rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (10/30/84)
The following is a blatant attempt to influence how you vote on November 6th. It's addressed to all voters who think they may vote for Reagan, but especially to closet Republicans, [Ll]ibertarians, and gay people. (The views expressed herein are my own, & not those of my employer.) PART FOUR Reagan has placed blatantly & aggressively homphobic people in high office throughout the executive branch. Here are just a few examples to indicate the character of these appointees, government officials who routinely deal with matters directly, even intimately, affecting gay Americans: [From "US Civil Rights Director Attacks Gays", NYNative, p. 11, 4/23-5/6/84] Reagan appointee Linda Chavez, Staff Director of the U.S. Civil Rights Com- mission, was interviewed in the March FAMILY PROTECTION REPORT, published by the far right Free Congress Foundation as a support newsletter for the Family Protection Act. She's against extending civil rights protection to gay people and urges them to stay closeted. By insisting on civil rights protections, Chavez believes "the homosexual rights movement has really damaged what ought to be the privacy of homosexuals. When you begin to try & make it simply a matter of choice between taste [sic.], then you really are--you're really taking the [sic.] public morality & flaunting it in a way that most people won't abide." She continued: "what you are [sic.] really doing was inviting public scorn & also public persecution, when you attempted to make these issues a matter of public debate....I have very strong reservations about including sexual preference as one of the so-called protected classes. I think that distinc- tions based on gender ought to be protected because those are invidious dis- tinctions when it comes to employment, but preference is not the same thing & it certainly is not the same thing as race or religion. &, I have very strong reservations about expanding civil rights laws to include protections for those whose so-called life styles are different from the majority." [Sound familiar, netters?] At this point, it should be mentioned that Chavez's agency is "now the target of an effort to `defund' its programs by denying it a congressional appropriation. That effort is supported by leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus, Women's Caucus, & Hispanic Caucus..." Chavez was editor of AMERICAN EDUCATOR, & approved the opinion expressed in an article on gay teachers by William Bennett (Reagan's appointed chair- man for the National Endowment for the Humanities; the ironies here are rich; see below) which she published: Bennett recommended that gay teachers stay in the closet. Said Chavez: "Essentially, the position he came out with was, I think, a very reasonable one. You don't want to suggest that homosexuals ought to be persecuted. The question is really in some ways a matter of how homosexuals themselves approach the issue. Surely, every- one can remember experiences as a child in school, remembering this or that teacher, one that you thought perhaps was a homosexual. But it's one thing [sic.] to have a teacher that believes that he or she has the right to come in & promote homosexuality as a very viable alternative to heterosexuality." Remember, this is a federal official speaking, one expected to be well educated in the law, highly skilled in marshalling evidence & arguing cases, with an special sensitivity to civil rights & minority issues, not mention the US Constitution & Bill of Rights. [From "Jerry Falwell To Join Anti-gay Program, NYNative, p. 11, 4/23-5/6/84] Reagan officials have repeatedly participated in events sponsored by far- right groups. Just before the Democratic Convention this summer, a con- ference on the "threat of homosexuality" co-sponsored by the Moral Majority was held in San Francisco. Besides Jerry Falwell, Phyllis Schlafly, & TV preacher Pat Robertson, speakers included two Reagan appointees: William Bennett, chairman of the National Endowment for the Humani- ties; according to the NYNative, he believes that "visible gay people `flaunt' their lifestyles in a manner that makes persecution understandable". [Note that the New Right uses "flaunt" in a way basically different from gay slang: they mean "have it known", ie, that one is gay, & not "to display ostentatiously or impudently" (W9NCD). They're opposed to ANY public acknowledgment that homo- sexuality exists, either collectively or in individual behavior.] Alfred Regnery, who heads the Juvenile Justice programs of the Justice Department, earned congressional criticism this year "for dispensing grants to New Right-affiliated researchers proposing to eliminate homosexuality by imposing censorship programs on pornography. ($800,000 was granted to study the `biophysical' & `chemical' links between reading magazines such as PLAYBOY & HUSTLER & incidences of divorce, incest, & homosexuality.)" Cheers, Ron Rizzo "Why, dahling! The Left is what's left over, the Right is what's wrong, & the Middle-Of-The-Road is no place for a lady." -- Electra Collage, Miss Ballot-box of 1947 Washington, AC/DC
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (11/01/84)
Sigh. One more point. I dont buy this protected class stuff. I dont care about whether you are talking about women, blacks, homosexuals or whatever. Affirmative action is pure discrimination, reverse discrimination yes, but discrimination still. I was always taught 2 wrongs dont make a right. I still believe that. Too many people are outraging people who believe as I do by demanding 'special' protection. Take it from mme, when you talk about stuff like that people think you are trying to force your views on them (and you are). So why should you be surprised when people come out with strident attacks on 'protective' legislation? You are confusing (and many times the people who are angry are confusing) homosexual 'civil rights' with the persons right to be a homosexual. Demanding special treatment always strengthens prejudice among the people who dont agree with you. Its that way with blacks and its the same for you as well. I know people who will look at the application of a minority applicant, see that he recieved special treatment and write him off, because they believe he cant cut it. If he could, he wouldnt have gotten special treatment in the first place. Remember the Mary Cunningham affair? She is an extremely capable woman, but people thought she got special treatment because she and Agee were very close. People brand you because everyone has had an experience when they have seen an incompetent hired on special programs. And people remember this and 'get even' later on in their career. Affirmative action is counterproductive, it only strengthens prejudice, and while serving to 'equalize' things at the lower levels, only breeds animosty and antagonism in the upper managment. At least thats the way I call it. I am for a colorblind meritocracy. When a person makes it by himself with no special aid, he gains the respect of all those around him. And its respect thats the key to true equality in society, not legislative fiat and the use of coercion. Milo