[lbo-talk] Re: Serious Question on Question #3

[Liza Featherstone]

I think you're way off base on Siegel, who as far as I know isn't running
for anything this year anyway. You can disagree with Norman Siegel's
position on the Harvey Milk School (I think I do) but it is certainly a
progressive position. He is a civil libertarian who thinks that creating a
separate space for queer kids lets the rest of the school system off the
hook, in effect relieves it of the responsibility for battling homophobia in
the schools. That may be a misguided reason not to support the HMS, but it's
unfair to suggest Siegel doesn't support queer rights, or that he is only
"allegedly" a progressive. If he's wrong, he's only wrong in that
indispensable way the ACLU is sometimes wrong -- because when you apply the
same worthy principles to absolutely everything, you make a few mistakes.

Liza 


> From: BklynMagus <magcomm at ix.netcom.com>
> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:59:19 -0800 (PST)
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: [lbo-talk] Re: Serious Question on Question #3
> 
> Dear List:
> 
> Okay - I re-read info on non-partisan elections.
> 
> I got all the warnings about potential downsides of a non-partisan system.
> 
> Personally, I am most concerned about the increased influence of money in
> non-partisan elections.
> 
> On the other hand, I looked at my voter guide this weekend and I saw arch
> homophobes Charles Barron and Vincent Gentile running as Democratic nominees.
> Gentile even has the line of the (supposedly) progressive Working Families
> Party.  So I have to ask myself: what is there to like about a system that
> gives so much power to parties that nominate and endorse homophobes.  If
> Gentile had voted against equals rights for women or blacks or Jews would he
> still be the nominee of these two parties?  Would they even consider him?
> 
> Also, the opposition for the Harvey Milk High School came from Norman Siegel,
> an alleged progressive, and Democratic members of the City Council.
> 
> I have always looked with scorn upon the Republican Party's notion of the "big
> tent."  Is that what the Democratic and Working Parties Family have become as
> well?  Places where you are seen as progressive regardless of whether or not
> you support queer rights.
> 
> Yesterday, Episcopalians consecrated an openly gay man as a bishop.  Doing so
> has pissed a lot of heterosexuals off.  In fact, the pissed-off straights
> threaten to schism.  I admire the Episcopalians for what they did.  Isn't it
> also about time progressives drew a line in the sand and said that being
> against queer rights is unacceptable (which has clearly been done for other
> groups)?
> 
> Brian Dauth
> Queer Buddhist Resister
> 
> 
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk