Some of you might be interested in seeing this 30-year timeline of the anti-gay movement compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
I consider myself pretty informed about the Religious Right’s war on gay people (and on civil liberties in general); even so, it’s jarring to see the details laid out like this. It also reminds me that those of us who live in safe urban conclaves can’t afford to be too complacent.
There are people out there whose goal is to undermine the principles of Liberty and relgious freedom this country was founded on–and we’re their main target. It is a war, waged by them, against us. They never forget that, and neither should we.
Some of the information on the timeline doesn’t sound quite right to me.
The first paragraph under the heading “1978” says Dan White (killer of Harvey Milk and George Moscone) “resigned in protest when the board passed a gay-rights ordinance.”
I seem to recall from Randy Shilts’s biography of Harvey Milk that Dan White resigned from the SF Board of Supervisors for purely personal reasons. White had some financial problems, and salaries for city supervisors were very low in those days.
Soon after he resigned, some of his wealthy backers, who didn’t want to lose what they regarded as a conservative, “pro-business” voice on the board, offered White some financial assistance and convinced him to withdraw his resignation. Moscone’s refusal to let White withdraw his resignation is apparently what pushed White over the edge.
I don’t remember that a gay-rights ordinance had anything at all to do with the whole series of events leading up to the Milk/Moscone murders. In fact, I’ve always believed that White’s conflict with Milk and Moscone had more to do with the old “pro-business/downtown” vs. “pro-labor/tenants/seniors/immigrants” dynamic that has driven San Francisco politics for as long as I can remember.
Interesting time line.
What should be clear is that there is a lot of money in bashing (shall I say it?) fags. Even more than in bashing abortionists. Or in bashing Negroes. And the bashers are all a similar bent.
I don’t remember that a gay-rights ordinance had anything at all to do with the whole series of events leading up to the Milk/Moscone murders. In fact, I’ve always believed that White’s conflict with Milk and Moscone had more to do with the old “pro-business/downtown” vs. “pro-labor/tenants/seniors/immigrants” dynamic that has driven San Francisco politics for as long as I can remember.
I believe you are correct, except that I believe Milk flip-flopped on supporting a pro-business bill for White, and White retaliated by being the sole member of the Board of Supervisors to vote against Milk’s gay rights ordinance. That began a deterioration of their relationship, leading up to the assassination.
I also believe the timeline makes a huge mistake in stating that Milk was a supervisor for only 20 days – in fact he was elected in 1977, and led the campaign to defeat the Briggs’ initiative – including debating Briggs in front of very hostile audiences – during 1978 as a sitting member of the Board of Supervisors.
What is also fascinating about the timeline though, is how clear the intertwining of the anti-gay movement really is. While it looks like a host of organizations, they are all more or less in cahoots, so their arguments reinforce each other, even while their tinged with their own flavor (e.g., ardent “Christianity” for Lou Sheldon, ardent patriotism for Phyllis Schlafly).
The timeline is frightening to read, but one good thing about it is that it makes it clear this is essentially a political struggle. Although many of the anti-gay leaders are motivated by personal animosity towards gay people, the entire movement is predicated on a political aim – gathering votes through scapegoating. I think the movement realizes that very few people will be the “true believers” – those who think homosexuality is such a horrendous sin they will do anything to eradicate it. Instead the movement has to rely on its propaganda and stereotyping to convince the larger majority that the gay rights movement is a threat. The more egregious anti-gay sentiments (e.g., those who favor execution) are covered up while the more “tolerant” face of the movement – those who claim to love gays, and just want to help us – are put forward. But this timeline shows that when those more “tolerant” types claim no relation to the more radical, they are often lying.