CSP 19 Final Paper: Journey towards Gay Liberation

            The gay and lesbian revolution has created a new world unknown to United States: the concepts of monogamy, marriage, family, gender roles and sexual objectifications all underwent a social reform that redefined our contemporary culture. Like other radical social and political movements in U.S. history, this movement represented the change of consciousness, with the intentions of transforming fundamental institutions of society. Since the establishment of its position in 1960s to the legal protection battle today, the LGBTQ community has strived to seek the light of “gay liberation”.

The gay movement achieved a major milestone within the 1960s to 1980s; from raising its consciousness to challenging traditional values and energized opposition, this era was the establishment of LGBTQ’s position in society. The night of June 28^th 1969 marked the beginning of the gay revolution, as a fight broke out between authorities and gay men at a local New York City gay bar named Stonewall. Amidst the sea of angry patrons and their acts of rebellion, a change of consciousness arose in the public eye: we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.  Ever since that night, the LGBT community has slowly emerged and developed into one of the most influential parts of our society in all political, social, legal and cultural aspects. The Stonewall incident was a bullet echoed beyond the New York City; it was the “spark that ignited the modern gay rights movement” (Miller 337) globally. For the first time, members of LGBTQ community resisted authority and voiced out their intolerance for inequality. Soon, Gay Liberation Front (GLF) as well as many other LGBTQ groups emerged and built the building blocks of gay liberation. These consciousness-raising groups were formed under shared oppression and marked the beginning of gay politics. However, the lack of attention for lesbians within GLF soon created a fracture within the gay movement; even within this subaltern group, there was another division: this time between gay and lesbians. The 1960s were primarily an important moment that defined the alien concept of LGBTQ integrating into society.

If the 1960s were about raising the awareness of this community, the 1970s were about be the rising role of mainstream gay politics. The successful election of Harvey Milk (pictured on right during his hope speech) as the first widely known openly gay man in public office put gay politics into the national spotlight. It was an event to celebrate: the public had accepted the existence of this community and for the first time, they played a role in decision making for society. However, the gay movement faced multiple sources of backlash and strong opponents, one being Anita Bryant. Educated with traditional beliefs, Anita Bryant led a campaign to “repeal the ordinance” (Miller 372) and her organization, Save Our Children, Inc., gathered immense support and successfully repealed the gay rights law in Dade County. The Briggs Initiative, known also as Proposition 6, was another hindrance to gay political power. It proposed to ban all open homosexuals from teaching in California’s public schools. This was a significant episode because it was the first attempt “not merely roll back gay rights laws but to legally discriminate against homosexuals” (Miller 375). Fortunately, Proposition 6 did not pass. The 1970s played the role in increasing momentum towards gay liberation in politics and laws; even though it faced many obstacles, the gay movement was still capable of moving forward.

The 1980s, known as the AIDS decade, signifies the unity of the LGBTQ community and the refurbishment of the prior fractured coalition between gay men and lesbians. AIDS, a serious virus transmitted through sexual contact or transfusion of infected blood, became a political weapon used by opponents to further fuel arguments. Many publications took this opportunity and equated homosexuality with disease (click to read an article about AIDS being referred as 'A Gay Disease'). Pat Buchanan, a conservative columnist, described AIDS as a way of “nature’s revenge” (Miller 421); Human Events, a right-wing weekly publication, reported “there has even been speculation that AIDS victims could deliberately contaminate the blood supply… a way to make certain that there is increased pressure on the federal government to find a cure” (Miller 421). The AIDS pandemic, along with the election of Ronald Reagan, threatened to halt all of political advances the gay movement made in previous decades. However, this disease did shed a new light to the LGBTQ community: it brought a new forefront of young gay men into the political movement, as well as the reconciliation between gays and lesbians. The LGBTQ community, hardened by adversity’s oppression, united together and strengthened as a political force, as well as pushed the community into militancy unknown before. The 1980s was a decade that brought gay visibility into the society and evoked a deeper sense of community, establishing a now more committed and unified community.

In his book Out of the Past, author Neil Miller elaborates on the consciousness and coalition of gay revolution since the 1960s; however, his misconception of the phrase “gay liberation” falsely represents the movement and should instead be replaced with the phrase “gay awakening”. “Gay liberation” indicates an absolute political and social acceptance of the LGBTQ community, with members protected by legislations and complete social tolerance. Miller, however, characterizes it not necessarily as freedom, but rather as the acceptance of a foreign concept and community. Since the age of Stonewall, society has recognized the emergence of the LGBTQ community and even though facing strong opposition, members of the community still strive to escape prejudice. Though Miller recognized the importance of momentum throughout these decades, his definition of the era is rather incorrect. He perceived liberation as simply the recognition of LGBTQ community, yet acceptance is merely the foundation of liberation. The term should be perceived as a whole, in which the gay community gains full social and economic opportunities as well as legal protection. In my opinion, “gay liberation” is the act of seeking not special but equal rights for the LGBTQ community; it is not bounded by discrimination from society but rather equipped with freedom of expression. Therefore the term awakening suits the emergence of this community better and on this solid foundation we can strive towards accomplishing social and political liberation for the LGBTQ community.

Liberation entails independence from all restrictions and rejections; this concept unfortunately still remains a distant hope and a source of constant struggle for the LGBTQ community. Even today, members of this subaltern group still face prejudice in various aspects. Many LGBTQ issues these days encompass the legal protection for this community, with marriage being one of the most prominent topics. Marriage has always been used as a medium in the construction of sexuality; it is both a producer and a product of imbalanced power to discriminate against sexual minorities. The legal union of same-sex couples is not recognized in most states; even in those five states which grant the title ‘domestic partnership,’ same-sex couples do not receive the same legal benefits from a heterosexual couple, including survivor and tax breaks. In November 2008, Proposition 8, the California Marriage Protection Act restricting marriages to only opposite sexes, was passed by voters, illustrating the existing discrimination against LGBTQ people in our society. Same-sex marriage entails many social and political issues that challenge the conservative idea of marriage; it will surely be a long time before same-sex marriage is fully accepted both constitutionally and socially. Our perspective of the movement may have changed since the age of Stonewall, but we still perceive homosexuals as an abnormality in our society. As such, we have not achieved gay liberation yet and are most likely not to. Bias and prejudices are human nature, and it is in our dispositions to discriminate against those who do not fall into our gender and sexual binaries. Nonetheless, regardless of liberation as an unattainable objective, it should remain a collective goal that unifies our society. Miller describes the gay liberation as “the potential for revolutionary change within each gay and lesbian person” (Miller 341). It is a reflection and awakening of each individual, especially members of the LGBTQ community, and through this revolution we are capable to understand and express our true selves. We are in the stages of working towards liberation. This ought to begin with proper education about the gay community, through popular media such as T.V. shows, and a breakdown of anti-gay prejudices in both culture and law. Even today, the LGBTQ community and allies are fighting against all odds to seek independence and liberty, to gain equal rights and complete tolerance. The election of President Obama has brought new hopes with his promise of putting forward gay rights protection. Liberation of the gay movement is currently a theory that hopefully one day will become reality.

Works Cited

Miller, Neil. "Stonewall and the Birth of Gay and Lesbian Liberation." Out of the Past: Gay and Lesbian History from 1869 to the Present. New York: Vintage Books, 1995. 365-387.

Miller, Neil. "The 1970s: The Times of Harvey Milk and Anita Bryant." Out of the Past: Gay and Lesbian History from 1869 to the Present. New York: Vintage Books, 1995. 395-421.

 

Miller, Neil. "The 1980s: The Age of AIDS." Out of the Past: Gay and Lesbian History from 1869 to the Present. New York: Vintage Books, 1995. 439-479.

Miller, Neil. "The Clinton Years." Out of the Past: Gay and Lesbian History from 1869 to the Present. New York: Vintage Books, 1995. 527-553.

If Homer approves of gay marriage, you should.

Journey towards Gay Liberation

Note: Unfinished version

Journey towards Gay Liberation

The gay movement achieved a major milestone within the 1960s to 1980s; from raising its consciousness to challenging traditional values and energized opposition, this era was the establishment of LGBTQ’s position in society. The night of June 28^th 1969 marked the beginning of the gay revolution, as a fight broke out between authorities and gay men at a local New York City gay bar named Stonewall. Amidst the sea of angry patrons and their acts of rebellion, a change of consciousness arose in the public eye: we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.  Ever since that night, the LGBT community has slowly emerged and developed into one of the most influential parts of our society in all political, social, legal and cultural aspects. The Stonewall incident was a bullet echoed beyond the New York City; it was the “spark that ignited the modern gay rights movement” (Miller 337) globally. For the first time, members of LGBTQ community resisted authority and voiced out their intolerance for inequality. Soon, Gay Liberation Front (GLF) as well as many other LGBTQ groups emerged and built the building blocks of gay liberation. These consciousness-raising groups were formed under shared oppression and marked the beginning of gay politics. However, the lack of attention for lesbians within GLF soon created a fracture within the gay movement; even within this subaltern group, there was another division: this time between gay and lesbians. The 1960s were primarily an important moment that defined the alien concept of LGBTQ integrating into society.

If the 1960s were about raising the awareness of this community, the 1970s were about be the rising role of mainstream gay politics. The successful election of Harvey Milk as the first widely known openly gay man in public office put gay politics into the national spotlight. It was an event to celebrate: the public had accepted the existence of this community and for the first time, they played a role in decision making for society. However, the gay movement faced multiple sources of backlash and strong opponents, one being Anita Bryant. Educated with traditional beliefs, Anita Bryant led a campaign to “repeal the ordinance” (372) and her organization, Save Our Children, Inc., gathered immense support and successfully repealed the gay rights law in Dade County. The Briggs Initiative, known also as Proposition 6, was another hindrance to gay political power. It proposed to ban all open homosexuals from teaching in California’s public schools. This was a significant episode because it was the first attempt “not merely roll back gay rights laws but to legally discriminate against homosexuals” (375). Fortunately, Proposition 6 did not pass. The 1970s played the role in increasing momentum towards gay liberation in politics and laws; even though it faced many obstacles, the gay movement was still capable of moving forward.

The 1980s, known as the AIDS decade, signifies the unity of the LGBTQ community and the refurbishment of the prior fractured coalition between gay men and lesbians. AIDS, a serious virus transmitted through sexual contact or transfusion of infected blood, became a political weapon used by opponents to further fuel arguments. Many publications took this opportunity and equated homosexuality with disease. Pat Buchanan, a conservative columnist, described AIDS as a way of “nature’s revenge” (Miller 421); Human Events, a right-wing weekly publication, reported “there has even been speculation that AIDS victims could deliberately contaminate the blood supply… a way to make certain that there is increased pressure on the federal government to find a cure” (Miller 421). The AIDS pandemic, along with the election of Ronald Reagan, threatened to halt all of political advances the gay movement made in previous decades. However, this disease did shed a new light to the LGBTQ community: it brought a new forefront of young gay men into the political movement, as well as the reconciliation between gays and lesbians. The LGBTQ community, hardened by adversity’s oppression, united together and strengthened as a political force, as well as pushed the community into militancy unknown before. The 1980s was a decade that brought gay visibility into the society and evoked a deeper sense of community, establishing a now more committed and unified community.

In his book Out of the Past, author Neil Miller elaborates on the consciousness and coalition of gay revolution since the 1960s; however, his misconception of the phrase “gay liberation” falsely represents the movement and should instead be replaced with the phrase “gay awakening”. “Gay liberation” indicates an absolute political and social acceptance of the LGBTQ community, with members protected by legislations and complete social tolerance. Miller, however, characterizes it not necessarily as freedom, but rather as the acceptance of a foreign concept and community. Since the age of Stonewall, society has recognized the emergence of the LGBTQ community and even though facing strong opposition, members of the community still strive to escape prejudice. Though Miller recognized the importance of momentum throughout these decades, his definition of the era is rather incorrect. He perceived liberation as simply the recognition of LGBTQ community, yet acceptance is merely the foundation of liberation. The term should be perceived as a whole, in which the gay community gains full social and economic opportunities as well as legal protection. In my opinion, “gay liberation” is the act of seeking not special but equal rights for the LGBTQ community; it is not bounded by discrimination from society but rather equipped with freedom of expression. Therefore the term awakening suits the emergence of this community better and on this solid foundation we can strive towards accomplishing social and political liberation for the LGBTQ community.

Liberation entails independence from all restrictions and rejections; this concept unfortunately still remains a distant hope and a source of constant struggle for the LGBTQ community. Even in the 21^st century, LGBTQ members still face prejudice despite the recognition of this subaltern group. Our perspective of the movement may have changed since the age of Stonewall, but we still perceive homosexuals as an abnormality in our society. As such, we have not achieved gay liberation yet and are most likely not to. Bias and prejudices are human nature, and it is in our dispositions to discriminate against those who do not fall under common standards. Nonetheless, regardless of liberation as an unattainable objective, it should remain a collective goal that unifies our society. Miller describes the gay liberation as “the potential for revolutionary change within each gay and lesbian person” (341). It is a reflection and awakening of each individual, especially members of the LGBTQ community, and through this revolution we are capable to understand and express our true selves. We are in the stages of working towards liberation. This ought to begin with proper education about the gay community, through popular media such as T.V. shows, and a breakdown of anti-gay prejudices in both culture and law. Even today, the LGBTQ community and allies are fighting against all odds to seek independence and liberty, to gain equal rights and complete tolerance. The election of President Obama has brought new hopes with his promise of putting forward gay rights protection. Liberation of the gay movement is currently a theory that hopefully one day will become reality. 

CSP 19 Final Paper First Draft

Note to readers: I changed my choice of essay at the very last minute. Please excuse my very rough draft with several grammar mistakes. Concepts I chose for this essay include: marriage, law as a social construction, historical events (will need further work on) and constitutional jurisprudence. Have not met word count yet.

Marriage as a Social Construction Medium

Marriage, the unity of two people in a consensual and contractual relationship by law, carries with it legal, economic and social responsibilities. In the case of miscegenation and same-sex marriages, it is clear that matrimony between two people becomes an institutional weapon of hegemony to further discriminate against particular groups in society and amplify dominant ideologies. Marriage has always been used as a medium in the construction of race and sexuality; it is both a producer and a product of imbalanced power to discriminate against racial and sexual minorities.

Prior to the elimination of all race-based discrimination, anti-miscegenation laws were used as a tool for perpetuating white supremacy. Race is a human construction, and it has always remained a question of whether it is biological or simply created by our prejudices. However, throughout the history of anti-miscegenation discrimination, biological characteristics were the key determinant for race and often used to scout racial hierarchies. In the case of Estates of Monk, biological determinacy was the crucial factor in the court’s decision. Marie Antoinette Monks, widow of Allan Monks, was ruled as a Negro due to a surgeon’s assumption based on her physical features such as the contour of her calves. Relying on the surgeon’s testimony, the judge declared Mrs. Monks was indeed a descendent of a Negro and therefore her marriage to Allan Monks was invalidated. The concept that race is merely biological was “consonant with the racial categories built into laws, seemed supportable by clear and unequivocal expert testimony, and fit comfortably within popular notions of race” (Pascoe 60). Although biological determinacy had played the key role for anti-miscegenation arguments, the argument had shifted its focus onto the violation of equal rights based on racial discrimination. In the case of Loving vs. Virginia, Richard and Mildred Loving, a white and black couple, tried to evade Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act by attaining a marriage license in the District of Columbia. The couple was later prosecuted in their home state Virginia for violating the state’s anti-miscegenation statute. The Lovings decided to file a motion to vacate the conviction on the ground that the anti-miscegenation law violated the Fourteenth Amendment. In the end, the United States Supreme Court, with a 9-0 vote, finally declared Virginia’s and fifteen other states’ anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional. This landmark civil rights case was a significant milestone, for it ended all race-based legal discrimination in the country. The court wrote that the statute violated both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause and concluded by stating the statute was an instrument implicated to perpetrate white supremacy (Eskridge 799). The Loving decision spelled the formal end to America’s anti-miscegenation laws. Regulations against miscegenation marriages were at the very heart of white domination; they were established to promote white hegemony but with much more liberal perspectives in modern society, they are no longer restriction and a weapon of supremacy.

Same-sex marriage, however, still remains a controversial issue today because it conflicts with the traditional concept of a marriage between a man and woman. One of the central arguments surrounding same-sex marriage is its discrimination classification (whether it is sex-classification or sexual-orientation-classification). Sex-discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and, as a result, is classified as heightened scrutiny. This was illustrated in the case of Baehr vs. Lewin. Three same-sex couples from Hawaii applied for marriage licenses, which were all denied due to their sex. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed a suit on the grounds that prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the state constitution. The Hawaii Supreme Court found that Hawaii’s constitution’s right to privacy did not include the fundamental right to same-sex marriage (Eskridge 811). However, the Court did find that the suit constituted a discrimination based on sex under the state’s Equal Rights Amendment, thus subjected the state’s marriage law to strict scrutiny. The court ruled the law was unconstitutional by a vote of four to one, with only Judge Heen in dissenting the decision. The impact of this ruling echoed throughout the nation, for it was the first time that a state Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry. There are still many existing faulty assumptions and arguments on same-sex marriages, including the perceived slippery slope argument that legalizing same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to other social minorities seeking marriage equality. Same-sex marriage entails many social and political issues that challenge the conservative idea of marriage; although it is currently one of most controversial subjects in our modern society, it will surely be a long time before same-sex marriage is fully accepted both constitutionally and socially.

Drawing parallel qualities between the two, elimination of anti-miscegenation ban in US’s history has always been used as an analogy to the recent controversy over same-sex marriage. On common grounds, both policies shared the same effect of stigmatizing a group of citizens, excluding them from substantive protection and benefits offered to others, as well as labeling them as ineligible to exercise the fundamental right to marry. Furthermore, a common argument between both policies is the equal application theory, which argues that as long as discrimination accounts for all minorities, it is valid to implicate it. Virginia had applied this argument in Loving vs. Virginia, arguing that the Equal Protection Clause contained the application of punishment for both whites and blacks (both parties of an interracial marriage are punished to the same degree) thus it does not constitute discrimination based upon race. In the case of Baehr vs. Lewin, Judge Heen found that it is not unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriages, for Hawaii Revised Statute § 572-1 applied to both sexes (neither male or female may obtain a marriage license with a partner of the same sex). Of course, the analogy is not without its flaws. For example, the ban on same-sex marriage was never identified as an instrument to impose heterosexual supremacy, whereas the ban on interracial marriage was clearly established to perpetuate and develop white supremacy. There are still numerous contrasts between the two policies, including the procreation argument (interracial couples may reproduce whereas same-sex couples cannot). Nonetheless, the triumph over eliminating the ban on miscegenation provides a foundation to legalize same-sex marriage, proving that there is hope for equality. The campaign for same-sex marriage is not pushed forward solely by gay activists but also from the influence from precedent civil rights advocates, which laid the foundation and accomplished a milestone for marriage equality.

Marriage is an engagement to legislations and limitations bounded by society’s standards and continues to battle for equality. Through the lens of interracial and same-sex marriages, it is clear that the matrimony of two human beings is “an institution that apes the oppressive market, with its assumptions of ‘ownership’ and ‘exclusivity’” (Eskridge “Sexuality”, 795). Gay rights supporters today still live in the hopes of marriage equality and continue to fight for it every day. Illinois has recently passed the legislature’s approval of a bill to create same-sex civil unions and if succeed, it will become the sixth state to grant the right to civil union. These small changes and improvements are fundamental to seek marriage equality for same-sex couples and they act as stepping stones to victory. While this outcome may take years to achieve, the history of miscegenation marriage can serve as a map of the developmental process that is occurring in same-sex marriage now. It will continue to be a battle against ignorance and faulty assumptions, but there is light in the search for “liberty and justice for all.”

References

Eskridge, William. "The Constitutional Case: Discrimination." The Case For Same-Sex Marriage. New York: The Free Press, 1996. 153-182.

Eskridge, William and Nan Hunter. Sexuality, Gender and the Law. New York: The Foundation Press, 1997 and 2009.

Pascoe, Peggy. "Miscegenation Law, Court Cases, and Ideologies of 'Race' in Twentieth-Century America." Journal of American History 83 (June 1996):44-69.

Is it too late to start studying fashion?

College starts in two and a half weeks and I'm afraid I'll regret it.

But again, what can I do with a fashion degree?

Hmph.

I could be a buyer or work in a fashion magazine.

At least I'll be doing something I love.

Note to self: must reconsider future decision.