rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (06/25/85)
More developments in the ongoing protest against the legislation
in the Massachusetts House effectively banning gays, singles, &
"nontraditional families" from foster care, guardianship, & adop-
tion (it's a rider on a budget bill, & heavily supported by liberal
Democrats, including the Governor):
The round-the-clock sit-in outside Governor Michael Dukakis'
statehouse office protesting his refusal to meet with opponents
of the ban met with success after a few days. Dukakis agreed
to a Friday (6/21/85) news conference (reported I'm told in the
Saturday Boston Globe 6/22/85: did anyone see it?).
The news conference resulted in no progress, but made the Duke
fully reveal himself, causing consequent disbelief, disgust, rage
& grim resolve among ban opponents. When someone mentioned that
the foster child removed from the gay home had been already trans-
ferred twice in the short period since then, Dukakis snapped back
that such a disclosure violated the child's right of confidentiality,
an absurd complaint at this point in time in a controversy that
began by a massive violation of the confidentiality of everyone
concerned on the part of a Globe reporter & his editors.
When told of the extent of anger over the ban ("Dump Dukakis" senti-
ment toward the next gubernatorial race), that some opponents were
even talking about supporting the Republican nominee to defeat the
Duke at the polls, Dukakis simply answered "Go ahead" (he may have even
smiled at this point), letting the implications fall with heavy thuds:
namely, that he neither needs nor particularly wants the gay vote, &
he'd be overjoyed to see his electoral opponent publically identified
with gay support or votes. This last bit of contempt is novel for
Dukakis: although he himself has been silent on gay rights & issues,
his & other Democratic campaigns have sought & obtained increasing
gay support (campaign workers, publicity, votes) over the years, the
1984 elections representing a kind of peak for gays merging with the
mainstream in Massachusetts politics.
Nevertheless, Dukakis had the nerve to claim the legislation doesn't
ban gays or anyone else, it simply assigns them a lower priority
(at the bottom of the list, or, as someone quipped, "below the bottom
line", making selection nearly impossible, an effective ban).
Is this combination of indifference, implied contempt, & almost insult-
ingly flimsy defense the "new Dukakis" rumored by political observers?
So, the public pursuit of the Duke continues (protesting his every public
appearance). 30 to 40 demonstrators greeted him last Friday with "Dump
Dukakis" signs & slogans in blue-collar Somerville where he spoke at a
veterans' hall. He attempted to slip in through a side door, but was
spotted & denounced.
Tonight in Brookline the protest resumes during another of his public
appearances. A demo is also scheduled for Thursday in Framingham when
he appears there.
In contrast to the face he presented at the news conference, today's
(6/24/85) Globe describes Dukakis as "miffed that gay activists camped
outside his office door chanting for several days last week. This could
bode ill for the gay rights bill." (p 15, 18) The idea of revenging
himself on the annual gay rights bill (the closest gays have to a Perpe-
tual Campaign) is absurd, considering his lack of past support for the
bill, the typically up-&-down history of legislative backing for it, &
the sysiphean commitment of gay rights advocates. It's a nasty yet rather
empty threat.
The same Globe article claims that most of the administration's bills
are "languishing" (one hopes) in the legislature. An interesting letter
to the editor (p 11) points out that this month the state Senate voted
to eliminate 75% of funds targeted for foster care review, which monitors
the "destiny", one might say, of foster children in the foster care system,
& to completely eliminate "funds for treatment services for sexually
abused children despite a 37-percent increase in sexual abuse reports."
Yet as a second letter states ("Children growing up in environment of
fear"):
Children today pour their milk from cartons printed with the
photos of their missing peers. They go to school where they
hear speakers warning them against abductors and sexual abuse.
After school they can't go to the store alone to do an errand
because their parents fear they might be kidnapped on the way.
If they could, they would see posters with more missing child-
ren.
At night they can watch one of the numerous TV programs that
have featured the missing children or child abuse themes, and
then share the gory details with their friends the next day.
And at some point along the way, they have been fingerprinted
or gotten one of the new color photo ID cards, "just in case"
their parents have to show them to the police if they are
stolen away.
This is *overkill*.
The curiously disjointed picture painted here of rhetoric vs. actual
aid for kids (or lack of it) points up the craziness of the current
political situation. Supporters of the ban (like the Duke) imply they
nearly agree that it's arbitrary, even irrational, but "we can do it
to you if we want to, the voters still don't like gays."
Other peculiarities of the gay ban: the Globe describes it as applying
to "openly gay couples" [sic., applies to single individuals as well].
Can closeted gays still be foster parents? If so, what was the objec-
tion to: honesty, not "role models"?
The state said the ban wouldn't be retroactive (but why not, if the
objection is to foster parents' influence on the kids?), yet already
children have been removed from 2 other gay foster homes.
Observers have talked about the "new Dukakis" & the ban as a case of
local politicans joining the national mainstream & moving to the right,
making up for a lag due to to the predominance of liberalism here. Yet
Massachusetts is the first state to declare a policy of preference for
"traditional families" in these matters, and, what's worse, other states
are thinking of imitating Massachusetts' lead: New Hampshire is now
considering a similar effective ban. Far from indulging in "catchup"
realpolitik, those liberal Democrats who support the ban are initiating
political change, creating a policy model for other states, abruptly
inverting the Commonwealth's traditional role in national politics.
********
For information on protests, please phone the hotline of the Gay &
Lesbian Defense Committee (see GCN or Bay Windows for the number).
Ron Rizzolkk@teddy.UUCP (06/25/85)
Ron Rizzo was right on the mark about Dukakis' additude. One of his political consultants was quoted on the radio this morning to the effect: "Well, we've upset the gay's, but I'm not sure how many gay voters there really are" (paraphrase). A man of principle? -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (06/25/85)
The hysteria continues. Here's an odd news item from the radio: A Waltham, MA woman, who was "upset" about a boy receiving a piece of bread from a male stranger in a bread manufacturer's TV commer- cial, has succeeded in getting the advertiser to revise it: in the "safe" version, the boy sits on a park bench BUT is approached by a woman "in colonial dress" carrying a basket (a witch!!!!!!! I hope to God the kid's name isn't Hansel!). Madness reigns, Ron Rizzo
seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) (06/26/85)
In article <1471@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: >The hysteria continues. Here's an odd news item from the radio: > >A Waltham, MA woman, who was "upset" about a boy receiving a piece >of bread from a male stranger in a bread manufacturer's TV commer- >cial, has succeeded in getting the advertiser to revise it: in the >"safe" version, the boy sits on a park bench BUT is approached by >a woman "in colonial dress" carrying a basket (a witch!!!!!!! I >hope to God the kid's name isn't Hansel!). > > Madness reigns, > > Ron Rizzo Hate to break this to you, but there are a number of witches on the net. I wonder how they feel about being made fun of by someone who has just finished flaming about Gay rights. [note to the curious: I believe that most of them are still in the closet, so don't ask me who they are. And no, I am not a witch. Or even a warlock.] Snoopy tektronix!hammer!seifert
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (06/26/85)
> More developments in the ongoing protest against the legislation > in the Massachusetts House effectively banning gays, singles, & > "nontraditional families" from foster care, guardianship, & adop- > tion (it's a rider on a budget bill, & heavily supported by liberal > Democrats, including the Governor): [long posting follows: go read it.] I want to present an alernative view to Ron Rizzo's here. Dukakis faces a possibly tough reelection campaign next year, very likely against a Catholic Joe Sixpack type, Ed King. Their two previous electoral bouts (they won one each) split the state's Democrats on class lines as well as political ones. One of King's supporters actually said, after he defeated Dukakis, "We put all the hate groups in a pot and let it boil." You can guess how King and his gang feel about gays. What I'm leading up to is that this is a political game. For the safety of his next term, Dukakis is prepared to sacrifice homosexuals' parental desires, and to some extent their self-respect, by invalidating them as far as the care of children is concerned. He thinks that the gays won't dare to try to unseat him, on the grounds of "Cutting their noses to spite their faces". The alternative is to leave himself open to rabble-rousing slogans like "He supports gay foster parents." Ron, what can gays do, if Dukakis supports them on this, to get him reelected? How many votes will it get him, as opposed to the many it would surely cost him? I disagree with the treatment of would-be gay foster parents by Dukakis, but at the same time I'd disagree more (and so you, I hope) with Ed King. Can what is morally wrong sometimes be politically right? John Purbrick jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA {...decvax!genrad! ...allegra!mit-vax!} mit-eddie!mit-hermes!jpexg
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (06/27/85)
In article <2429@mit-hermes.ARPA>, jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) writes: > I want to present an alernative view to Ron Rizzo's here. Dukakis faces a > possibly tough reelection campaign next year, very likely against a Catholic > Joe Sixpack type, Ed King. Their two previous electoral bouts (they won one > each) split the state's Democrats on class lines as well as political ones. > One of King's supporters actually said, after he defeated Dukakis, "We put > all the hate groups in a pot and let it boil." You can guess how King and > his gang feel about gays. > > What I'm leading up to is that this is a political game. As a former Mass person from the heart of Ed King country (Fall River, MA), I think this kind of justification is pure bull. Southeastern Mass, the biggest supporter of King in his successful bid for governor some years ago, also voted for Barney Frank in 1982 over Margaret Heckler, by a 60-40 percent margin. Anyone who recalls that campaign will remember that Heckler ran ads picking on Frank's support of making the Boston "combat zone" into a special district, and on Frank's sponsorship of the first anti-gay discrimination bill in Mass.. Look where it got her. Dukakis does not have to pull this kind of #$&! to beat King. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
holly@dartvax.UUCP (Holly Cabell) (07/01/85)
> > More developments in the ongoing protest against the legislation > > in the Massachusetts House effectively banning gays, singles, & > > "nontraditional families" from foster care, guardianship, & adop- > > tion (it's a rider on a budget bill, & heavily supported by liberal > > Democrats, including the Governor): [long posting follows: go read it.] > > I want to present an alernative view to Ron Rizzo's here. Dukakis faces a > possibly tough reelection campaign next year, very likely against a Catholic > Joe Sixpack type, Ed King. Their two previous electoral bouts (they won one > each) split the state's Democrats on class lines as well as political ones. > [another long posting, read it too.] I hate to disagre with you, but I don't feel it is right to sacrifice a moral issue, just so that we can have a governor that is not a homophobe (right word?). I think it is more important to have the bill shot down. If this other guy is elected, then we'll have him for a few years, then we can elect someone more in our frame of mind. Anyway, I feel the moral issue should be settled before we start to think of the political ramifications, even if the 'real' world doesn't follow that example, it should. --johnc at [the.world] ! dartvax ! holly -- --johnc at [the.world] ! dartvax ! holly