Errors-To: owner-ecto@ns1.rutgers.edu Reply-To: ecto@ns1.rutgers.edu Sender: ecto@ns1.rutgers.edu From: ecto@ns1.rutgers.edu To: ecto-request@ns1.rutgers.edu Bcc: ecto-digest-outbound@ns1.rutgers.edu Subject: ecto #361 ecto, Number 361 Friday, 6 November 1992 Today's Topics: *-----------------* A new Happy discovery, etc. Prevailing Opinions Re: Maybe we aren't waking up ECTO POLL RESULTS : "Favourite 5ish Artists" New mailing list (maybe...) HaPpY BIRTHDAY more political and religious stuff not exactly related to Happy Innocence Mission email address? Religion and abuse the Innocence Mission mailing list ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 10:38:13 -0800 (PST) From: Neile Graham Subject: A new Happy discovery, etc. I haven't received a digest in a few days but I trust everyone is still out there. I don't know if Michael Peskura has already mentioned this story, but recently in the music room of our local University of Washington bulletin board someone who goes by the name of delirium posted a message saying that he found _Warpaint_ in the cutout bin of a local record store and since he'd heard so many people talking about how great she is [*ahem*] [actually he said "they" but another non-ecto Happy fan corrected him in the next message] he bought it. He then raved about how much he liked it. :) The strange thing is that the record store in question isn't one of the local stores that have carried _Warpaint_ in the past, so I wonder where they got it. They've mostly dumped their cd stock in favour of video, and they now have a series of cutout sales, which leads me to the next matter... At that store's cutout tape sale (all tapes $2) not only did I find a wonderful Caterwaul tape (can't remember the title at this moment but it's got a green cover) and the Roches Christmas tape, but also a copy of the Rainbirds _Rainbirds_. I bought the Rainbirds even though I already own a copy of the cd because I thought someone here might like it as it's difficult to find. So, if anyone is interested in it, I'll sell it for the $2 I paid for it plus postage to get it to you (probably about another $1). Please email me if you want it and we can make arrangements. I also have a question--is anyone out there part of the Jane Siberry mailing list? I recently spied the address on the List of Lists and sent them a message asking to subscribe. My mail server sent me a message a couple of days ago saying there was no answer but it would keep trying to send the message. Anyone know what's up with that? Is the mailing list still active? Just for a little more Happy content--a friend was saying that on election day he played "Waking Up" for luck. He, his partner, my husband and I were saying how _Warpaint_ never does get old and how every time we play it we marvel at how wonderful it is. --Neile neile@u.washington.edu ======================================================================== From: foster@magnum.convex.com (Harry Foster) Subject: Prevailing Opinions Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 15:35:38 CST Doug wrote: (and I'm not flaming Doug!) > > Steve wrote: > > Oregon's Measure 9 (which would have amended the state > constitution to discriminate against homosexuals) is losing > pretty decisively, currently about 60% "no" to 40% "yes". How's > it going in Colorado, Doug? > > Unfortunately, Amendment 2 passed with 53% of the vote, though don't go > automatically bashing Coloradans, who are a very tolerant bunch. We > even voted for a Democratic president for the first time since 1964. The > story is more complex than that. > > First, the amendment was very reasonably written, basically denying > homosexuals any special status under the law, granting them the same > status as anyone else. It had none of the standard gay bashing tirades > or even code words in it. > Okay, so I'm normally a lurker around here ("Silent all these years"). But I will always speak up for justice and "human values". My blood pressure always seems to increase whenever I hear that phase "special status". The question in my mind is: Are non-mainstream Americans entitled to the same privileges as the norm? And if so, are minorities in general, and specifically lesbians and gays, receiving equal treatment under the law? IMHO, I believe that the "prevailing opinion" of the mainstream in itself limits equal treatment of the law. For example: In Winston-Salem a few years back, the killer of a gay man was released on probation, whereupon he murdered another gay man by cutting his throat and planting a butcher knife in his chest. The prosecutor let the killer plea-bargain after concluding that jurors wouldn't impose a stiff sentence for cutting a gay man's throat. This isn't justice, but it was the best the prosecutor felt he could do in view of the "prevailing opinion". Just a few weeks ago there was an article in the Dallas Morning News about an insurance company involved in a class action suit. The insurance company paid off the family of a gay man at a lesser value claiming that since the man was gay, he might have had AIDS, and therefore his life wasn't worth as much. Again, discrimination through "prevailing opinion". There are proponents of the "prevailing opinion", who at times, have gone one step further in an attempt to legalize their discrimination (eg. Oregon and Colorado). There's also the "Family Protection Act", which was submitted to Congress by right-wingers in 1981 and defeated, but has reappeared in other forms every year since its introduction. The Family Protection Act's "Homosexuality and Unlawful Employment Practices" clause would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to ensure that the term "unlawful employment practice" shall not be deemed to include any action or measure taken by an employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency with respect to an individual who is a homosexual or proclaims homosexual tendencies. No agency, bureau, commission, or other instrumentality of the Government of the United States shall seek to enforce nondiscrimination with respect to individuals who are homosexual or who proclaim homosexual tendencies. The "Family Protection Act", hmmm, I guess lesbians and gays got here through spontaneous generation? John Stuart Mill argued a century ago that: Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough, there needs to be protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feelings; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways. IMHO, history has shown the effects of the "prevailing opinions" and the generally accepted social morality when left unchecked. Recall Germany and its treatment of Jews. Recall our own country and the treatment of blacks in the not too distant past. BTW, I'm not proposing that legally establishing a minority status for various groups is the only solution. I am trying to raise consciousness: the system can fail to provide equal treatment under the law. For the lesbian and gay (and all) victims of discrimination, "blind justice" can take on a new connotation. Keep this in mind the next time you hear the phase "special status". ** (After his Cabinet had voted "No" on emancipation, Lincoln raised his right hand and said, "The ayes have it!") Okay, I'll promise to limit my postings to Happy in the future! -- Harry Foster foster@convex.com "The test of courage comes when we are in the minority; the test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority." -Ralph W. Sockman ======================================================================== Subject: Re: Maybe we aren't waking up Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 16:45:17 -0500 From: "Daniel S. Riley" jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu writes: >What's scary to me about Colorado's 2 is that is makes it impossible for >*any* sort of region (city, county, public universities) to have >non-discrimination clauses. No chance for a city to pass a domestic- >partnership law (since it's impossible for two people of the same sex to >get married anywhere in the US; a DP bill isn't a great solution, but a >lot of people feel it's better than nothing) Is there something in amendment 2 that specifically prohibits passing domestic partnership laws? If not, it seems like a law allowing any arbitrary combination of 2 (or more) people registering a "domestic partnership", with no gender or sexual preference restrictions would be ok, since it wouldn't be preferential. On the local minus side, Happy's home state sent Al D'Amato back to the senate for 6 more years, apparently on the theory that while he may be crooked, at least he's our crook. -dan ======================================================================== From: Martin Dougiamas Subject: ECTO POLL RESULTS : "Favourite 5ish Artists" Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 12:21:34 WST Hi, ho. Martin here. Well, as promised, here are the results of the "Favourite 5 Artists Poll", or "Favorite 5 or 6 Artists" is you're in the U.S. :) First the raw results, in columnar order of receipt: Angelos: Vickie Mapes: mjm: Peter Gabriel Kate Bush Kate Bush David Bowie Jane Siberry Supertramp Queen Happy Rhodes Pete Townsend/Who Happy Rhodes Peter Gabriel Neil Young Sinead O'Connor Tori Amos Bruce Springsteen Beatles Martin Dougiamas: Pablo Iglesias: Alan Sodoma: J.J.Cale Pat Metheny Phish The Cure Kate Bush Replacements Happy Rhodes Genesis R.E.M. Johnny Clegg Peter Gabriel Grateful Dead Chris Isaak Beethoven Bob Dylan Laura Clifford: Chris Sampson: S. Alan Ezust: The Cure Peter Gabriel Bel Canto Kate Bush Pink Floyd Legendary Pink Dots The Beatles Emerson Lake Palmer Happy Rhodes Echo and the Bunnymen Yes Clan of Xymox Sex Pistols Happy Rhodes Dead Can Dance Grateful Dead David Koehler: Chris Kennel: Mitch Pravatiner: Kate Bush Kate Bush Laura Nyro Pixies Stevie Ray Vaughan Warren Zevon Midnight Oil Mike Oldfield The Story Nine Inch Nails Indigo Girls Tom Robinson Band Happy Rhodes Sting L7 SUMMARY (?) OF RESULTS ====================== 6 Kate Bush 6 Happy Rhodes 4 Peter Gabriel 2 Grateful Dead 2 The Cure 1 Beatles 1 Beethoven 1 Bel Canto 1 Bob Dylan 1 Bruce Springsteen 1 Chris Isaak 1 Clan of Xymox 1 David Bowie 1 Dead Can Dance 1 Echo and the Bunnymen 1 Emerson Lake Palmer 1 Genesis 1 Indigo Girls 1 J.J.Cale 1 Jane Siberry 1 Johnny Clegg 1 L7 1 Laura Nyro 1 Legendary Pink Dots 1 Midnight Oil 1 Mike Oldfield 1 Neil Young 1 Nine Inch Nails 1 Pat Metheny 1 Pete Townsend/Who 1 Phish 1 Pink Floyd 1 Pixies 1 Queen 1 R.E.M. 1 Replacements 1 Sex Pistols 1 Sinead O'Connor 1 Stevie Ray Vaughan 1 Sting 1 Supertramp 1 The Beatles 1 The Story 1 Tom Robinson Band 1 Tori Amos 1 Warren Zevon 1 Yes Well, there you have it. Certainly a few names I'll be keeping closer eyes on in the future, and a few big surprises. I'll leave further analysis for those of you without theses to finish! Back to my personal hell... Martin "Early to bed and early to rise, Makes a man stupid and blind in the eyes." -- ,-------------------------+-------------------------------. _ . | "First things first. | Martin Dougiamas. | ~ _/| Ll\ ~ | but not necessarily | martin@marsh.cs.curtin.edu.au | | |_|__\ ~ | in that order." | Curtin University | ~ \ |_|_ / ~ | | Perth, Western Australia ---+---> x~ `-' ~ `===== Doctor Who ========+===============================' V ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 2:44:35 EST From: WretchAwry Subject: New mailing list (maybe...) This is a very strange thing to request, but I've been wrestling with it for a couple of weeks now, and I'm going to jump in and ask... First, a little background. Ecto is a wonderful list, I think most everyone here knows how much I love it. Besides talk about Happy and lots of other great music, talk about other subjects is encouraged and welcomed. Not everything goes over all that well (-zip- responses, post or e-mail, to my Princess Diana "thread" :-) ) but at least rarely is there anything negative said about someone bringing up a particular topic. Many/most(?) people might read a topic with interest even if they don't contribute to the thread, and most non-Happy, non-music threads don't last all that long. Never in Ecto has a n-H, n-m thread gone on and on and on until people are sick of the topic. At least, not that I know of. As Mitch said, it's one of the things that gives Ecto it's charm, and makes this list unique. However, there's a thread I've been wanting to start for a few weeks now and have always held back. I've mentioned it here and there, and some of the responses (in Ecto and e-mail) have led me to believe that it's just too touchy and makes people too uncomfortable to really pursue in depth. The topic is abuse, physical, emotional, mental and sexual. It's a very depressing subject, and I certainly don't blame anyone for not wanting lots of talk about it to overrun Ecto. Bits and pieces, here and there, sure. It is a relevent topic, especially when talking about Happy's music in particular, since she has so many songs about abuse and the recovery process on her albums. However, I want to talk about it more in depth than just a 4-5 post thread. I don't want to depress Ecto as a whole though, so here's my plan, if anyone is interested: I found a feature on my mailer-system that seems to work like the Innocence Mission mailing list does, in that I can set up a file with many different addresses in it, and just type one word to send a mailing out to a lot of different people at the same time. My thought is to start an offshoot mailing list (temporary? permanent? the people on the list will decide that) to discuss abuse and ways of healing/dealing with it. It will probably be depressing, heavy, possibly embarrassing and sad, so it's not the kind of thing that someone should express interest in just because they're curious. I'd like the list to be as "safe" as humanly possible for the people on it. This is serious stuff, and I'm serious about keeping it so. Which means that I'd keep tight rein on membership, and anyone who wants on it (except for those people I've already talked to about it) has to do some pretty major convincing to me personally, via private e-mail, that you're not just "curious." If I have to be a hard-liner about the membership, I will be, just to keep myself and anyone else on the list safe and secure. I suppose the first thing is to find out if anyone is even interested in being on such a list. The main reason I'm even thinking of doing this is because I've begun a recovery process of my own. I've been trying to deal with previously repressed/conveniently forgotten memories from my distant past, that I'm sure have been responsible for my depressions. I have been involved, anonymously, in a recovery group which has been of great help to me. The people are supportive and kind, and I've felt very welcomed there. Still, it bothers me that "total strangers" know so much about my past, while my friends and supporters on Ecto are completely in the dark about what's been going on with me. I'm torn two ways about this. One part of me thinks that this (mailing list idea) seems like a pretentious and selfish thing to do, when it might turn out that no one is really that inter- ested anyway. The other part of me thinks that kind of list *might* just help people other than myself. I heard a statistic the other day that horrified me. One out of every 4 girls and one out of every 7 boys have been/will be sexually molested as children. The figures are higher in Canada, and probably would be higher for the US too, except that most molestation is never reported. I also have a figure from the US that there are approx. 1.75 million *reported* rapes every year. That figure only includes girls and women, there were no statistics available for male rapes. I don't have any statistics for other kinds of abuse at the moment, or statistics from any other country. Since Ecto is a mini-society, surely I can't be the only Ectophile who happens to be one of the above statistics. There must also be people here who are friends and spouses of abuse survivors. I don't know exactly what it is I want. First and foremost I suppose, is to be able to lay my electronic head on supporter's electronic shoulders and cry, and to offer my shoulder to anyone else who might want it. Second is the desire to know that "I'm not alone" outside of groups specifically designed for the recovery process. Anything else will evolve with the list. I don't really know what else to say. I've never done anything like this (the mailing list) before, so it's an experiment anyway. If it works well, that will be nice. If it doesn't, then at least I tried. You have no idea how hard this post was to write or how many times I've started to write this post, then ended up deleting it in a burst of embarrassement. The list, should it happen, will be called "Warpaint" because the past, for abuse survivors, is... Vickie "Digging in the dirt, stay with me I need support. I'm digging in the dirt, to find the places I got hurt...open up the places I got hurt" PG ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 08:46:46 +0000 From: Terry Partis Subject: HaPpY BIRTHDAY Here's wishing a Very Happy Birthday to Jens Brage on November 8th. Have a nive day Peace =============================================================================== _ __ Jolly Hockeysticks _ __ / `-' ( ,,, / `-' ( ,,, | I I ||||||[:::] | I I ||||||[:::] \_.-._( ''' Terry (Tel Boy) Partis \_.-._( ''' _ __ (tgp@ukc.ac.uk) _ __ / `-' ( ,,, With a smile and a song / `-' ( ,,, | I I ||||||[:::] I'm HaPpY | I I ||||||[:::] \_.-._( ''' \_.-._( ''' YYUR - YYUB - ICURYY4ME =============================================================================== ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 00:56:15 PST From: stevev@greylady.uoregon.edu (Steve VanDevender) Subject: more political and religious stuff not exactly related to Happy Like Harry Foster, I'm very uncomfortable with groups who push their agendas with slogans like "No special rights" or "No special status." Mostly it's because slogans like those are all too often used in relation to anti-homosexuality measures (or perhaps I've just been seeing the OCA use those phrases too much). How often do people say "No special rights for blacks," or "No special rights for the disabled," applying the same reasoning to other minorities mentioned by the law? In my experience, "No special rights" are just the weasel-words used by conservative groups to obscure their homophobic and anti-democratic intent. In particular I reject the "No special rights" claims because, being disabled, I belong to a group that is frequently labeled as a minority group in legislation. Do I have special rights because public institutions and private business are required to make their buildings wheelchair-accessible, or because I can't be discriminated against for being disabled when applying for jobs? I think not, and I'm not going to support anything that attempts to prevent people from having civil rights by attempting to confuse those civil rights with "special rights." Perhaps it would be better if laws were re-written so that instead of listing all the so-called "protected classes", they simply said "No one is to be discriminated against for any reason." Well, OK, that would never make it into law unaltered because employers would want to pick employees by qualification, and landlords would want to have tenants without pets or children, and so on, but it might also avoid the problem of people claiming that a named minority group has "special status". The OCA is showing just how crazy they really are, since their post-election statements have said that they not only want to redraft and resubmit a new version of Measure 9, but that they are also considering another measure to regulate Oregon's media, claiming that they couldn't get their message across fairly. They are beginning to sound paranoid. Doug Burks talked about "stereotyped Christian-bashing." Since I am areligious, I've probably been guilty of this (although I can't remember it coming up on Ecto). I suppose that a lot of this comes from lack of understanding -- having not been brought up with a religion, and perhaps not even having a world-view that can truly understand the religious viewpoint, I have to admit that I often find religious beliefs and practices ludicrous. However, I have also tried to increase my respect for the religious beliefs of others, particularly since it seems just as wrong for me to ridicule the beliefs of others as it is for them to ridicule my beliefs. A while ago I had a look around bit.listserv.catholic, which our site gets as a USENET newgroup feed of a BITNET mailing list for Catholics. There are a lot of things about Catholicism that are pretty incompatible with my beliefs, especially its rigid authoritarian structure, its emphasis on guilt, and its inherent sexism. At the risk of offending some Catholics, one statement I found amusing was in a discussion of why women can't be ordained as Catholic priests. The poster said, "If you attempt to ordain a woman, the ceremony simply doesn't work." I immediately started wondering, "Why doesn't it work, and how can you tell that it didn't?" Another areligious friend and I started discussing it (probably quite blasphemously) as if it were some kind of programming procedure where, if you applied it to a female, her ORDAINED bit didn't get set. Ahem, this it getting almost Mitch-like. Anyway, one post I saw that I found really annoying was from some apparently well-meaning fellow who a) thinks the Second Coming is really soon and b) was worried about all his non-Christian friends who would go to hell if he didn't convert them in time. While I'm not saying that he isn't entitled to believe those things, I got the impression from the way he worded his post that he must be a real pain to be around if you ever tell him that you're not Christian. [Warning: Words weren't made for cowards. I am about to say some things that may offend some Ecto readers.] I think the beliefs of some of the more conservative, evangelical Christians are partly responsible for the growing problem of intolerance and the threat to democracy in America. For our pluralistic society to work, you have to respect the beliefs of others. However, for some people this seems to be incompatible with their interpretation of their religion, and think that their Biblical morality must be enacted into civil law; that the existence of other beliefs, particularly those that conflict most strongly with their morality, is a threat to them that must be eliminated. If some people want to believe homosexuality is perverse and abnormal, then they have that right. But when they attempt to put those beliefs into civil law because they believe it is God's law, they are undermining the very protections that allow them to have their own beliefs. However much it may frustrate people who believe in moral absolutes, our laws should protect everyone's rights to believe in their own moral absolutes, but not promote any group's beliefs, _even the beliefs of the majority_, over any others. Instead, I see groups like the OCA trying to reason that the beliefs of the majority take precedence over the beliefs of a minority, and if a majority believes that a minority should be denied civil rights, then that's just too bad for the minority. So that's why I'm getting tired of all the shrill people whining about the lack of family values destroying our nation. If you have family values, then teach them to your children. But the attempt to impose one set of family values on everyone else is doing more to destroy morality than the disagreements over what moral behavior is. As far as I'm concerned, moral behavior is taking responsibility for my actions, avoiding harm to others, respecting their beliefs, and not being offended by their acts that don't cause harm. But then I get told by the intolerant brand of Christian that because my beliefs don't come from faith in God, that my morality counts for nothing and that in fact I am actively promoting sin, even though we agree almost completely on what's right and what's wrong. Argh. So is this stereotypical Christian-bashing? I guess my frustration is not with the majority of Christians and their beliefs, but with narrow-mindedness, a trait that seems to plague all subgroups equally. I find rabid atheists as annoying as rabid Christians. ======================================================================== From: rhogan@chaph.usc.edu (Ronald Hogan) Subject: Innocence Mission email address? Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 2:37:10 PST Hi. I'm a brand new subscriber, and this is my first message to the group. I was wondering if anybody had the address for the Innocence Mission mailing list that Vickie mentioned in her posting about the possibility of a Warpaint list (an action which I fully support and wish her the best of luck with). She didn't have the address at the moment, but suggested that I ask you all. I just want to add that the past few days since Tuesday have been among the happiest days of my life where the public sphere is concerned. My only regret is that I missed Bush's concession speech because it was on opposite the Simpsons here in California. As funny as Itchy and Scratchy the Movie was, I really wanted to see George admit defeat. It's cynical of me, I know, but then the past twelve years have done a lot to breed cynicism within me. Here's to four to eight or more years of renewed hopes and dreams. BTW, on an unrelated matter, does anybody know who does the song "Dizz Knee Land"? I keep hearing it on the radio, but never when the DJ mentions the artists responsible. Ron Hogan rhogan@usc.edu ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 08:10:45 MST From: dbx@olympic.atmos.colostate.edu (Doug Burks) Subject: Re: Maybe we aren't waking up Greetings, Well, another journey out onto the thin ice ... :) Cathy prods: What constitutes 'human rights'? Not being fired from a job solely for being gay? Not being excluded from housing? Or does it only mean that gay-bashing is frowned upon? In my comment, human rights are simply the rights guaranteed under the US Constitution, rights of free speech, freedom to peaceably assemble, freedom to petition the government, privacy, etc. So to answer your further questions, I would say "No", "No", and "Yes", though I would use a little stronger phrase than "frowned upon". Harrassment of anyone is still a violation of their rights. All of these rights are still valid in Colorado, though I've heard some people are claiming otherwise. (I hope everyone realizes that this is is what I see the situation as being, not necessarily what I want it to be). I agree with Jeff -- what's so 'special' about not being denied housing, not being fired, not being bashed? Exactly! So why not extend those rights to _everyone_? Why do we have to go through this whole rigamarole every time a group finds its identity? Blacks in the 1860s and 1960s, women in the 1910s and 1970s, etc., etc., etc. Heck, I'm not that old and have already been through too many of them. Why not enshrine these rights in societal conscience and law, making sure that _no one_ is discriminated against for _any_ reason? Let's do it all in one shot, instead of fighting these draining battles decade after decade after decade. Let's define rights on a fully human individual basis, not group by group by group. Doug, in my opinion this is a complete trivialization of the gay rights issue. I have yet to meet a left-handed person who is afraid to walk left-hand-to-left-hand with their partner for fear of being killed. And that goes for the others in your list too. I fully understand and support you. However, the point I'm making has nothing to do with this. The rights to be protected from murder, even harrassment, no matter what the motive, are not special. Like my ideal, they are extended to every human being, regardless of group. My point concerns the issues of discrimination in housing, jobs, and daily life, where protection is being extended only to individual groups, not people as a whole. In these cases, people on my list do have many problems. To ask the question extremely bluntly, why should it be okay for an employer to discriminate against a white man, but not against a gay man? As for the rest of Cathy's questions, I'm going to answer them generally, not specifically. To put it simply, rights are not granted. Rights are fought for and won. Rights are fought for and kept. In too many letters in reaction to Two, people have asked, "When is the government going to do something about this?" Without effective political pressure, it will _never_ do anything about it. The law is not a be-all and end-all. It is simply a tool to be used, a lever to be pushed. Where is the gay leadership, the gay organizations to push government and society to gain their full position in society? Where are the leaders of the stature of a Martin Luther King, a Susan B Anthony, people who could effectively bring their case to society as a whole, people who can forge a coalition, in spite of overwhelming hate? Of the gay leaders I'm aware of, only Harvey Milk came close to that ideal, but he was so tragically gunned down by bigotry, before he could realize his potential. Unfortunately for the gay cause, gays have a closet to hide in, creating their own insular almost secret society. Unlike women, blacks, and other "visible" minorities, they have the option to avoid the hate, avoid the ridicule. However, the true battle is fought at a much, much lower level. It happens when Joe Sixpack has a good friend named Charley who he knows is gay. When some bigoted blowhard is spouting off, when some gay rights initiative is on the ballot, Joe will think about his good friend Charley, not about some amorphous hidden mysterious group called "gays". Look at the public perception of gays. It concentrates on the promiscuous "gay lifestyle" (The TV ad that the No On 2 campaign banned was footage of the very public San Fransisco Gay Pride Parade), the vociferous AIDS activists (turning a tragic disease into politics), the outing movement (gays violating the rights of other gays). Where is a positive image of gays that Joe Sixpack can see and thus more readily support their rights? Where are his gay friends? As for Harry's post, I don't disagree with the symptoms he described. However, I _strongly_ feel that curing that injustice through even positive discrimination only makes things worse. It just creates yet another group of people who feel discriminated against, another set of victims. It just makes it ever more important what group you belong to and increases inter-group squabbling. It creates the impression that human rights is a zero sum game, rather than the win-win situation it truly is. We need to break down these barriers, these artificial distinctions, not build them higher. Push for a more just and fair judiciary, for the enforcement of the existing laws, not for new laws. Discrimination, in whatever guise, for however noble a purpose, is intrinsically evil. Erode just one person's rights and you erode everyone's. A just fair society can not be built on an unjust unfair base. Dan asks: Is there something in amendment 2 that specifically prohibits passing domestic partnership laws? Not that I'm aware of, but who knows what will happen when this amendment gets into the meat grinder of the judicial system. In any case, I seriously doubt any domestic partnership law could be adopted in Colorado, even in Boulder. Personally, I support legalizing same sex marriages rather than domestic partnership laws. The latter is just too wide open for abuse. Keep us posted as to the repercussions of the Measure 2 vote. Will do! So far, there has been a very emotional rally of about 16000 in Denver inside Colorado, many calls for an economic boycott of Colorado, a lot of Colorado bashing, and a lot of misinformation. One group of gay medical people has already cancelled their Denver convention, and other individuals are cancelling their ski vacations. Of course, this punishes Denver and the ski areas, even though they were victims, not the perpetrators, of the vote. Both Denver and Aspen (a ski resort) had their gay rights ordinances overturned by the vote, and voted overwhelmingly against Two. The only other news is that the City and County of Denver will be filing its lawsuit to overturn the repeal of its law Monday. Hey! If anyone decides to support the economic boycott, can you make a teensy exception for my e-mail and the tape dubbing project? :) Doug Burks _O_ dbx@olympic.atmos.colostate.edu |< She really is!! ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 08:33:14 MST From: dbx@olympic.atmos.colostate.edu (Doug Burks) Subject: Religion and abuse Greetings, Even though I brought the subject up, I'm not going to respond to Steve's post in detail. Suffice it to say, I'm not talking about what Steve brought up. He obviously shows some knowledge of the issues. I am complaining about people who wrap the extraordinary range of Christians up into one neat little bundle, while showing no knowledge of Christian ethics or theology. (You can also replace "Christians" with the name of any other group in this diverse world). Vickie, I wish you the best in your recovery. However, as for your mailing list, I strongly suggest you know what you do want the mailing list to be, what you want it to accomplish, before you create it. I suggest that you try writing up a short very specific charter for the list. That would make it easier to decide who you want on the list, and whether someone would want to join it. Post it to Ecto and see what happens. Doug Burks _O_ dbx@olympic.atmos.colostate.edu |< She really is!! ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 12:57:03 EST From: Laura Clifford Subject: Re: ECTO POLL RESULTS SUMMARY (?) OF RESULTS ====================== .... 2 Grateful Dead 2 The Cure 1 Beatles .... This is an interesting piece of the tally as it's been commented to me more than once that Cure fans (at least myself) seem to have the same fervor as Deadheads....very similar bands, too :-) Martin - thought I saw the Beatles on the list twice (although once was a sixth choice). Laura ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 11:04:38 -0800 From: Michael G Peskura Subject: the Innocence Mission mailing list You should be able to subscribe to the Innocence Mission mailing list by contacting Keith Abbott at mus0eka@cabell.vcu.edu. The IM list has been rather dormant lately. Mp ======================================================================== The ecto archives are on hardees.rutgers.edu in ~ftp/pub/hr. There is an INDEX file explaining what is where. Feel free to send me things you'd like to have added. -- jessica (jessica@ns1.rutgers.edu)