, but I have never been given the
impression that it dealt with anything other than accidental or
liability coverage for firearms, for which AIDS is completely
irrelevant.

>As an outsider I have no capacity to investigate the matter myself,
>but I'd like to hear from anyone who actually knows something about
>NRA policy vis-a-vis gays.

       You won't ever *have* a capacity to investigate something if
you refuse to make an effort.  (Sounds like a cheap cop-out excuse,
to me.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns