From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: "encouraging tolerance" is a bad goal
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 23:59:27 GMT

In <2731@uswnvg.uswnvg.com>, Donn F. Pedro writes:

>And I agree.  The problem is that I don't put much weight on opinions
>that the state should not support the relationships and rights of
>gay and lesbian people by those benefitting from the state supporting
>*their* het relationships.

>No one really wants special rights and protections.  They just want
>what everyone else is given by the state.

>So give the same protections, benefits, and state sponsored goodies
>to all, regardless of who they sleep with, what non-Christian religion
>they practice, or what color they are, or don't give anything all!

I agree completely--at least where governments are concerned.  The Bill of
Rights should force the federal government to be fair, and the 14th Amendment
should extend that to the states.  However, this is not true of private
entities.  There is no rights given, either in the Bill of Rights or the 14th
Amendment, which guarantee compliance by private individuals.

>While the state 'encourages' het relationships, and het people
>deny the same benefits to queer people, there will be no equality
>and justice.

That is true, as far as government tax policy is concerned.  It isn't fair or
equal that government endorses two people making a lifetime commitment only
selectively based on the sex of the two parties.  Giving married hets a tax
break that gays don't have, regardless of how committed to each other they are,
is wrong in my opinion.  I wouldn't expand the policy to gays, though.  I'd
eliminate the special treatment for married hets.  The current system is
grossly and inherently unfair--and I'm a married het, so I'm putting my money
where my mouth is here.

And by the way, IMHO, that only applies to governments.  If companies want to
only offer benefits to married hets, that's their business.  Several companies
are now giving benefits to "domestic partners" out of state-sanctioned
marriage.  These companies will benefit from an expanded applicant pool, a
greater availability of qualified workers, and higher employee morale.

>Just like there was no justice while the state dealt our the
>cards of equality between white and black and the black people
>got the lousy hands from the bottom of the deck -- by law.

Do you mean the old Jim Crow laws?  As far as I know, there are no laws
currently on the books which apply a de facto, pro-active discrimination
against them.  They were evil and have been repealed.  We already have all of
the laws we need--the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  They
just need to be fairly enforced.  Forcing individuals to comply should require
a Constitutional amendment.

>Until there is equality in state support (you get it all or no one
>gets any), Cramers whining about the homosexual facist lobby will have
>a hollow ring.

I agree.  And I prefer "no one gets any."  Granting NO special rights to ANYONE
is the fairest approach of all.

>Equal rights are not Special rights.

Rights are rights--at least they should be.  Let's just be careful that we're
not saying "rights" when we should be saying "privileges."


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
******************************************************************************
Just say NO to status quo Big Government.  Vote Libertarian in '92.
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics