Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site wivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!wivax!dyer
From: dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Discrimination, gay marriages
Message-ID: <19399@wivax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Apr-84 14:01:33 EST
Article-I.D.: wivax.19399
Posted: Fri Apr 13 14:01:33 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Apr-84 09:15:37 EST
References: <897@linus.UUCP>
Organization: Wang Institute, Tyngsboro, Ma.  01879
Lines: 37

Regarding comments about anti-discrimination laws having little effect
on attitudes and practices, I would agree that they have little immediate
effect, but that alone is not an argument against passing them.  I found
Mike Simpson's analogies with civil-rights laws and the following backlash
against blacks on the part of whites a little short-sighted, for it was
these very laws which catalyzed the courts to drag the rest of American
society into the 20th century and began to change the attitudes of most
ordinary Americans.  In the same way, anti-discrimination laws and policies
protecting gay people *may* lead to some increase in harassment (I am
not convinced of this) but we should not concern ourselves with the short-term
fallout.

On a mildly related issue, I have always wanted to have the chance to
flame against the San Francisco ordinance which would have extended
the city benefits to spouses of city workers to co-habitants, meaning
especially, though not exclusively, to gay man and lesbian couples.
It was rightfully defeated, but I was disappointed at the outrage that
it caused.  Think of the legal morass it would have generated, as one tried
to define who was deserving and who wasn't.  There may be many arguments
against marriage in many people's minds, but from a legal point of view,
one thing is very clear--either you is married or you ain't.  Marriage
endows the couple with a set of rights and responsibilities which can be
legally enforced.  Cohabitation exists at the whim of the parties involved.

Of course, this leaves gay people on the outside as far as this kind
of protection goes.  My point is that a bad ordinance isn't going to
solve much of anything.  Better to work for some kind of legal recognition
for gay couples--one hesitates to call it "marriage" because of all of
the psychosociological drek that comes with that word, but an equivalent
to "marriage" is what is required.  Could this ever happen soon?  

/Steve Dyer
decvax!bbncca!sdyer
-- 
/Steve Dyer
decvax!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca