Replies

Interesting...my point was...

>>>Whether he is a "voting member" is not clear.
Your Excerpt: According to the Times, Giuliani has attended every “gay pride” parade in New York during his eight years as mayor. In 1992, during his first run for mayor, Giuliani took part in a homosexual “pride” parade that included a contingent of pedophile activists marching behind a banner for NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love

While it doesn't address the point I made, it is true that Giuliani marched in a parade where Nambla marched. Are you saying by marching in the same parade that he condones their behavior?

Excerpt: the organizing committee of Stonewall 25 is dominated by those intent on imposing political censorship. To march in the parade, groups must take the equivalent of a loyalty oath. They must pledge their support for age-of-consent laws. Any group that favors the abolition of these laws has been denied permission to march. The obvious intent of this ruling is to keep the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) out of the parade, presumably from a desire to avoid bad publicity. But it galls me that people are being excluded not for what they do but for what they think.

In 1994,as you indicated here, the Stonewall Vets BANNED Nambla from marching with them.

Which of these members voted to allow NAMBLA to march under their own banner? And what does NAMBLA being part of Stonewall MEAN? http://www.stonewallvets.org/mainpage.htm#SVA_HONORARY_MEMBERS

You provided a list of honorary members. Are you saying it's some kind of roll call vote? Since NAMBLA is not a part of the Stonewall Vets, it seems unlikely.

Obviously, you're just cutting and pasting some keyworded information trying to make some kind of point to fit a conclusion you've already made.

Have a nice day.

Since you are having trouble with that excerpt, let me help by reposting it for you with visuals.

http://users.rcn.com/kyp/sos.html
Spirit of Stonewall

by Bob Chatelle

[From the PIC Newsletter June 1994, Volume II, issue iv]

an excerpt

I missed my opportunity to be arrested at the Stonewall riots in 1969 by less than a week. In less than a month, I may get a second chance to see the inside of a New York City jail.

On June 21, 1969, I was in Greenwich Village. I then worked for a small Boston computer consulting firm and I was in New York on business--we had a contract with New York University. I was accompanied on this trip by a fellow employee who was also a gay man. Indeed the president of that company was gay. But we all understood the absolute necessity of being firmly in the closet, both within the office and without.

That night, my friend and I were wandering about in our business uniforms when he suggested we go to a club he'd heard about called the Stonewall Inn. The doorman looked suspiciously at our attire, and we were told we could enter only if we were the guests of a "member." We went elsewhere. We weren't surprised at this treatment. It was an election year and soi disant "liberal" John Lindsay was running for reelection and was giving the gay bars a hard time. ("Liberals" were more open about their homophobia back then.)

Nine days later, back at our office in Boston, my friend slipped into my cubicle and surreptitiously showed me the New York Times account of the Stonewall riot. Neither of us new what to make of it. The event was little talked about afterwards in my circle of gay male friends. Most who had any opinion expressed disapproval about that sort of public acting up. We didn't want straight people to think that gays didn't know how to behave. Many of us, I suspect, harbored a secret admiration for those who had gotten fed up and let their anger loose. But had my friend and I been there on June 28, we would've fled when things got "out of hand." Our gay company president, after all, would've been mortified if we'd been arrested at a brawl at a gay bar.

I'd been looking forward to marching in the Stonewall 25 parade this June, and at one time I was even interested in trying to organize an NWU contingent. But, unfortunately, the organizing committee of Stonewall 25 is dominated by those intent on imposing political censorship. To march in the parade, groups must take the equivalent of a loyalty oath. They must pledge their support for age-of-consent laws. Any group that favors the abolition of these laws has been denied permission to march. The obvious intent of this ruling is to keep the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) out of the parade, presumably from a desire to avoid bad publicity. But it galls me that people are being excluded not for what they do but for what they think. The Stonewall 25 Committee is arrogant to banish people not for breaking the law but rather for advocating using the democratic process to change the law.

I don't have a firm personal position on age-of-consent laws, and this is certainly something on which the NWU should take no stand. I consider child (or for that matter, adult) abuse--sexual, physical or emotional--to be a moral evil. But I've seen no evidence that age-of-consent laws are an effective or appropriate means of preventing or punishing such abuse. In any case, this is certainly a matter about which reasonable people can differ.

Several of us who are appalled by the political censorship imposed by the Stonewall 25 Committee have formed a group called Spirit of Stonewall (SOS). We include Mattachine founder Harry Hay, Gayle Rubin, Allen Ginsburg, and NWU member Pat Califia. And playwright Jim D'Entremont, spokesperson for the Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression and my life partner, whom I met on July 18, 1970, less than a month after the first anniversary of Stonewall.

I am not a brave person and I know that when NAMBLA marches, spectators sometimes hurl more than invective in their direction. And if the organizers of Stonewall 25 are determined to exclude us, I might end up in jail. I was not willing to go to jail in defense of my beliefs in June of 1969. In June of 1994, I'm proud to say that I have changed. Hope to see you on the 26th.

Hello! Note the code word "SPIRIT" mid-letter.

Spirit of SOS.

>>>While it doesn't address the point I made, it is true that Giuliani marched in a parade where Nambla marched. Are you saying by marching in the same parade that he condones their behavior?

Giuliani has personally condoned the behavior.

Gays, Giuliani, and Catholics

Excerpt:

Bad as the 1995 parade was, it was no match for last year's debacle ("Stonewall at 25," October 1994). On June 26, 1994, scores of fully naked men and women marched in an illegal parade yelling "F___ You" at those on the steps of St. Patrick's Cathedral. They masturbated in the street, pointed their middle fingers at the Cathedral, did satanic dances and dressed as cardinals, nuns, and priests. All of this was done in full view of Police Commissioner William Bratton and the New York City police force. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani watched from above in a helicopter. No one was arrested for anything.

...

...(re the '95 parade...): ..."All the usual suspects were there: drag queens, cross-dressers on Rollerblades, the Butch/Femme Society, the sado-macho brigade in black leather, Men of Discipline and other lovely types. Commercialism was most evident as about a third of the floats were sponsored by various gay bars and clubs. Though there were no signs indicating that the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) was there, the child molesters were listed in the program..."

...There were men dressed as women and there were fairies on stilts. Hundreds of men wore nothing but jock straps, shaking their bodies to the beat of the blaring rock music. Olympic diving champion Greg Louganis was one of the grand marshals and pop singer Cyndi Lauper danced and sang her hit "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun." Strange looking people were everywhere and often it was difficult to tell whether it was a man or a woman, and in some cases it appeared that it was both. And yes, some of the girls did bare their breasts (a few of them apparently spray painted their chests), but in all fairness it must be said that most of the girls managed to keep their clothes on. The police carried yellow blankets to cover the girls up but decided against using them. Following tradition, no one was arrested.

There's a fat and ugly guy who shows up every year dressed as the pope carrying a sign "My church organ is bigger than yours." He was there again this year. There was one car that passed by with a string of unrelated four letter words and sexual terms on it. Some marchers wore shirts with various vulgarities inscribed on them. There were large pictures of men performing oral sex and there were several examples of men simulating oral sex live atop the floats. The latter exhibition led Norm Siegel of the ACLU to declare "I love watching the First Amendment in action," thus demonstrating how far we've come in our understanding of free speech.

No Gay Pride Parade would be complete without a little Catholic bashing. It should be noted that the place where the march began, 52nd Street, is not a major cross street, making it all the more conspicuous what the intent was in starting there. If Catholic bashing wasn't central to the parade, then surely the request to start the march just south of the Cathedral would have been granted. Indeed, when Janice Thom, the co- chairman of the parade's sponsors, Heritage of Pride, was asked to comment on my statement that her group had deliberately targeted St. Patrick's, she responded briskly, "That's an interesting idea."

The most flagrant anti-Catholicism came from Catholic Ladies for Choice. In this group, there were gays and lesbians dressed as nuns carrying coat hangers and lesbians dressed as nuns carrying tambourines. Most incredible was the gay man who wore a black bra and a black jock strap with a huge set of rosary beads wrapped around his otherwise naked body. There was also someone dressed as the pope with a banner that read, "The Catholic Church, a history of murder, lies, censorship, oppression, and hypocrisy."

And what did Mayor Giuliani have to say about all this? He called it a "very dignified parade."

Rudy has a long history of pro-homosexual behaviour. From a 2001 article posted here on Free Republic:

On the way to a recent fundraising dinner for the pro-homosexual state lobby group, The Empire State Pride Agenda (ESPA), Koeppel ribbed Giuliani by saying that if the ESPA was able to raise $100,000 donation for the homosexual victims of the September 11 attacks, Giuliani should agree to appear on Showtime’s controversial Queer as Folk dressed in drag. Surprisingly, Giuliani agreed.

Marty Algaze of Gay Men’s Health Crisis once summed up Queer as Folk — a show that touts graphic sexual activity as one of its biggest draws — as one that would “shock a lot of people.” Showtime’s Queer as Folk was inspired by the original series in Britain, which featured a storyline in which a 29-year-old man has a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old boy.

The propensity to shock people is not new to Giuliani, who likes to dress in women’s clothes as a stage act, and even did so once at a Pride Agenda fund-raiser.

According to the Times, Giuliani has attended every “gay pride” parade in New York during his eight years as mayor. In 1992, during his first run for mayor, Giuliani took part in a homosexual “pride” parade that included a contingent of pedophile activists marching behind a banner for NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794318/posts

>>>Since NAMBLA is not a part of the Stonewall Vets

You are full of crap.

Copy:

"We agree with the 1951 Mattachine Society slogan: "We will integrate as a group on our own terms, or we will not integrate at all."

SOS
Spirit of Stonewall
c/o Gayme Magazine
PO Box 15645
Boston, MA 02215 Tel.(617) 695-8015
Fax (617) 266-1125
NAMBLA MARCHES WITH US
AT STONEWALL 25, JUNE 26, 1994

Spirit of Stonewall (SOS) calls on Stonewall 25 and the gay and
lesbian movement to return to its roots. The Christopher Street
uprising was an outcry by those at the bottom and on the margins
of society against puritanical self-righteousness and bigotry.
It was a cry for full sexual liberation as part of the struggle
for social justice. Stonewall was the spontaneous action of
marginal people oppressed by the mainstream - of teenaged drag
queens, pederasts, transsexuals, hustlers, and others despised by
respectable straights and "discreet" homosexuals. They did not
call for their rights, they seized their own freedom. They did
not ask for integration into middle-class America, they screamed
against its pretensions of propriety.

SOS is an ad hoc committee of lesbian, gay and other individuals
and groups formed to bring Stonewall 25 back to the principles of
gay liberation. We focus on one of the most glaring departures
from those principles: the attempt to exclude the North American
Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), and possibly other groups,
from the Stonewall 25 March and from their place within
gay/lesbian space and discourse.

Red-baiting, scapegoating, censorship and exclusion have been
hallmarks of American society. Just as unions, the civil rights
and peace movements were pressured to cleanse themselves of
suspected "communists," the lesbian/gay movement is now expected
to rid itself of social misfits, the vulnerable pederasts first
of all. Never before has such an ostensibly progressive movement
jumped so quickly through the hoops of its enemies. At least
there were years of debates among activists before some
capitulated to McCarthyism. ILGA, the Human Rights Campaign
Fund, Stonewall 25, and others who claim to support sexual
minorities and human rights have stumbled over each other as they
rush to deny these rights to those deemed unacceptable.

We find this the height of hypocrisy - to invoke the name of
Stonewall to cast out the alleged molesters among us. The issue
is not, first of all, intergenerational sex - although that is
one the movement needs to confront honestly rather than avoid.
SOS takes no stand specifically on age of consent laws or sex
between adults and those deemed legally "children." The issues
that now confront Stonewall 25 are free speech, free association
and inclusiveness.

NAMBLA's record as a responsible gay organization is well known.
NAMBLA was spawned by the gay community and has been in every
major gay and lesbian march. It has demonstrated in solidarity
with people with AIDS, and for lesbians in custody cases. NAMBLA
takes progressive positions on U.S. intervention in Central
America, the military draft, reproductive rights, the death
penalty, corporal punishment and racism. NAMBLA publicly
condemns the exploitation of children, including genuine sexual
abuse. NAMBLA believes the interests of young people demand not
paternalistic protection, but empowerment to make real choices.
Every organization within Stonewall 25 need not endorse every one
of the other organization's positions. NAMBLA's call for the
abolition of the age of consent is not the issue. NAMBLA is a
bona fide participant in the gay and lesbian movement. NAMBLA
deserves strong support in its rights of free speech and
association and its members' protection from discrimination and
bashing.

Unless we return to the principles of Stonewall, the fate of
NAMBLA today may be the fate of other "different" and
"controversial" causes tomorrow. Gay and lesbian activists
before Stonewall understood the task of liberation. We agree
with the 1951 Mattachine Society slogan: "We will integrate as a
group on our own terms, or we will not integrate at all." We
will define our own agenda and decide for ourselves who we are!
Within our movement, if our brother or sister self-identifies as
gay, we will march with them and they with us. We call on
Stonewall 25 to rescind its attempt to ban NAMBLA. Meanwhile,
SOS announces: NAMBLA marches with us!

SIGNED: Harry Hay, Pat Califia, Gayle Rubin, Chris Bearchelli,
Scott O'Hara, Charley Shively, David Thorstad, Tom Reeves, Jim
Becker AND:

NAME:___________________________________________________________

ADDRESS:________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________
Telephones:

(h)__________________(w)________________(FAX)___________________

Identification: (Writer, Activist, Professor, Name of
Organization or Publication, etc. - does not imply endorsement):

________________________________________________________________

GROUP ENDORSEMENT: (if a group officially endorses the SOS call)

________________________________________________________________

I (WE) WILL MARCH IN NEW YORK, SUNDAY, JUNE 26, 1994 WITH
SOS:________________________________
WE CANNOT MARCH, but we will march "in spirit":_________________
WE NEED HOUSING (Limited Availability at $30 per night, two to
three persons per room):______________________