From: Gayeditor@aol.com Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 19:17:45 -0400 Subject: analysis/contract w/ american family The following is reprinted with permission from Update, Southern California's gay and lesbian weekly newspaper. For permission to reprint, e-mail gayeditor@aol.com News Analysis Read The Fine Print Before Signing This Contract By Petr Pronsati Editor Perhaps the most troubling part of the "Contract With The American Family," unveiled last week by the Christian Coalition (CC), is that it is seemingly devoid of the typical extremist hate speech usually associated with the right-wing group. On Wednesday, May 17 Ralph Reed, executive director of the CC, was joined at a press conference by House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senator Phil Gramm (R-Tx) to unveil the religious group's ten-point "Contract With The American Family." In it, the CC offers ten "pro-family suggestions" to Congress. During the conference, and in the contract itself, Reed assured people that "these provisions are the ten suggestions, not the Ten Commandments," but also said that the Christian Coalition "was prepared to stay and stay ... for as many Congresses as it takes" to ensure the contract becomes law. In the contract, explicitly anti-Gay rhetoric was mostly avoided, although the phrase "Homosexuality is promoted as an acceptable lifestyle" is used to illustrate one of the reasons for transferring funding of the Department of Education to families and local school boards. The ten points are as follows: 1) A constitutional amendment to protect the religious liberties of Americans in public places. 2) Transfer funding of the federal Department of Education to families and local school boards. 3) Enactment of legislation that will enhance parents' choice of schools for their children. 4) Enactment of a Parental Rights Act and defeat of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. 5) Reduce the tax burden on the American family, eliminate the marriage penalty, and pass the Mothers and Homemakers' Rights Act to remedy the unequal treatment that homemakers receive under the Internal Revenue Service Code with respect to saving for retirement. 6) Protecting the rights of states that do not fund abortion, protecting innocent human life by placing real limits on late-term abortions and ending funds to organizations that promote and perform abortions. 7) Enactment of legislation to enhance contributions to private charities as a first step toward transforming the bureaucratic welfare state into a system of private and faith-based compassion. 8) Protecting children from exposure to pornography on the internet and cable television, and from the sexual exploitation of child pornographers. 9) The National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, Corporation for Public Broadcasting and Legal Services Corporation should become voluntary organizations funded through private contributions. 10) Funds given to states to build prisons should encourage work, study and drug testing requirements for prisoners in state correctional facilities, as well as requiring restitution to victims subsequent to release. A few of the points in the contract not only have nothing to do with Gays and Lesbians, they could also benefit some in our community if enacted. The main problem lies in the heterosexist attitude the contract takes, and in some implicitly anti-Gay and anti-woman language. While the introduction to the contract explains that it is about pro-family moral issues, and that "53 percent of Americans believe the moral problems facing our country are more important than the economic problems," it certainly asks for economic relief that can only being taken advantage of if you are part of a "traditional" family. The section on tax relief asks that the IRS "eliminate the marriage penalty." Since Gays and Lesbians have no legal right to marry (and won't ever have that right if the CC has their way) this assuredly discriminates against a significant segment of the population. However, Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual parents would probably be happy to see the standard deduction for children, if the right wingers get their way, "restored ... to its inflation-adjusted 1946 value: $8,000 to $10,000 per dependent child." There are obvious concerns about turning the funding of the Dept. Of Education over to families and local school boards. One that springs readily to mind is the misguided notion that parents who admittedly can not control their children's use of the television and home computer (as evidenced by the desire for the federal government to "protect" children from them) would have the wherewithal to properly manage entire school systems. The opportunity for chaos is limitless. The call for laws banning obscenity on the internet is nothing short of censorship and should be fought as though the very fiber of our freedom depends on it. It does. Many Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual newsgroups in cyberspace could possibly be ruled obscene and thus outlawed. What has become a forum for diversity and solidarity among many minorities could be stripped. The ramifications of censorship of any kind are frightening, but when you consider that these laws could ban even private conversations and information exchange between consenting adults, the realization that our very existence as free Gays and Lesbians hangs in the balance becomes apparent. Stopping short of asking for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, the contract takes aim at organizations that "promote and perform" abortions, calling for the federal government to cut off all funding to these organizations. Without naming names, they blatantly target groups like Planned Parenthood, while offering the terroristic tactics used to enforce China's "one child" policy as evidence that the funding should be stopped. While Amnesty International has also decried the horrors that have taken place in China, that is no reason to completely eliminate funding to any group that performs abortions. Their insistence that abortion be banned even in the cases of rape and incest belies their concern for women, children and families. How can anyone who truly has a family's best interest at heart demand that one be created out of such trauma? The recommendation that the NEA, NEH and CPS become privately funded is not new. The battle is going on in Congress as we speak. As reported here last week, a House committee has already voted to eliminate funding altogether by 1998. While most Gays and Lesbians are against the defunding, some Gay scholars have asked why Gays and Lesbians are taking on the added burden of saving PBS when the network has shown a real reluctance to support Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual programming when it becomes even remotely controversial. There are parts of the contract that have merit however. Prison reform is certainly not without supporters in our community. Furthermore, protections of religious liberty and parental rights do not diametrically oppose the rights of Gays and Lesbians, although the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force would have you believe that anything a conservative or Republican says is automatically contrary to any view taken by a Gay or Lesbian American. In an action alert released on May 19, the NGLTF stated, "The 'Contract With The American Family' is a campaign to exploit fear and homophobia that must not be advanced on Capitol Hill." This even in spite of their own admission that the contract steers away from any explicit anti-Gay rhetoric. To their credit, NGLTF does encourage everyone to read the text of the contract, which can be retrieved from the internet at http://www.cc.org. If you don't have access to the internet, it can probably be gotten by simply calling the Christian Coalition and asking for a copy. It is interesting reading, at the very least. With a community as diverse as the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual community, it is foolhardy to think that everyone will be for or against the same points in the contract. From a Gay and Lesbian perspective, the majority of the contract has problems. However, just as we denounce extremism from the radical right, it is important to not lose sight of the fact that some ideas are worth considering, regardless of who comes up with them.