From: marc@carlyle.com (Marc Salomon)
Subject: Re: "homophobic suspects outrage net"
Organization: Carlyle Systems, Inc., San Mateo, CA.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:20:50 GMT

In article <13583@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:
>From article <1992Dec8.170409.26148@carlyle.com>, by marc@carlyle.com (Marc Salomon):
>
># |> ...the SF Chronicle conducted a poll that showed that
># |> about 65% of Californians supported the rights that AB101 would 
># |> have guaranteed.
>
># |I was unaware of this.  In all honesty, if 65% of people
># |supported it, wouldn't it have passed overwhelmingly as
># |a ballot proposition?  And if so, then why wasn't it
># |made one?  Just pondering...
>
>> That assumes the vibrant functioning of a resilient democracy that actually
>> translates public sentiment into law.  Since the high government offices are 
>>almost completely populated by straight, white, christian males, (incidentally
>> those most prone to commit child abuse--sexual, physical and emotional. N.B.,
>> Cramer) I would doubt that that day will come soon.
>
>Yep, those straight, white, christian males sure are the root
>of all evil.  Why, I should be ashamed to have voted for Jimmy
>Carter twice.
>How on earth does the composition of "high government offices"
>affect the initiative process?  If every assemblyperson and
>state senator was a Jesse Helms clone, then all the more reason
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>to use the ballot box.    |
                          \|/
One does not need to be a neanderthal to be bigoted.  It just helps.

In certain cases, representative democracy does, indeed, work.  Operating
on the post WWII model, where all households were of the "Leave it to Beaver"
model, as far as the Demopublicans policies went, most proactive policies 
were geared towards that model, excluding, even denying those realities that
didn't fit that model.  The two factions of the ruling party  could pull this 
off when whites were a clear majority without any problems and still claim
democratic legitimacy.  It was only when the demographics changed that the
problems with this model of representation became evident.  Remember prop 13?

>Remember Proposition 13?  Almost all of the state legislature
>was against it, but most of the public was for it.  Guess what
>happened?  Being the good liberal that I am, I did not want it
>to pass, but democracy ruled.

/* digression

And look what happened.  Those who had bought into the California Dream
early enough (Hmmm, what color were most of the land/home owners in mid-
1970's California?) then they were protected.  Among others, this screws the 
people who came to CA later, and those who are unfortunate to be born in CA
and not have well-off parents.  

In short, prop 13 was an act of apartheid against the increasing number of
non-whites moving to CA as well as an act of intergenerational intellectual 
genocide against the future generations; denying them access to health care
or an education worth a shit.  I work in San Mateo county, where these WWII
generation folks own houses in the mid 6 figures and pay a penance in property
tax.  Not only has this generation made a complete mess of the economy,
but their attitude is, in one sentence: "I got mine, now fuck you."

*/

>>The financial burden of mounting a statewide petition drive is pretty intense
>>as well and we all know that the Homosexual Fascist Lobby spent all its money 
>>on that retreat to the baths to research ways to keep our paedophilia secret.

>Is this sarcasm?  If so, then you have sidestepped my question:
>If 65% support a legislative concept, why would an initiate have not
>come to pass?  If the above is not sarcasm, then you are not only one
>sick puppy, you are also wrong.

In light of the posts on this group that are taken seriously, yes, this was
sarcasm.  You cannot compare a group of property owners, arguably members of
the most advantaged sector of society who ran a successful initiative campaign
based mostly on fear, with queers, who were led to believe that a "moderate"
republican governor would sign their rights into law.  

Further, I reject your implication that since the former won their rights by 
initiative and the latter hasn't yet won them that there is no significant 
public support for the position of the latter. After all, its only been 14 
months since AB101 was vetoed; hardly enough time to mount a successful 
statewide petition drive without massive funding.

>>The problem we face as non-straight people in this country is not widespread
>>support, but those 20% of conservative people who need to exterminate anything
>>that doesn't fit into to their narrow moral scope.Acknowledging their opinions
>>with constant counterattacks (like to cramer on ba.motss, ba.politics) moves 
>>from challenging their opinions to validating them, which I and many on the 
>> net find a nuisance at best and counterproductive politically at worst.

>Acknowledging someone's opinions does not validate them,

If you do it enough and his arguments run in circles and use logical gymnastics,
it does.  Take trickle-down economics.  Say it enough times, and it looks real.

>but failing in your challenge to disprove then indeed may.

I have never tried to refute Clayton in a serious manner.  Why should I waste
my energy or the bandwith of all sites?  He needs interaction with a trained 
mental health care professional to overcome his issues of homophobia which 
indicate that he is closeted, not serious political engagement.

Clayton has been trounced well enough by others (Mr. Kane et al) for me to 
reject anything he posts and the notion of engaging him.  I don't think I'll 
be reading his book, either.  

>Of course, the 20% that you mention is politically a pretty
>small minority, one that could be trounced pretty well by
>the other 80%.

Small, but vocal and politically powerful.  They've managed to essentially 
take over one of the two factions of the ruling party in this country, 
haven't they?  The main thrust of my argument is that due to a homogenized 
racial self-perception (the leave it to beaver model), as far as public 
policy goes, white is idealized.  Male is dealized, christian is idealized, 
the hetero family is idealized.  With that bias and tilt, the institutional 
and cultural inertia counteracts public opinion in many circumstances.  

And democracy is not always right.  Look at Slavery, Dred Scott, Japanese 
Internment, American Indian treaty rights;  all validated by the democratic 
structures of the day, but by any definition, highly anti-democratic.

_These_ christians (not all christians) also use a tax-subsidized church to 
organize politically against anything their mythologies condemn.  There's 
nothing like using free labor and tax-free resources on a grand scale to 
put forth a political hate-filled agenda If they are going to do this, then 
lets at least start taxing those assets.  

--
Marc Salomon - marc@carlyle.com            -- Antidote to prop 13: --
Any person who takes advantage of prop 13 shall have any and all benefits 
administered and distributed by the State of California adjusted to the real
dollar amount or percentage rate of the year that their taxes freeze, which
ever is lower.
This should help resolve the problem of tax payers vs. tax takers.