francini@argus.DEC (This Space Available for Rent or Lease) (07/15/85)
In a previous article Ken Arndt made some comments about the political status of homosexuality at present that deserve, well, comment. >I raise a simple (clear) point that has already >been made on the net - that the homosexual movement is losing political power >and in danger of going backwards - and memtion that there may be allies to be >found in strange quarters - Jerry Falwell - and you burp up the ole "ignore >arndt" routine. As far as losing political power is concerned, this definitely seems to be true at least in Boston, with pimpleheads like Dukakis sacrificing one part of the coalition of groups that put him into power in order to placate his broader-based support amongst the highly Catholic majority in Massachusetts. While it is indeed unfortunate that the pendulum has begun to swing back to the right with seemingly increasing speed, things aren't quite as bad as they were in the 50s (yet). I have to admit that I don't know enough about Falwell's standing on gays to make an educated comment about his being on or anywhere near our side. >Well, pull the sheets up over your head if you wish - alot more people then >ME are upset about AIDS pal - but if it comes to the time when you >lovely little guys and gals are rounded up in the thrill of the moment >you'll need people of >influence to speak up for your rights. Sure Jerry doesn't go for the whole >agenda, but he doesn't see you as subhuman - as a lot DO!! Since AIDS has become more than just a 'gay' problem (see last month's LIFE (or was it this month's?) with the cover story about no one being safe from AIDS anymore), it has begun to attract large-scale interest, with research dollars finally being shaken loose in respectable amounts. >The mood of the country is to reclaim some of the moral values that we have >lived by in the past. These are the '80s not the '60s and '70s! People are >tired of the radical crap. It's not quite that bad, but things have changed, unfortunately. We once again have people trying to make other people obey a particular set of 'morals' that are believed by these people to be the One True and Correct Way of Behaving. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? >The best that can be worked up is to screw a few >more blacks in South Africa, ignoring what's happening to them in black >African countries, and sing your little hearts out for food for starving >people made >that way by their government and KEPT that way by the government as a matter >of political policy - the line is the food is rotting on the docks because >they don't have transportation, the fact that the people needing the food are >fighting against the government has nothing to do with the lack of >transportation of course! What a teribly CYNICAL way to completely write-off the over $40 million raised by Live Aid. Because of these people 'singing their little hearts out', the relief organizations will HAVE to trucks to move the food. The famine was caused by a set of complex conditions - exacerbated by the policies of the government - which would have brought about the current problems even if the current goverment was 100% helpful. >Just take a peek down the road past Reagan and you should start faintin'. Why faint? '88 will be the best chance since '76 to put a Democrat back in the White House. Who is the GOP going to run who will have the charisma, personality, and stubborn optimism that Reagan has? Bush? Hardly. It's still far too early to tell, though, but the future isn't completely bleak. [I have to say, though, that while I hate what he's done to social programs in this country, I am glad he gave more money to NASA for peaceful space exploration.] >You just can't seem to understand how someone could believe homosexuality >is wrong and fight against legal marriages, children in their homes, etc. >and at the same time have respect for other civil rights for homosexuals! >The art of compromise. As I said at the start - your way or not at all! >I fear it will be not at all. To achieve 'not at all' would require the largest subversion of the express and interpreted meaning of the Constitution that we have ever seen in the history of this country. Actually, it will probably remain a partial affair for quite some time to come. While complete gay civil rights would be an honorable goal to achieve, it is nevertheless going to be a tough fight to reach it. Legally sliding back the other way, to the 'not at all' state described above would be stopped dead at the Supreme Court and the Constitution (shy of a Constitutional amendment). I hope that the previous comments are taking in the same spirit of non-flammable objective analysis that they were intended to be in. John J. Francini ...decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-argus!francini