Capitol Hill Blue Forums We shall overcome

You missed it, Ardy:
beginning of discussion of Newsweek article
The discussion continued throughout the subsequent day.

Rick, I have been thinking back to 1978 and Prop 6 and I think it is very difficult to view the events of then with the mentality of today.

At the time, there was no widespread support for the very concept of "gay rights". Most of us were just barely coming out, the public at large had only a rudimentary understanding that we even existed much less had rights.

The closest analogy to our situation was the civil rights movement and we sought to tag onto the successes of that push so the word "rights" was a hook we could hang our demands upon.

But like prop8, prop 6 was an attack upon us, only comparatively it was a level 5 attack and 8 was a 2. We had barely won the right to walk hand in hand in public and in most states it was a crime to engage in any gay activity, including dancing together.

We knew that if prop 6 passed we would lose all of our rights, however few they may have been. We could be denied any work at all, could have been denied access to any and all government programs, housing, everything. Our very lives were at stake.

To compare that to losing the right to marry is absurd. Marriage is, for most of us who went through the earlier struggles, icing on the cake. Prop 6 would have annihilated us for practical purposes. You have to remember this was part of Anita Bryant's campaign to make everything we did illegal. Everything.

I am proud of the energy that younger gays and lesbians have discovered in themselves since the passage of prop 8. It heartens me to think the current generation of young men and women have woken up to the possibility that all is not well with the assimilation movement they have adopted.

At no time, however, did any of we "older gays" ever think of "gay rights." We always rested our movement on human rights, not a distinct body of rights that we alone were entitled to.

I urge you to look more deeply into this. Maybe sit down with someone over 60 who was out in 1978 to get a feel for what things were like then.

Isn't "gay rights" what Harvey Milk advocated? That's what I got from the movie last night. I wasn't involved in the Castro in the early 70s obviously, so I can only assume the story told by Gus Van Sant was factually accurate.

The points where I see Prop 6 and Prop 8 merging is the religious right fighting gay people for the very right to exist, to live happily, to live in peace with whomever gays loved.

This is the point of parallel that I found strikingly and eerily similar and nothing has changed from the Christian-right’s perspective to live us alone - they still persecute us.

The Christian-right uses "children" as their device to spread their bigotry and hate.

The gay community should have been ready for the Christian-rights tactics - as the Christian-right used the very same tactics the last time - thirty years ago.

That's what I'm angry about. But the masses were duped this time by the lies spread by the bigoted, homophobic and hateful Christian-right and we weren't prepared for "them" this time with our own “children” defense.

My anger stems from the fact that older generation of gays and politicians should have known the Christian-right would used the “child” tactic and fight them back head-to-head on the "child" issue just as Harvey Milk did to John Brigg in a debate in Orange County, California in 1978 – in the Christian-right’s own backyard!

We should have taken the debate on with the Christian-right head-to-head using "children" and we would have won.

But, we relied on the hope that our "friends" (gay-friendly str8s) would prevail - and we were sorely wrong.

So, in that sense, "gay rights" lost on November 4th 2008 in California and I'm angry about that.

How embarrassing is it for the possibility that Iowans will be able to marry before Californians - Iowans for Pete's sake? I mean, good for them, but the "thought" is California is way more progressive - and it's shamefully not true because lies about "children" and gays prevailed all thanks to the "peace and loving" Morman Chruch and the Catholic Church.

As Harvey Milk stated in his 1978 debate in Orange County - if children were influenced by adult behavior - there'd be a lot more Nuns running around today.

Actually, they are not at all questionable. The Levite law is rather uncompromising, and nothing in the NT changes that - and that's why I think, as originally stated, it is foolish and fruitless to argue from the text of either the OT or the NT that homosexual unions are somehow okay.

To repeat what I wrote elsewhere: Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it - that would include the Levite restrictions on sexual conduct as well, would it not? He also stated that not a jot or tittle of the law would be changed before the Day of Judgment; thus, you get no literal help from Jesus in okaying it. Hence, my continued insistence that to try and generally argue it from scripture is a more or less hopeless task.

Again, please understand that my argument is solely on the point of trying to justify on the basis of text from the Bible.

Rick, I honestly thought that we "Gay friendly str8s" were gonna pull it outa the hat for you guys. I was totally blindsided by Prop 6 passing here and even more so prop 8 in Cali. I'm sorry we couldn't do it for you this time but we'll keep voting your way until finally there are enough of us to make it happen.

Rick wrote

Rick, you graduated high school a long time ago, and at that point, the obligation of others to fill you with information stopped.

If you don't know who worked to get you the rights you have today, or how those battles were won and lost, then it is your own fault for not having the curiosity to find out.

To blame others for not force-feeding you knowledge is both unfair and childish - particularly when it is through their efforts that you live as freely as you do today.

Rick, I don't want to get into a discussion about Milk and I have not yet seen the picture, but even in his day he was very controversial in the gay community outside the Castro. And he was far from the only leader in the anti-6 campaign. Here in LA we seldom heard of him for the most part.

For the record, the anti8 campaign was mostly run by men and women in their 30'sw and 40's, not by "older gays". Wait until you are an "older gay" and then you will understand that it is very seldom we get asked anything and certainly are not always welcome with suggestions or even leadership.

Many younger gays think we fought our fight, they are grateful, but now is the time for a new generation. Kinda like the Obama phenomenon.

So I wonder how often you communicated with Equality California or any other of the actual leaders of the anti-8 campaign. I know I did. No response to me. To you?

There were no openly gay policians at that time in L.A. The movie made it "seem" that Harvey Milk not only was a warrior for the gay cause in San Francisco - but across the nation as the movie showed several scenes in which young gays would call Mr. Milk and tell him that their families hated them and they asked him what should they do. He always suggested to them that how ever they could - get to New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco on the next bus out of town.


The only time was in San Diego when I picked up my three "No on 8" signs.

Next time, I'll be more prepared and not so lackadaisical. I'll be more prepared to fight the Christian-right now that I am aware of their tactics.

For example, if I could go back three months, I would suggest a commerical that ran children saying to the camera:

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court said my parents could marry.

(I would then have shown a collage of lesbian and gay couples over the kid's shoulders)

...with the kids adding:

Please don't take my parents right away to be happy.

(Then all of the kids in unison)

Vote No on Proposition 8.


Fight kid tactic with kid tactic - that's how I would fight the Christian-right.

I would suggest too, rick, that prop 8 opponents gather some statistics on children who have been abused, children who have dropped out of school, children who have been involved in crime, and show that almost all of these children come from homes that do not have same-gender parents. "This is a child . . . this is a child on heterosexual parents." Something along those lines.

Good one Steve! One of our major strengths was not utilized at all. Our humor. There are very funny ways of getting serious points across and we seem to have abandoned that completely.

Like Heath Ledger said in The Dark Knight: "Why so serious?"