posted on December 27, 2000 08:22:53 AM newHCQ Why are you not answering Borillar's question? I too am interested in what you find appealing in the Republican party and what precisely you are willing to forego for yourself in favor of the greater good. His is a legitimate question about your stated position. Your dismissal of his question as histrionics really just looks like a convenient way to dodge the question. You do have an answer (or several), don't you?
As for gays and lesbians and the Republican party --
(a) The odds of other kinds of legislation being passed, and directly affecting me and my fellow citizens, is considerably greater than the odds a federal bill outlawing homosexuality actually being passed - even assuming that such legislation would have a greater effect in suppressing this horrid behavior than all the other sodomy laws in the history of the world.
I agree there's little chance of a FEDERAL law specifically against homosexuality being passed (at least in the short term -- who the heck knows in the long term?), but you're missing an awful lot in between.
For one thing, many states have sodomy laws on the books. They're not being enforced, but that doesn't mean they CAN'T be enforced. In state after state, efforts to get those laws taken off the books have failed. Why? Because of the social conservatives who have all but taken over the Republican party. As long as these laws are on the books, they can at any time start getting enforced. All that's needed is a judiciary (and presumably juries) sympathetic with the notion that homosexuality is an abomination. Ultra-conservative Republicans in power = more chance to fill the judiciary with social conservatives.
At the federal level, social conservatives have succeeded in blocking both Hate Crime legislation and equal protection from job descriminiation for gays and lesbians. You and your partner may have succeeded in effectively insulating yourselves from the economic (job) discrimination based on your sexual oreintation, but you sure won't be able to insulate yourself from potential violence. AND, need it be said? As long as this kind of hatred and bigotry is tacitly allowed (if not fostered -- see Falwell, Robertson, James Dobson, et. al.), it creates a climate where violence against "sodomites" not only exists but can escalate. Expect it.
You could also see official policies (not necessarily legislation) barring homosexuals from serving in appointed government jobs. ANd a lot of UNofficial discrimination. I shudder to think what an AG Ashcroft could do with the FBI where "queers" are concerned.
What will happen with the military? The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (an abomination to beging with) has actually increased the numbers of military men and women getting thrown out for their sexual preference.
It used to be that gays and lesbians weren't allowed to serve in the military and government because they could be "blackmailed." Well, if you create a society where people must be afraid to let their homosexuality be known, you simultaneously create the very climate where blackmail can be successful.
And yes, I understand fully that YOU are not your sexual orientation, that you're much more than that. We all are. But your sexual orientation IS nevertheless a significant part of who you are (or why would you have mentioned it so often on these boards?), so it's a legitimate line of inquiry into why you support today's Republican party given their homophobic positions.
Finally, so okay, you are willing to forego benefit to you personally in favor of the good of the nation. Why is it not in the best interests of the nation to include gays and lesbians in anti-discrimination laws? This wouldn't benefit you, since as I said you've apparently insulated yourself from threat of economic loss due to your sexual preference (or as the social conservatives would say, with a sneer, your "lifestyle choices", but is it really of no concern to you that others are being harmed by this climate and the lack of job protection?
posted on December 27, 2000 10:24:13 AM new
I haven't answered borillar's question because I believe that one should "Never try to teach a pig to whistle. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." IOW, Borillar is absolutely utterly convinced s/he has a corner on The Truth and The Way, and nothing is going to change his/her mind. I can only take so many exclamation points per post - then my eyes start rolling. S/he's been on "ignore" for awhile now.
As to the remainder of your questions:
I've noted my gender orientation not because it "defines" who I am, but to demonstrate to those who are convinced otherwise that not all dykes are Democrats.
There are a lot of seriously wacky laws on local books which aren't enforced, nor is it likely they ever will be. I didn't see an upswing in sodomy trials during those dreadful Reagan years; maybe you did. I'm not saying that sodomy laws aren't ridiculous, or that they should be struck down; merely that that is far from being at the top of my list.
Please observe that the "don't ask/don't tell" rule was the result of the bumbling of a self-described gay-friendly president. For variety's sake, rather than say "with friends like that, etc. etc." I'll use "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
I relate the story of my partner, Val, to show that she's been around the block on this issue. She's a staunch Democrat and Viet-era veteran and obvious dyke at 100 yards, and had a GF while in the USMC. The GF's sister wrote GF's CO, "outing" her own sister (!) "for her own good". When confronted, GF admitted to the accusation and was DD. At the same time, Val was accused of being gay by a male subordinate whom she refused to date (an accusation from which no straight woman is immune). She still remembers her CO's question: "Can you tell me that you are a lesbian?" "No sir, I cannot tell you that." (Smart cookie.) After watching her apartment for some weeks, her superiors dropped the charges.
Val blames much of the increased DD rate today on pure sloppiness, if not brazenness, of the parties in question. They don't seem to get that "don't tell" means just that: your sexual orientation is not a point for discussion. Many younger gays who weren't around when the closet was the norm in both societies have a very, very hard time adopting it while they're in the military.
We personally know of an underclassman at a military college (Annapolis, West Point, AF Academy - you pick) who started dating someone of the same gender, even vacationing with this person, during which time the two would wear items identifying them with their branch of service, frequenting military hangouts and being openly very, very demonstrative. Even more amazing is that the person the underclassman was dating was an OFFICER, which is a serious no-no notwitstanding gender. Just how stupid can you get? They were "discovered" - not surprising under the circumstances - and somehow were only reprimanded. Amazingly, the issue of homosexuality was never raised.
I do not wholeheartedly support what you call "anti-discrimination laws," so I'd have to see exactly what sort of "protection" you're talking about. I've seen the files of some discrimination claims disturbing in their frivolousness which nevertheless wrought terrible damage. I've also unknowingly been one firm's poster dyke/cripple, and it is no fun.
[ edited by HartCottageQuilts on Dec 27, 2000 10:25 AM ]
posted on December 27, 2000 02:24:18 PM new
HCQ - I understand - You aim for the one who would realistically have the most positive effect in your life even if they would snuff you given the chance in their privite opinions.
TV was just a generic activity - I watch about 4 hours a week with other people - which is a complete waste usually.
I really don't think any candidate I could back would ever stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting near a national office.
For me the system does not work and I am unwilling to expend the time and energy to rebel and try to remove it.
posted on December 27, 2000 05:31:49 PM new
You're exactly right, HJW. It doesn't "matter" - except when folks assume that because a person is a member of any particular societal subset, you can assume how s/he either DOES think or SHOULD think, which IMHO is the most insidious form of bigotry around. I don't particularly care to be pigeonholed by the Right or the Left, thank you.
posted on December 27, 2000 05:40:32 PM new
I think that you'd better get used to it. The enabling of the moral right by this republican result will not tolerate pockets of gay societal subsets for long, even in Florida.
, but is it really of no concern to you that others are being harmed by this climate and the lack of job protection?