In 1978 Harvey Milk, the first openly gay person elected to major office in the US, led the fight against Proposition 6. The California ballot measure would have banned gay teachers, including those already teaching, from public schools. Milk's organization against Prop. 6 is featured in the upcoming movie MILK, staring Sean Penn. A group of close friends, including Cleve Jones and Anne Kronenberg, surrounded Milk in his quest to preserve the human rights of gay Americans. I recently got the chance to meet longtime civil rights activists Cleve and Anne and ask them what they make of today's gay rights movement.
How does Proposition 6 compare with today's Proposition 8 to outlaw gay marriage?
Anne: Proposition 6 was (about) a basic fundamental right of gay men and women being allowed to teach in our schools. It was based on a morality that gays would be recruiting the kids and trying to turn them over into homosexuals, which is so bizarre. I think the same right-wing, Christian, born-again (groups) certainly play a big role in Prop. 8 currently. But (now) we're talking about an equality issue. . . . If you think in 30 years the difference (between) the paranoia of "I have a teacher and they're going to make me a dyke," to now we're talking about marriage — I think Harvey is smiling that we are even there.
To find out if Cleve thinks Proposition 8 will be defeated tomorrow as well as what he makes of today's gay activists, read more.
Cleve: I think we're going to win, but I don't feel the level of fear that I felt then. I feel that history's on our side, that we are moving in the right direction. And that if we do lose it will be a setback and I will be angry and disappointed, but I won't feel the same gut-level fear that we felt then. If Prop. 6 passed, we were going down a slippery slope right to fascism. I mean, that was outrageous — how would they determine who was homosexual? How would they test us? And it also included language for those who advocated for homosexuals. There was much more . . . real fear in the pit of your stomach and of the violence that could be unleashed. . . . It's very different now. We are winning and winning and winning. If we lose this one, it will be a minor and temporary setback.
Do you think today's gay youth have the same passion?
Cleve: I often say to younger people, "you know things are only new once, and I'm sorry you missed it" (laughs). But I think you can look at all the economic changes in San Francisco. It was much easier to live in the city then, it was much cheaper. Artists, students, young people could live on very little money. . . . But things are only new once. And all of us that were participating in the movement were keenly aware that we were participating in something that had never been seen. . . . It was just an amazing time. And everything was brand new: the first marching band, the first gay synagogue, the first gay film festival, all of the institutions and structures we now take for granted.
Photo courtesy of Focus Films
Beyond The Valley
Barbour
Too Faced
I really hope he's right about Prop 8 failing tomorrow. Can't wait to see the movie.
1He does put it into good perspective.
I'm planning on volunteering for the No on Prop. 8 campaign tomorrow!
2Where is Citizen? We are getting a ton of Liberty posts.
3Can't wait to see this either,great combination of actors and Gus Van Sant.
4I hope California sees sense and rejects this step backwards.
"It was based on a morality that gays would be recruiting the kids and trying to turn them over into homosexuals, which is so bizarre."
This fear seems to be a large part of the subtext of Proposition 8 marketing. It really is ridiculous. Homosexuality isn't contagious.
5I don't see that in the Prop 8. I do agree that that was overtly in Prop 6, which needed to be defeated.
6
7Dave, I see it as the subtext of all the misleading "they'll be teaching our kids that gay is okay" ads. Is it really such a worry that the kids of homophobes might decide to tolerate homosexuality? I think the secret worry underlying those kinds of ads is not that kids will be taught that gay is okay, but that they will somehow end up becoming gay because they were taught that it's okay.
8What's wrong, Steph?
9You don't see that in Prop 8? Maybe not exactly the same, but I keep seeing things that say churches will be forced to marry gay couples and that teachers will teach about gay marriage in schools, both of which are complete bunk. And it's the same general gist: we need to be afraid! If gays are allowed to have rights, they'll take over and indoctrinate!
10"If gays are allowed to have rights, they'll take over and indoctrinate!"
Exactly! As if homosexuality is an ideology that can be picked up and discarded at will
Perhaps some of the nuttier Prop 8 supporters are just afraid that the gay children they've indoctrinated into the closet so well will someday actually feel free to come out of the closet.
11"If you think in 30 years the difference (between) the paranoia of "I have a teacher and they're going to make me a dyke," to now we're talking about marriage — I think Harvey is smiling that we are even there. "
This is pretty amazing.
12Prop 8 is just defining marriage, correct? It's not banning something, like prop 6 was. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the problem with Prop 8.
13Wait? being homosexuality isn't contagious?
14Dave, what?
15WOW let's rephrase my sentence shall we?
Wait, homosexuality isn't contagious?
16Doesn't prop 8 define what marriage is (between 1 man and 1 woman)? Is there other things in Prop 8 that infringe on anyone's right to be gay?
17So, then, would you have no problem with a law that defined marriage as between two men or two women?
18This is what prop 8 adds to the state constitution:
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
19in California.
So yes, it infringes upon their right to have their legal contract of marriage with their spouse recognized.
The gay marriage debate just irritates me so much, because marriage is, for the state, a legal contract. The state doesn't care if you love each other or have sex or make babies. It's so ridiculous that it would prevent people from entering a contract with someone else. If you are really a conservative and really believe in smaller government, then you don't get to make laws about love.
20Dave, the title of Prop 8 is:
"Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry".
21"So, then, would you have no problem with a law that defined marriage as between two men or two women?"
Yes, I would have a problem with defining marriage that way.
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California."
I have a problem with the wording, in that it should say specifically "one", and not "a", but I agree with the statement.
22There are several rights which relegating homosexual unions to the separate-and-not-particularly-equal status of "domestic partnership" take away, Dave.
1. Marriage is legally recognized in all 50 states. The legal basis of domestic partnerships, however, are formed based on individual states' laws, meaning that the partnerships may be invalidated if the couple were to move to a different state. The same correlation can be applied to divorce and the dissolution of civil unions.
2. A U.S. citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-citizen spouse for American citizenship. That does not apply to civil unions.
3. Civil unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.
In addition, "The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them." (Source).
So there are economic consequences to the denial of the right to marry to gay couples.
23So why are you okay with a law that would define a marriage one way but not another? If that was popular opinion and people voted to make it that way, what would be wrong with defining marriage as between two men or two women?
24Dave, what is it about gay marriage that you think is so universally bad that it should not be allowed? I can understand that your personal beliefs are against it, but what is so important about the legal definition of marriage that your personal religious beliefs should cross over into the public arena?
25But it doesn't deny them the right to be gay. It mearly states that you can't marry. Can gays enter into a civil union, which would be a legal contract?
26I didn't ask my question well--what I meant to ask, Dave, was what are the real-world, national problems you think would result from the definition of marriage being expanded to include homosexual unions?
27So you're for separate but equal then, Dave?
What does it matter how other people define marriage if you, your wife, and your family define it as you do?
28Defining marriage as being between two men or two women would not deny you the right to be straight. It would just turn your wife back into your girlfriend. Would you have a problem with a law like that?
29>Can gays enter into a civil union, which would be a legal contract?
Yes, but as Jude pointed out it doesn't carry all the same rights. That would be like saying gay people can use the library, but they can only check out half as many books as straight people. It doesn't deny them the right to be gay, it doesn't prevent them from having library books, but it's sure as hell discriminatory, unfair, and unconstitutional.
30How is it separate? They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want, and they can enter into a civil union with a same sex partner.
The problem with defining a marriage as between two men and two women is that is considered polygamy, which is illegal, so unless you're willing to make that legal...
31It could be argued that the narrow definition of legal marriage as a monogamous heterosexual union does deny gay couples the right to life (in the senses both of having fewer avenues to pursue as far as adoption, and in far more difficulties being as present and participatory in their partners' health issues as straight married couples could be), liberty (in the freedom to marry whom they choose in the eyes of the law), and the pursuit of happiness (if they do believe that being officially, legally married is a strong factor in their happiness).
Homosexuality isn't a crime. Therefore, homosexuals shouldn't be treated any differently than law-abiding heterosexuals, and should receive the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexuals.
32"How is it separate?"
They are allowed to have "civil unions" with just SOME of the rights of legal marriages, but which are called by a different name, and which don't include ALL of the rights of legal marriages. How is that not separate?
33On another thread, I just expressed my belief that polygamy should be legal as long as it's between consenting adults and abuse isn't occuring.
34
Jude and TS.
35I said two men or two women, but good dodging the question.
What other contract do we limit to being between one man and one woman?
36I agree, Jude. I do not give a f*ck how other people chose to structure their family. As long as everyone's a consenting adult, who gives a sh*t? And what right does the government have to say anything about it?
37Exactly.
And as far as deliberately limiting the rights of one group over another (which is what this is) and justifying it by saying that, well, they have their own thing, and it's pretty much the same as the other group's, so there's nothing wrong with that--well, that reminds me an awful lot of the rationale that since black people were allowed to ride in the bus and had their own drinking fountains, it didn't matter that they had to ride in the back and couldn't drink out of the same fountains as whites.
38What does it matter to you personally Dave, if two men or two women marry? What do you gain from in any way limiting other people's right to marry?
39But they aren't being treated differently than any heterosexual single person. No one is denying Gays their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
40Exactly, Jude. And as for "They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want," well, 75 years ago white people could marry any other white person they wanted and black people could marry any other black person they wanted. That's fair, too, right?
41"But they aren't being treated differently than any heterosexual single person. No one is denying Gays their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Dave...
I think wanting to prohibit gay couples from being able to enter into the legal contract of marriage, and thus prohibiting them from receiving the FULL spectrum of rights that that entails--not all are granted by civil unions, as I pointed out above--is a pretty clear example of treating homosexual couples differently.
42>But they aren't being treated differently than any heterosexual single person.
So you'd have no problem, then, with a law saying only men could marry each other? You'd be free to marry any man you liked!
43They are being treated differently. You would not allow to call themselves 'married' in the legal sense of the word, yet you have yet to give one valid reason why.
44Dave, I don't believe you've answered the question of what negative consequences you think legalizing gay marriage would have in the real world and on society as a whole.
I can respect your personal beliefs. I just have a problem with personal beliefs like that shaping our supposedly secular and humanist government.
45In WI, Marriage is only granted and recognized by the church. All "marriages" are listed as civil unions and governed as civil unions in matters of property, etc... Why doesn't California just do that? Why do we have to redefine what a marriage is?
46I bet it makes Liberty feel good for people to say hey where is Citizen, there is a lot of post by Liberty. Maybe Citizen took the day off or she may be sick. Give the girls a break. Would you hate for someone to be all up in your Kool-Aid while you're at work.
47Are homosexual civil unions granted the same legal status as heterosexual ones in WI, Dave?
48I wish all government marriages were separate from religious marriages. I wanted to get a civil union but in California you have to be a same sex couple or over 55. I qualify for neither.
It's funny how when there's a slow day here they throw out a post about gay marriage or abortion or something else guaranteed to get lots of comments.
Anyways, Dave, I appreciate that you at least go to the trouble of coming up with quasi-logical and legal arguments instead of just saying you hate gays.
49Jude - you already know the answer to that.
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.