From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Subject: Re: Potential fallout from lifting the US military ban (was Re: Into the streets!)
Organization: insert anything here
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:30:14 GMT

nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:
>rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>>The whole "gays in the military" stuff has serious consequences.

>Yes, it does. Serious positive ones.
>
>>The phobe backbone is now using this as a tool to motivate people to
>>pass CO2-like (and possibly OR9-like) amendments in 1994 (or sooner)
>>esp. if the ban gets lifted.

>And last year, the phobe backbone used different things as tools to
>motivate people to actually pass CO-2, as well as trying to pass OR-9.
>If it's not faggots in the military, it's queers recruiting children,
>or eating two tablespoons of shit, or turning our nation into Sodom.

	Sure - they didn't pop up overnight and neither did we.

>>I'm hoping they find some compromise that avoids a blood-bath or a
>>gay witch hunt at the domestic level.

>You seem to be arguing that overturning the ban on gays in the
>military, with this much fighting and this much publicity is a bad
>thing. I emphatically disagree.

	No, I didn't make myself clear.  By "compromise" I meant
that things should be worded in such a way that gay and lesbians
should be allowed to serve, without danger of being out,
but that acts of sexual misconduct would be dealt with appropriately
regardless of orientation."  That to some might not seem like much
of a compromise.

>Media attention about gay rights is good. It is always good. The fight
>that's going on right now in the public arena is actually making
>people think about a specific issue of discrimination against gays.
>Not all of the media attention is going our way, but in the end, we'll
>win. We have to, because we're right. 

	I agree with you, but the trend isn't always upward.
I fear that the next 3 years is going to be VERY difficult for gay rights.

>Our position couldn't be better. There's a job - being a soldier. I
>can't have this job because of my sexual orientation. It's that
>simple, and ultimately I think the American public will grasp it.

	That isn't supported by what people are saying and how
public opinion of this has changed in the last 3 months.

>>From what I understand in DC, the Pentagon is already lobbying
>>Congress to overturn or nullify *any* Presidential edict on the
>>military ban.

>That's just hot air. It won't happen. Seriously, think about it - a
>Democratically controlled congress passing a law that is in direct
>conflict with the executive order of a Democratic president, about an
>issue of civil rights? Even if it did pass, they could never get the
>2/3 needed to override a veto.

	This is an untried Congress, and Senators have to answer to
their constituents.

>>Other ultra-right-wing groups are forsaking other fronts (e.g.,
>>abortion) to work on stopping us from invading "their" space

>Other ultra-right-wing groups are forsaking other fronts, particularly
>abortion, because the abortion issue is not working for them. People
>are tired of it. Pro-choice is winning.

	Yes, and that still means that the anti-gay lobby has more
$$$ than they ever did.  I don't see the self-called liberal heterosexuals
having more bake sales... (by liberal hets I mean the people who
SAY they are pro-GBLO but never really show you they are...).

>>If Clinton fails, that sends the message that it's a very bad
>>political manuver to stick your neck out for gay people.

>This is the biggest danger I see right now, that Clinton will back
>down on this. That would be bad for us. Solution? Make sure he doesn't
>back down.

	Even if he stands fast (and I think he will) the message
can still occur if Congress pulls a fast one.  All it takes
is Helms amendment on a popular bill such as the Family LEave Act.
That upps the ante quite a bit --- now it's not just "holding
ground for gay rights", it's "holding ground for gay
rights to the point of vetoing something wanted by the heterosexual
majority".  Just doing what he's doing now takes balls.  I question
he has the cojones to take it to that limit.  I hope he does, if
so, he'll go into the history books as having character.

>>I really wonder what sort of effect CO:2 has had on all this.  Had
>>that not passed I really think that the military ban would be pretty
>>much a done deal.

>I don't understand this claim at all.

	Simple.  Before the election this question had 61% of
the people polled in favor of lifting the ban.  A recent poll
(this week) put it at 40%.  That means that 1 out of every 3 
people who were on our side before are not now.  I believe
that part of this comes from the fact that these issues are
putting people nose-to-nose with gay rights.  And when it's 
hypothetical people can be more liberal.  When it starts to
be in your back yard or close to reality people pull away.
I'll bet a lot of the CO:2 vote was a swing vote from people who
faced with virutal homosexuals have no problem, but with "real"
homosexuals aren't too sure.  The phobes only have to have them
visualize queers in the schools, or queers upstairs, or
queers in the locker room, or queers in shared showers in a Navy
submarine and the "support" becomes uncertainty.  One little
push and the status quo is "safer" than sticking your neck out.
(BTW this also holds for people in Congress.... :-)/2.

	CO:2 gave people a way out --- now all you have to do is
claim a wimpy "well I have nothing against homosexuals, but 
special rights are out"... the military ban is baby step further
"well I have nothing against gays, but the military is special".
The same "are you SURE you want gays <fill in the blank>" that
pushed the No column to Yes in Colorado works here...

>Bob, don't let the phobes scare you. We're in the middle of a very
>public, very powerful fight right now. High stakes. But you know what?
>This is good. We're actually having a national discussion about equal
>rights for gays and lesbians. I think this is amazing.

	It's truly amazing.  But you know what?  People have a tendency
to let their optimistic zeal cloud the fact that people who hate
don't act as ratioanlly as people who don't hate.  I've never heard
of gay rights advocates or politicos using slimeball tactics to
get GBLO*-positive stuff enacted.  I've certainly seen it 
from the phobes.  I've never seen GBLO*-people lie to get support.
I've seen it from the phobes.

	I think that it's great that a presidential candidate
had the guts to court our vote.  I think it's fucking fantastic
that he even got around to considering coming thru on a
campaign promise to gays.  I'm flabbergasted that he's doing it
within the first week in office, considering the other pressing issues
that have been dumped on his lap.  And I'm bowled over at his
apparent determination to do the right thing and stand up to the
dinosaurs who want the status quo.

	But, if you think for one minute that the people who
ahte us are waiting to see how this plays out, you're fooling
yourself.  They've already startedworking in the background.
Public support is falling, people are questiong why this is being done
instead of other things.  And all they have to do is put that
uncertainty in their Legislators.  The Pentagon is getting something
like a 20:1 supprting their position.  *We* know that the phobes
have phone trees and will call hundreds of times and thatin
general the gay community is apathetic.  Does Congress?

	If we win, we win big.  IF we lose, it'll be raining phobes.

	I'm not afraid of them, but you know as well as I do, the
battles we've lost are primarily the ones that we went into overly
optimistic things would sort themselves out.  Remember CO:2.
Remember OR:8.  Remember Tampa, and this week, Anchorage Alaska.
Every abttle we have to start from square one, and treat like
it's the first of a long hard road.

BBC