Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!bbncca!rrizzo
From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo)
Newsgroups: net.motss,net.kids,net.singles
Subject: Gay fostercare ban: more news
Message-ID: <1470@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 19:32:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncca.1470
Posted: Mon Jun 24 19:32:26 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Jun-85 06:46:02 EDT
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 127
Xref: watmath net.motss:1780 net.kids:1392 net.singles:7522



More developments in the ongoing protest against the legislation
in the Massachusetts House effectively banning gays, singles, &
"nontraditional families" from foster care, guardianship, & adop-
tion (it's a rider on a budget bill, & heavily supported by liberal
Democrats, including the Governor):

The round-the-clock sit-in outside Governor Michael Dukakis'
statehouse office protesting his refusal to meet with opponents
of the ban met with success after a few days.  Dukakis agreed
to a Friday (6/21/85) news conference (reported I'm told in the
Saturday Boston Globe 6/22/85: did anyone see it?).

The news conference resulted in no progress, but made the Duke
fully reveal himself, causing consequent disbelief, disgust, rage
& grim resolve among ban opponents.  When someone mentioned that
the foster child removed from the gay home had been already trans-
ferred twice in the short period since then, Dukakis snapped back
that such a disclosure violated the child's right of confidentiality,
an absurd complaint at this point in time in a controversy that
began by a massive violation of the confidentiality of everyone
concerned on the part of a Globe reporter & his editors.

When told of the extent of anger over the ban ("Dump Dukakis" senti-
ment toward the next gubernatorial race), that some opponents were
even talking about supporting the Republican nominee to defeat the
Duke at the polls, Dukakis simply answered "Go ahead" (he may have even
smiled at this point), letting the implications fall with heavy thuds:
namely, that he neither needs nor particularly wants the gay vote, &
he'd be overjoyed to see his electoral opponent publically identified
with gay support or votes.  This last bit of contempt is novel for
Dukakis: although he himself has been silent on gay rights & issues,
his & other Democratic campaigns have sought & obtained increasing
gay support (campaign workers, publicity, votes) over the years, the
1984 elections representing a kind of peak for gays merging with the
mainstream in Massachusetts politics.

Nevertheless, Dukakis had the nerve to claim the legislation doesn't
ban gays or anyone else, it simply assigns them a lower priority
(at the bottom of the list, or, as someone quipped, "below the bottom
line", making selection nearly impossible, an effective ban).

Is this combination of indifference, implied contempt, & almost insult-
ingly flimsy defense the "new Dukakis" rumored by political observers?

So, the public pursuit of the Duke continues (protesting his every public
appearance).  30 to 40 demonstrators greeted him last Friday with "Dump
Dukakis" signs & slogans in blue-collar Somerville where he spoke at a
veterans' hall.  He attempted to slip in through a side door, but was
spotted & denounced.

Tonight in Brookline the protest resumes during another of his public
appearances.  A demo is also scheduled for Thursday in Framingham when
he appears there.

In contrast to the face he presented at the news conference, today's
(6/24/85) Globe describes Dukakis as "miffed that gay activists camped
outside his office door chanting for several days last week.  This could
bode ill for the gay rights bill."  (p 15, 18)  The idea of revenging
himself on the annual gay rights bill (the closest gays have to a Perpe-
tual Campaign) is absurd, considering his lack of past support for the 
bill, the typically up-&-down history of legislative backing for it, & 
the sysiphean commitment of gay rights advocates.  It's a nasty yet rather
empty threat.

The same Globe article claims that most of the administration's bills 
are "languishing" (one hopes) in the legislature.  An interesting letter
to the editor (p 11) points out that this month the state Senate voted
to eliminate 75% of funds targeted for foster care review, which monitors
the "destiny", one might say, of foster children in the foster care system,
& to completely eliminate "funds for treatment services for sexually
abused children despite a 37-percent increase in sexual abuse reports."

Yet as a second letter states ("Children growing up in environment of 
fear"):

	Children today pour their milk from cartons printed with the
	photos of their missing peers.  They go to school where they
	hear speakers warning them against abductors and sexual abuse.
	After school they can't go to the store alone to do an errand
	because their parents fear they might be kidnapped on the way.
	If they could, they would see posters with more missing child-
	ren.

	At night they can watch one of the numerous TV programs that
	have featured the missing children or child abuse themes, and
	then share the gory details with their friends the next day.
	And at some point along the way, they have been fingerprinted
	or gotten one of the new color photo ID cards, "just in case"
	their parents have to show them to the police if they are
	stolen away.

	This is *overkill*.

The curiously disjointed picture painted here of rhetoric vs. actual
aid for kids (or lack of it) points up the craziness of the current
political situation.  Supporters of the ban (like the Duke) imply they
nearly agree that it's arbitrary, even irrational, but "we can do it 
to you if we want to, the voters still don't like gays."

Other peculiarities of the gay ban:  the Globe describes it as applying
to "openly gay couples" [sic., applies to single individuals as well].
Can closeted gays still be foster parents?  If so, what was the objec-
tion to:  honesty, not "role models"?

The state said the ban  wouldn't be retroactive (but why not, if the 
objection is to foster parents' influence on the kids?), yet already
children have been removed from 2 other gay foster homes.

Observers have talked about the "new Dukakis" & the ban as a case of
local politicans joining the national mainstream & moving to the right,
making up for a lag due to to the predominance of liberalism here.  Yet
Massachusetts is the first state to declare a policy of preference for
"traditional families" in these matters, and, what's worse, other states
are thinking of imitating Massachusetts' lead:  New Hampshire is now
considering a similar effective ban.  Far from indulging in "catchup"
realpolitik, those liberal Democrats who support the ban are initiating
political change, creating a policy model for other states, abruptly
inverting the Commonwealth's traditional role in national politics.

			     ********

For information on protests, please phone the hotline of the Gay &
Lesbian Defense Committee (see GCN or Bay Windows for the number).

					Ron Rizzo