From: tardis@milton.u.washington.edu (Willie Wonka)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Clinton in Seattle
Date: 26 Jul 92 23:10:06 GMT
Reply-To: tardis@u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle


 A couple things to say before I get to why I wrote this 
 article.  One....this is my first (official) post. 
 No longer a Pipping Hot and Fresh.  I've posted anonymously
 once before when I asked some legal questions for a 
 friend of mine who was expelled from BYU because he is gay.

 And one from we are everywhere department. There is another 
 poster, Curtis Sieber, who has not posted here recently, but 
 who attended the same church as me in our youth.  Finally
 *slutpossekissesandhugs* to Bill Wsebring. 

 Last night Bill Clinton was on local (Seattle & Portland) 
 television for a Town Meeting in which he was asked 
 various questions.  He answed a couple questions concerning 
 queer issues.  I am reposting an unofficial transcript of what he 
 said because I found it informative detailing Clinton's 
 beliefs and how he might approach issues concering gay and 
 lesbian rights. 


 JEAN EMERSON: "We'd like to welcome back our viewers and our
 listeners all over the Nortwest to KOMO television here in 
 Seattle, KATU television in Portland and KOMO Radio AM-1000. 
 And welcome back to our studio audiences in Portland and 
 Seattle.

 The topic we would like to touch on in the next few minutes 
 is one of America's ugliest problems:  that is harassment and 
 hate crimes.  We will begin with a question from our audience."

 COL. CANNEMEYER:  "Govenor Clinton, I am Colonel Cannemeyer or
 Dr. Cannemeyer, whichever at this point.  I was discharged from
 the military six weeks ago because I told the defense investigator
 that I was a lesbian.  There have been 16,000, at least, people 
 discharged from the military in the past ten years at the cost 
 of over a half a billion dollars just to replace these people 
 wishing to serve their country.  I, like them, would like 
 to return to the military but it would require either a Presidential
 signature and proclamation as Harry Truman did many years ago.
 And I am wondering if you would consider doing that in 1993, 
 when you become President?"

 CLINTON:  "Yes."  pause while clapping in the audience. 
 "For those of you who don't know, this woman was decorated in 
 service for the Tet Offensive in 1968.  That's right isn't 
 it?"

 COL. CANNEMEYER: "Yes."

 CLINTON: "Let me say that for many Americans this is a sensitive 
 issue.  I've heard all kinds of arguments in my own church at
 home over the whole issue whether gays and lesbians should be 
 permitted to serve in the military.  There is a ban.  My belief
 is this is not about approval or disapproval of someone's lifestyle.
 This is about whether every American should have the right 
 to live to the fullest of his or her capacity and whether we use 
 the abilities of all Americans doing whatever it is they do best.
 The Pentagon commisioned a study, as the Colonel will tell you, 
 which said there is no evidence that people who were gay or lesbian
 did not serve to the best of their capabilities or that they 
 undermined moral or that they undermined rules and regulations 
 solely because of their sexual orientation.  This has nothing to 
 do with the approval or disapproval of any activity anybody might
 undertake while in their uniform, but simply their sexual 
 orientation. The Pentagon's own study said that and the Secretary 
 of the Defense, Dick Cheney, a man I really admire and I think
 (is) one of President Bush's finest appointments, acknowledged
 himself, that there was really very little justification for 
 continuing for-- what I think he called it a "quaint rule". In 
 otherwords, they said the political heat's too hot so we are not 
 going to change this rule.  As a consuquence your nation, with all
 this money we're in debt, has spent-- let me restate what she 
 has said-- we have spent five hundred million dollars of your 
 money in the last ten years to get sixteen thousand five hundred
 dollars more or less to get gay and lesbian Americans out of the service.
 So my view is the presumption should be in favor of serving your
 country. You can overcome that presumption-- that it has not been 
 done in this case, and this woman served her country for more than 
 two decades with great distinction and should not have been 
 prohibited from doing so."

 Clapping from audience. 

 JE:  "Go ahead Portland."

 QUESTIONER: "Good evening Governor Clinton. My question is this. 
 I'm sure you know about the situation with the Boy Scouts of 
 America have decided not to allow homosexual scout leaders to 
 supervise our cub scouts or boy scouts.  And the homosexuals 
 have attacked the Boy Scouts for that policy. And my question 
 is do you side with the Boy Scouts of America or the homosexuals?"

 CLINTON: "The Boy Scouts are a private organization and as such 
 they ought to have the right to make whatever rules they want. 
 That's different from the United States Goverment."

 QUESTIONER: "I would then refer into another court case ruling 
 and what I am asking for, then would you support the teaching 
 of homosexuality as a normal and natural lifestyle to children 
 in public schools?"

 CLINTON.  Shakes head. "No."

 QUESTIONER: "Thank you."

 CLINTON: "No.  That's not what we are talking about. We are 
 talking about people-- I am not talking about embracing a     
 lifestyle that you may think is wrong or immoral.  I am talking
 about the existence of American men and women and their 
 ability to live their lives and fulfill their potential and to
 make a contribution to the rest of us as citizens. That is 
 what..."

 QUESTIONER: "Sir, that is not what we are talking about. 
 We are talking about a lifestyle based on the practices of 
 various forms of sodomy. And right now it is being attempted
 to be legitimized..."

 CLINTON: "I didn't say-- you asked me if I thought there should 
 be some affirmative teaching in the schools about it. No I do
 not. That is very different from the absence of discrimination. 
 I am talking about the absence of discrmination".  waves hands 


  
 His answers to these last question frighten me. He appears 
 to only support Gay and Lesbians only as the absence of discrimation.
 We then are no longer productive members of American society. 
 His answer that he does not support affirmative descriptions 
 of gay and lesbians in schools and twice mentioning 
 it is not a question of acceptance make me feel he is limiting  
 in his support to like, "Just don't tell me if you are gay 
 or not.  That way I won't discrimate against you. I won't have to 
 think if I will accept it or not.  But if I know, then I 
 won't discrimate against you to limit your *productivity*" Basically, 
 you don't have to accept their orientation, just don't discriminate
 against them. I dunno... his answers tarnished him to me.

 --drew