Subject: analysis/contract w/ american family
From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 19:17:45 -0400

The following is reprinted with permission from Update, Southern California's
gay and lesbian weekly newspaper. For permission to reprint, e-mail
[email-masked]

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.