AUGUST 4, 1995 GAY PEOPLE'S CHRONICLE

11

SPEAK OUT

When Hawaii OKs gay marriage, we're going to get clobbered

by Jim Thomas

Like gays in the military in 1992, there's a storm coming our way, and we are totally unprepared.

And this assault looks to be even worse. When Bill Clinton announced in the summer of 1991 that he would lift the ban on gays in the military, the now-infamous video of our opponents, The Gay Agenda, was produced before the 1992 election was even held, just in case.

At the same time, most of our political leadership yawned, never having much liked Clinton, believing him likely to be too conservative.

Because of stories of his sexual affairs, Clinton was thought probably to be, underneath, a secret sexist. Nobody thought he could actually win. And besides, for many of our leaders coming out of '60s anti-war activism, the military issue just wasn't one for which they could muster much enthusiasm. The fabled support of the gay community for Clinton did not come from the organized gay and lesbian political community. No, the initiative came from long-time Democratic Party activists who were beginning to come out of the closet.

But when the time came, it was the movement activists who had to get their followers mobilized.

The rest, of course, is history, and a rather sad history it is. Amazingly, when the smoke cleared and we had lost badly, our leaders went in for a frenzy of Clinton-bashing. I do not recall a single substantive analysis by anyone of importance in our community which took any real responsibility for what went wrong. It was all Bill Clinton's fault.

Now, three years later, it seems likely that the state courts in Hawaii will soon issue a ruling recognizing same-sex marriage in that

state.

If so, then the other 49 states will have to decide whether to continue to recognize marriages performed in other states, and the Hawaiian legislature will see legislation to amend its state constitution to overturn the ruling.

The signs, let me tell you, are ominous. Already, Utah has passed legislation specifically saying it will deny reciprocity of recognition for same-sex unions. South Dakota fell one vote shy, and similar legislation has been introduced in Alaska.

This looks too much like 1992 replayed. Some of our activists have taken on one of the most important institutions of our culture, particularly for conservatives. We've known about this case for a couple of years, and it has received wide coverage in our press for at least a year.

What have our leaders done to prepare? Nothing, so far as I can tell. I've seen no position papers.

I've seen no media talking sheets, no model legislation, no support videos to counter inevitable attack videos.

Nothing.

And count on this, too: Because we made no effort to hold an internal community discussion of the issue, we will not be unified. Much like the anti-war background of our leaders creating an emotional obstacle to the effort to lift the military ban, a similar effect will arise on this issue.

There are some among us (who knows how many, as we haven't bothered to discuss the issue to find out) who will oppose lesbian and gay marriage because they object to marriage itself as a patriarchal and oppressive institution. Just imagine how that disagreement is going to play with the public?

You heard it here first. We are about to get creamed. Some of our activists have created a scenario in which we don't have to convince just one legislative body in Washington, but 50 legislative bodies, on an extremely controversial matter with no preparation for those having to carry on the effort. Indeed, some of those who will have to lead the effort, say in Frankfurt, Kentucky or Columbia, South Carolina, probably don't even know this will be their principal working issue a year from now. And they'll have to work the issue whether they support it or not because if they don't, some truly horrible legislation will be passed.

COMMUNITY FORUM

Continued from facing page

Homophobia is not essential to discipline, unit cohesion, morale, or national security. It is the direct cause of disciplinary problems and compromises mission accomplishment. As our military forces are increasingly called upon to police diverse civilian populations, it is important that the military undertake specific policies to prevent homophobes, racists, sexists, alcoholics, drug addicts, and those lawless persons who were traditionally pardoned their civilian criminal punishments in exchange for enlisting in the military, from entering or remaining in uniform. The military should undertake specific diversity awareness training programs to prevent the kinds of disciplinary problems which homophobia presents in the military, to protect straight and gay military and civilian Americans and foreign civilians during deployment abroad.

It's time the military began living up to the "special place" image it portrays itself as, and put fairness, honesty and patriotism above discrimination, bigotry and disrespect for the civilian chain of command.

Rand Knox San Rafael, California

Latent Helmsexuality

To the Editors:

There are only two reasons I can imagine for such desperate anger against gays as Jesse Helms and others of his ilk hold. If AIDS wasn't here, they'd find other means to

arouse hate-more quickly aroused than love. In my mind, the reasons for the hostility are professional hatemongering to make money, or, as many psychoanalysts agree, to try to destroy latent desire for same-sex relations in themselves by destroying it in others. It's a major cause for excessive viciousness and brutality in gay murders. Helms has gayness on his mind twenty-four hours a day when he has more important things to deal with, such as teenage crime and births, dope, spousal abuse, and the homeless. He needs to look deep within himself.

I'm in no position to claim that is Helms's problem, though I've some insight in the area. He's an unnatural man; it's unnatural to constantly image the places some people place their penises, or lesbian sex acts, when they don't directly threaten his private life.

What about the personality, the good deeds they do, their ethics? The more he rids himself of his hate, the happier he'll be. Someone with one open bigotry usually has more, hidden for political expediency. We're no threat. The country won't fall because of us.

The other diseases he mentions that need money for research definitely deserve it, but not at the expense of AIDS. Of them all, only AIDS, as it gets more and more into the heterosexual community, has the potential of completely wiping out the human race. You hear much about that possibility being exaggerated. At one time it was.

I'm concerned that Helms may have sociopathic tendencies, and the country truly needs a psychological profile of him. As much as he insults, he must expect it back. And look within himself.

Mike Varady Los Angeles

THE OPEN PRAIRIE by Joe Noover

HAWAIIAN

MARRAGE

Goover 29-95

OPEN PRAIRIE SYNDICATE ©

Philip

Toshav

(ITHACA

打

OOOH! HOW DARE THEY! AND IT BEING GROWN FROM GRASSROOTS AND ALL!

QUIT WORRYIN'! IF IT EVER RIPENS IT'S STILL A LONG WAY TO MARKET!

And you, my reader, must realize the same. Perhaps the Hawaiian court will unexpectedly rule against us, but that isn't what the talk is.

Get ready. And when the smoke clears, remember, Bill Clinton had nothing to do with this. We did this ourselves. Maybe we'll learn something this time.

Jim Thomas is managing editor of the News-Telegraph, a St. Louis-Kansas City lesbian-gay newspaper where this first appeared. For the record, he supports access to legal marriage by same-gender couples, and wishes to acknowledge that since writing this, wider discussion of the issue has begun.

Now she has a good reason

to get a mammogram

by Kathy Worthington

Sara and I had heard the statistics and read the articles: "Lesbians are at a higher risk for breast cancer." "Lesbians don't see their doctors enough." "Lesbian Health Care Needs Are Being Ignored.”

We talked about it off and on since we met three years ago; I would give Sara a hard time about never having had a pap smear or a mammogram and she would say she knew she should. She had good reasons for putting it off: she didn't have a gynecologist

and didn't know which one to go to, she

worked full time and would have to take off work, it was such a hassle making an appointment. Besides,

to put it off, to say "later."

Well, Sara's forty now, and she finally found a good reason: a large lump in her right breast. She finally made that appointment, finally had a pap smear and a mammogram. Now we're both getting very familiar with doctors and hospitals and Sara is going to have to get over her problem with needles. Sara had a lumpectomy and next week she starts five weeks of radiation. The doctors recommend chemotherapy, but Sara has decided not to do that. It would only increase her chances by 10 per-

Those reasons we had for putting off the mammogram and pap smear suddenly seem so lame, so feeble.

getting undressed and putting her legs up in stirrups for someone, or having her boobs squished in some machine, wasn't Sara's idea of fun. She doesn't care for doctors and hospitals, and she really hates needles.

Like I said, Sara had good reasons for putting it off, even though she's a "downwinder" (born and raised downwind of the nuclear tests of the fifties) and had never had children, so she was at high risk. She knew she should do it. She would. Soon. Really.

Besides, she was only thirty seven (then thirty eight... then thirty nine), not even forty yet, so there wasn't really a hurry to do that stuff yet, right?

Then she got laid off from her job of fifteen years and she lost her insurance. Suddenly she had a really good reason not to get it done it would cost too much. She would wait 'til she had insurance. I have insurance, but my company doesn't have health insurance for same-sex partners, so I couldn't get insurance for Sara. We probably could have afforded the mammogram and pap smear, but what would we do if she had something wrong with her? It was easy

cent.

The statistics, the articles, the news stories have new meaning for us

now.

We saw a public service announcement on TV the other day about how important mammograms are and we just turned and looked at each other. It's funny, those reasons we had for putting off the mammogram and pap smear suddenly seem so lame, so feeble. How long had the tumor been growing? How much earlier could we have caught it? Will the delay cost Sara her life? There are questions we may never have answers to.

Here are some questions for you: Do you have a doctor and do you have regular check-ups?

If you're a woman: Do you have a gynecologist? Do you have regular pelvic exams? Have you had a pap smear or mammogram? Do you do regular breast self-examinations?

What are your reasons for waiting, for putting it off? Do you think your reasons are good enough? Take it from Sara: quit waiting for a good reason to do it. Just do it. Now.

Kathy Worthington is founder of the Womyn's Community News of Salt Lake City, Utah.