From: jclander@texas.mitre.org (Julian C. Lander)
Subject: Re: The MOW Platform (was Re: NOTICE - Details...)
Reply-To: jclander@texas.mitre.org (Julian C. Lander)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:21:09 GMT

Winter is coming and I'm getting a little cold.  It's time for a little
fire in my life.  Hence the following post, which may generate sufficient
flame to keep me warm until spring.

In article <1ggpufINN917@plts.uucp>, tal@plts.uucp (Tom Limoncelli) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec13.223840.20089@netcom.com> solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay) writes:
|> 
|> >One problem I have with the platform is that it "demands" some
|> >things that are ideologically debatable. It says that to support
|> >GLB rights is to support those things and vice versa. Cases in
|> >point:
|> 
|> Here's a preview of what I've added to the next rev of the MOW93 FAQ.
|> 
|> 12) "These are listed as 'demands'.  Does that mean that people that  
|> don't agree with a plank must stay home?"  Again, "NO!"  The use of the 
|> word "demand" is 2 parts historical and 1 part "asking politely for   
|> civil rights never gets you anywhere".  Don't let one word keep you     
|> home.  If you are afraid that the word "demands" will scare 
|> politicians, please suggest a new word.  "A List Of Requests" would be 
|> laughed out of a congressperson's office. 

I find myself to some extent in agreement with Mr. Solovay.  Once upon a
time, in my callow and innocent youth, I signed petitions for candidates
for virtually any party and for the introduction of ballot questions in
elections.  I then found out that these signatures were cited as support
for the election of the candidates and for the adoption of the questions.
So I don't do that anymore.

Similarly, if the March platform is discussed at all by anyone outside the
March (politicians, news media), the marchers will be assumed to be supporters
of the platform _as_ _a_ _whole_.  I do not assert that one must agree with
all of the demands on the platform (and I have no trouble with that word),
but one must decide that the platform as a whole is deserving of support.

It does have my support and I will be marching, but I think that by making
the platforms inclusive, the organizers have:
  1) made the issues of the march less focussed, and hence easier to ignore; and
  2) reduced the number of potential marchers by introducing the extra items,
	creating dilemmas like Mr. Solovay's. 
     
|> 
|> >The "reproductive freedom" demand (demand #5). I know many
|> [...]
|> 
|> This plank will be the most troublesome.  However, people must deal
|> with the fact that nobody is there for 100% of the platform.  At MOW87
|> most people didn't know there WAS a platform!  I don't think the
|> majority will this time either.  The platform is, IMHO, such a small
|> part of the march.
|> 
|> If you want political reasons why it is included, refer my previous
|> post.  The legalization of sodomy is based on the same part of the
|> constitution as freedom of choice.  You overturn that part of the
|> constitution and you strike down the laws that protect us too.
|> 

While I will accept the statement that the protection of abortion and
of sexual activity among consenting adults (a gloss for the illegality
of sodomy laws) are both derived from a right to privacy, I feel it
necessary to point out some distinctions.

1) At this time, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to 
   privacy protects abortion but does not protect homosexual sodomy
   (I'm using a cold, clinical term because the privacy issue comes up
   with reference to criminal laws about sexual behavior; I don't think
   they refer to anti-discrimination laws).  So while an overturn of
   Roe v. Wade (the 1973 decision legalizing abortion) would make
   an overturn of Bowers v. Hardwick (if I've got the names right; I
   mean the 1985? case from Georgia in which the sodomy law was upheld)
   less likely, sodomy laws would still be unaffected.

2) Most of the lesbian and gay legislative efforts have been in the
   direction of getting laws passed to protect lesbian, gay, and bisexual
   people (others, too, no doubt, but I'm too tired to make sure I get
   the list right).  If there is a right to privacy, it would make this
   action unnecessary; however, such action (the repeal of sodomy laws)
   would still be legal.

   In contrast, however, the action on the abortion front has been to 
   use the right of privacy to overturn legislative efforts to restrict
   abortion.  An overturn of Roe v. Wade would not make abortion illegal;
   it would leave that issue in the hands of state legislatures.  (For
   example, abortion was legal in New York State before Roe v. Wade.)  So
   with a repeal, the required action for pro-choice folk would be like
   that for glb folk.  Right now the pro-choice folk don't have to worry
   about state legislative action prohibiting abortion (although they
   do have to worry about restrictions, but I'm arguing absolutes here).

3) [And I'm beginning to get on shaky ground here...]
   If memory serves me correctly, the arguments for repeal of Roe v. Wade
   (or its restriction) are based on two points which do not apply to
   sodomy laws:  parental control of minor children (which comes up
   in connection with parental notification provisions) and the protection
   of the fetus (which is why the state may restrict abortions after 3
   months and ban them after 6).  In other words, the conflict is between
   two rights: those of privacy and those of parents over children or
   the state's right to protect potential life.

   If we are discussion sexual activities involving adults of the same
   sex, these clearly do not apply.  (Lowering the age of consent is a
   separate issue.)  

   It would seem to me that Supreme Court rulings more analagous to
   those on sodomy laws would be those on birth control.  (I'd cite
   Griswold v. Connecticut, from the 1960's, but I don't remember if
   that involved a married couple, and that the fact of the marriage
   was cited as crucial to the decision.  There is a ruling like that,
   but I think the right to use birth control was extended to single
   people.)  For those of you who are suprised by the issue, it was
   at one time illegal to sell devices for the prevention of pregnancy,
   and there were Supreme Court cases about it.

   Now as to why this hasn't been taken to apply to sodomy laws by the
   Supreme Court, I can offer but two non-exclusive explanations: first,
   there is some difference between homosexual and heterosexual sex (which
   the SC claims because they have ruled heterosexual sodomy legal); 
   second, they are waiting for society to force the ruling from them.

|> >The "universal access to health care" demand (demand #2). Some of
|> >us are against national health care for reasons that have nothing
|> >to do with gay rights, one way or the other. This demand tells us
|> >that we are unwelcome in the march.
|> 
|> "universal access to health care" does NOT mean "national health care".
|> Do you realize that many segments of our community HAVE MONEY FOR
|> MEDICAL CARE but are denied it anyway?
|> 

My answer to your last question is "no".  I didn't realize that.  I know 
that there are shortages of doctors in rural communities, but I thought 
steps were being taken about that.  Is that what you mean?

Let me lay out two other possibilities, so that you can tell me if
I'm right:

1) Obstetricians (and possibly others) are restricing their practices because of
malpractice insurance costs.

2) Patients can pay for a specific procedure but do not have insurance to
cover complications.

I am actually interested in this.  Can you cite examples?  If you think
it more appropriate, private email is fine.


Julian C. Lander
jclander@mitre.org