Windy City Media Group Frontpage News

THE VOICE OF CHICAGO'S GAY, LESBIAN, BI, TRANS AND QUEER COMMUNITY SINCE 1985

home search facebook twitter join
Gay News Sponsor Windy City Times 2023-12-13
DOWNLOAD ISSUE
Donate

Sponsor
Sponsor
Sponsor

  WINDY CITY TIMES

Talking Gay History
Exclusive to Windy City Times
by By Congressman Barney Frank
2006-10-04

This article shared 3450 times since Wed Oct 4, 2006
facebook twitter pin it google +1 reddit email


While serving as an ambulance driver during the Spanish Civil War, George Orwell was shot in the neck. When people congratulated him on his good luck at having recovered from this, he very sensibly replied that he believed that people who had never been shot in the neck in the first place were even luckier than he.

That is an appropriate thing to keep in mind when we discuss the history of the fight of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people against the prejudice that has blighted so many lives. But no one should expect us to be grateful for this fact: people who were never subjected to a vicious prejudice in the first place are the ones who should be grateful, not those of us who have fought hard to diminish prejudice but still encounter it.

When I said that we had made this progress in 40 years, I was referring to the political history of GLBT people in this country. Obviously there are personal and cultural aspects to our lives and the history of those extend much further back. But few political movements in America have a more clear-cut starting point than our fight against sexual orientation and gender identification prejudice. I know this personally. Beginning in January 1968, I served as the executive assistant to the mayor of Boston, with a particular responsibility for dealing with issues that were important to liberals. I worked hard on the rights of women, on racial equality, on the rights of workers ( for example, supporting Cesar Chavez's boycotts ) , and on the then-nascent environmental movement. One area where I did no political work was in the fight against homophobia, obviously, not because I was unsympathetic or uninterested, but because simply there was no such effort being waged in Boston—or indeed, anywhere else in America.

The Stonewall resistance in 1969 clearly triggered a movement in which GLBT people, having participated in the movements against inequality regarding race and gender, finally said, 'What about us?' Having left Boston for Washington for one year from June of 1971 to June of 1972, I returned—as a candidate for state representative—to find a new but vigorous political movement of gay men and lesbians that had not existed when I left.

While I did not personally publicly acknowledge being gay until May of 1987, I did join the fight in 1972 and in December of that year, having been elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives, I filed for the first time in Massachusetts history what were then called gay-rights bills as a legislator who strongly supported them, and not simply as an automatic pass-through of a constituent request.

The short summary of my view is that if you had asked me at any point in the past 34 years when I first got engaged in our fight to predict what the state of our rights would have three years down the road, I would have been too pessimistic.

I realize that many GLBT activists today feel beleaguered by the flood of anti-marriage amendments that has sadly passed in a number of states, and to them, speaking of progress may seem illusory. But that is the paradox of being involved in a movement committed to profound social change: by definition, at any given moment we will be engaged in an uphill fight. It is our job to change deeply held feelings—although I must say that one of the happy discoveries we have made in my view is that these prejudices were not nearly as deeply held as many people thought.

But it is one thing to change opinion in general; it is another to persuade members of a majority who do not feel the pain of the victims of discrimination that longstanding social practices should be changed in accordance with that sentiment. The bad fact that change has not come nearly quickly enough, and that prejudice still blights the lives of many, shouldn't blind us to the other fact—that progress has come.

The reason is not, as I said above, so that we can be grateful to a society that is less biased against us than it used to be, but rather because assessing whether or not one has made progress and, in particular, understanding how that progress was made, is essential for figuring out the strategy best used going forward. The best way to measure progress is to look back to 1962, when John Kennedy asked Congress to toughen that part of American immigration law aimed at excluding all gay men and lesbians from coming to the United States even as tourists. The language in the law that did that was old-fashioned and, to avoid being offensively explicit, it called for us to be excluded on the grounds that we were people 'of a psychopathic personality.' Fearful that the liberal Warren court might not hold this as a strong enough barrier against us, Kennedy asked the Congress to add language more strictly referring to sexual deviance. After his tragic murder, Lyndon Johnson took up where he left off and, in 1965, persuaded an extraordinarily liberal Congress—one elected in reaction to Barry Goldwater's candidacy—to add the language to reinforce the national ban against any gay or lesbian people coming to the country. It turned out, by the way, that that wasn't necessary, because even the Warren court in the '60s was not prepared to do anything on our behalf and ruled that the old language was perfectly acceptable in keeping us out.

Note that this was only four years before Stonewall. I have checked the Congressional Record for that period, and found not one member of Congress objecting when an immigration bill generally supported by liberals went though that toughened the anti-LGBT prohibition. And nowhere in America were there any laws or court rulings that protected any of us against discrimination of any sort.

Today, not only has that immigration provision been completely repealed, but GLBT people from foreign countries who can show that they were being persecuted in their homelands because of their sexual orientation or gender identification have received asylum in the U.S., because under Bill Clinton the Justice Department officially recognized such persecution as a serious violation of human rights. While we still lack a national law protecting us against job discrimination, there are many states that have such legal protections.

Most importantly, there's been a fundamental change in attitude. In 1973, when the Massachusetts House first debated gay-rights legislation that I had introduced, our opponents were fairly explicit in explaining their opposition: I'm not gonna hire any fag or any lesbian to work for me, members would say. That is, when we first began our fight in the political arena, our opponents made no effort to hide their homophobia.

Frustratingly, today, we still face opponents who are opposed to our being treated equally, with focus now on marriage rights—although with Republican rule, we have not yet been able to adopt anti-discrimination legislation at the national level, either. But in a very encouraging if aggravating way, few of our opponents today admit their bigotry. Instead, those who take the lead in opposing us couch their arguments in phrases that—misleadingly—suggest that they do not feel that we should be treated unfairly, but rather claim that there is not need for the protections we ask for, or that enacting them would disorient society. Unfortunately, a large number of people who do not share the prejudices but do not understand the reality of living with discrimination are persuaded by some of these social impact arguments. In fact, we are in a chicken-and-egg situation in many of these cases. Until we are able to achieve same-sex marriage, for example, a lot of people who are not prejudiced against us are wary of supporting it because they have been told by so many 'respected leaders' that it will have negative consequences. It is only when we have been able to implement the reality that we are able to defeat the prejudices, but it is the prejudice that often prevents us from doing so. That, by the way, is the justification in democratic terms for having the courts order an end to discrimination in various areas, including marriage. In fact, if the voters of a particular state remain opposed to some court decision, they will almost always be able to overturn it. What a court does—what it has done in Massachusetts—is to give you a head start by allowing us to implement the reality of an anti-discrimination measure and then show people that there are no negative social consequences. That is exactly what has happened in Massachusetts, so that a legislative majority that would have opposed us four years ago is now strongly on our side.

The key question is how our gains have been made. Early in our years as a political movement there was a debate about direct activism versus the political process. I believe the most important point to take away from a survey of our history is that it has been through the political process, and it is through the political process that we should do this in the future.

If it were the case that a majority of Americans really did hate us, the political process would not work very well. But I believe that we have done something very important over the past 35 years, essentially by millions of us deciding to be honest about who we are. I refer, of course, to the process of coming out.

As we have been honest about who we are, and our friends and relatives have learned that among the people that they were brought up to despise are their friends, relatives, teachers, students, clients, bosses, teammates, doctors, patients, auto mechanics, police officers, entertainers, etc., they have realized that it was the prejudice that was flawed, and not the victims. What the process of our coming out has done is to give the average American permission to act on his or her own lack of homophobia. We have helped Americans understand that they weren't really homophobic; they just thought they were supposed to be.

Given that, the political strategy we should follow is that of people who are confident that ultimately the majority is on our side, even if that does not always manifest itself on a specific issue. This means much less emphasis on direct action, sit-ins, noisy demonstrations etc., which often alienate more than they persuade. Again, if we were a minority that was widely hated, we might have no choice but to try these sorts of tactics, although even then I would have been discouraged about their chances for success. But I believe that if you look at those victories we have won in getting legislatures to enact anti-discrimination laws, in adopting some anti-discrimination policies at the federal level, although not enough, and most of all in changing attitudes so that so many of us are now free to live our lives openly and honestly without the awful choice of either accepting a diminution in our capacity to earn money and advance in the world, or alternatively live in a self-imposed closet of implicit shame, the answer is that we have done them by first working successfully to dispel homophobia, and secondly by taking advantage of the political process to legislate against it.

There are those who argue that relying on the political process somehow implies a lack of militancy on behalf of our rights. They are wrong. The most successfully militant organizations in America—think of the National Rifle Association—do not hold demonstrations or form picket lines. Instead, they focus intensely on getting their people to vote. We have made some strides here, but we still do less than we should in mobilizing politically. The time has come for all of us to make sure that we vote militantly—at every possible opportunity, at every primary and election, for those who support our rights and against those who do not. In addition, I think we have earned the right to go to our friends and relatives and point out to them that it is inconsistent to tell us that they love us, and then support people who run for political office who would deny us basic rights and make our lives less than they should be.

There is one obstacle to our doing this effectively—the cultural reluctance to be deemed a partisan. Independence is a good quality in most cases and in the right kind of political system, political independence—as between the parties—would be very desirable. But where LGBT rights are concerned, the overwhelming fact in American politics is that while the two parties started virtually evenly on this issue—both were terrible, and both then made moderate gains—today one of the most glaring differences between the parties is their attitude to GLBT rights.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford were somewhat close on this issue. Since that time, the country has gotten much better on our issues, as I have noted. Politically, the Republicans have significantly caused the country to lag behind—the right-wing takeover of the Republican Party has resulted in their being significantly laggard on GLBT rights. The Democrats, on the other hand, while far from perfect, have been better than the country and, in consequence, the difference between the two parties is a vast one. On votes in Congress, the Democrats are overwhelming better than Republicans. And this is not simply a result of Democrats coming from areas that are more supportive. When Democratic senators replace Republican ones—obviously in the identical constituency—the pro-GLBT vote inevitably goes up a substantial amount. The reverse is true when a Republican replaces a Democrat. Similarly, if you look at those Congressional districts that have changed hands, in virtually every case the Democratic incumbent has had a better record. Indeed, in the current Congressional election season, I do not know of a single race for the House or the Senate where the Republican is better than the Democrat. There are some where both are terrible, and a handful—not more than three or four—where the Republican is arguably as good as his or her Democratic opponent. But in the great majority of cases, the Democrat is far better. This does not mean blind allegiance to the Democrats. I agree that if you focus on politics from the standpoint of advancing GLBT rights, it is a betrayal of that commitment to start from a partisan premise.

But if an objective analysis of what is at issue leads you—as it inevitably will—to a partisan conclusion, it is also a betrayal to shrink from that conclusion. The appropriate response for us I believe—which is why I have been such a strong supporter of the Stonewall Democrats which I helped found—is to engage constantly in the dual role of pushing the Democrats to be even better than they are, knowing that being better than the Republicans with their terrible record is not enough; and also persuading LGBT voters to pick that candidate who is better on our issues, which in 98 percent of the cases will be the Democrat. When there is an exception—as there arguably was in a recent Philadelphia mayoral election—people should act accordingly, but the fear of appearing partisan should not deter people from supporting the party that has been so much better on our issues.

Thirty-seven years after Stonewall, there is still more legally sanctioned prejudice in America than there should be, but there is also a good deal less than there used to be, and I believe that if we continue to make progress at the rate that we have seen in the past, we who are now active will live to see its effective end. But it won't happen automatically. We need to build on our strengths and demand that we be treated fully equally before the law by our fellow citizens. In summary, I think we outnumber those who oppose us every day of the year in America except sometimes on Election Day.

We have the power to change that, and if we do change that, we will make even more profound changes as well.


This article shared 3450 times since Wed Oct 4, 2006
facebook twitter pin it google +1 reddit email

Out and Aging
Presented By

  ARTICLES YOU MIGHT LIKE

Gay News

Be here, be queer, play polo: Gay Polo League creates safe athletic space for LGBTQ community
2024-03-26
LGBTQ+ athletic clubs aren't too hard to come by, offering a variety of sports such as softball, soccer and more in cities across the country. But LGBTQ+ athletes would be harder pressed to find someplace to ...


Gay News

Chicago alder proposes renaming street after Obama
2024-03-22
Openly gay Black Chicago Ald. Lamont Robinson has proposed renaming Columbus Drive after former U.S. President and city resident Barack Obama, media outlets noted. The street stretches through the Loop from East Grand Avenue to DuSable ...


Gay News

Small LGBTQ+ candidate pool nevertheless scores some important victories March 19
2024-03-20
Relatively few openly LGBTQ+ candidates were running in the March 19 Illinois Primary Election. But there were some significant contests in play at the local, state and federal levels. Openly gay Ald. Ray Lopez (15th Ward) ...


Gay News

Gay Irish prime minister to step down
2024-03-20
In a surprise move, openly gay Irish Prime Minister (or Taoiseach) Leo Varadkar has announced his resignation, citing "personal and political, but mainly political reasons," according to CNN. Varadkar said he felt he was no longer ...


Gay News

Chicago History Museum announces "Designing for Change: Chicago Protest Art of the 1960s - 70s exhibition
2024-03-14
--From a press release - CHICAGO (March 14, 2024) ā€” The Chicago History Museum is thrilled to announce its upcoming exhibition, "Designing for Change: Chicago Protest Art of the 1960sā€”70s." Set to open on Saturday, May 18, 2024, this exhibition is ...


Gay News

Women's History Month doesn't do enough to lift up Black lesbians
2024-03-12
Fifty years ago, in 1974, the Combahee River Collective (CRC) was founded in Boston by several lesbian and feminist women of African descent. As a sisterhood, they understood that their acts of protest were shouldered by ...


Gay News

Florida settles 'Don't Say Gay' lawsuit
2024-03-11
On March 11, the state of Florida settled a multi-year lawsuit against the so-called "Don't Say Gay" law, which limits how LGBTQ+ topics can be discussed and presented in schools, The Hill reported. The settlement agreement ...


Gay News

SAVOR Eldridge Williams talks new concepts, Beyonce, making history
2024-03-08
One restaurant would be enough for most people to handle. However, this year Eldridge Williams is opening two new concepts—including one that will be the first Black-owned country-and-western bar in the Midwest. Williams, an ally of ...


Gay News

NATIONAL Altercation, mpox research, Univ. of Fla., George Santos, tech battle
2024-03-08
Video footage uploaded to Facebook showed an altercation between a state trooper and two prominent Philadelphia LGBTQ+ leaders, the Washington Blade reported, republishing an article from Philadelphia Gay News. Celena ...


Gay News

WORLD Israeli reservist, man detained, Ghana bill, medic denied honor
2024-03-08
Hanania Ben-Shimon—the gay Israel Defense Forces reservist who was wounded as he killed one of the terrorists in the attack at the A-Za'ayem checkpoint near Ma'ale Adumim recently—published a post in which he pleaded that his ...


Gay News

SAVOR Let's Talk Womxn's 'More Than March'; Adobo Grill's tequila dinner
2024-03-06
I was fortunate enough to be invited to a culinary event that celebrates the achievement of women—and, fittingly, it happened during Women's History Month. On March 1, Let's Talk Womxn Chicago held its annual "More Than ...


Gay News

Queer Eye's Jai Rodriguez is set to slay at The Big Gay Cabaret
2024-03-05
Out and proud performer Jai Rodriguez is set to play at The Big Gay Cabaret this March for three days. Presented by RuPaul Drag Racer Ginger Minj, this monthly series highlights the wide world of cabaret ...


Gay News

Illinois's first openly gay elected official voices support for Cunningham
2024-03-05
Judge Thomas Chiola, who served in the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County from 1994-2009, has officially endorsed Justice Joy Cunningham for reelection to the Illinois Supreme Court. Chiola is the first gay man to be ...


Gay News

Without compromise: Holly Baggett explores lives of iconoclasts Margaret Anderson and Jane Heap
2024-03-04
Jane Heap (1883-1964) and Margaret Anderson (1886-1973), each of them a native Midwesterner, woman of letters and iconoclast, had a profound influence on literary culture in both America and Europe in the early 20th Century. Heap ...


Gay News

Anti-LGBTQ+ Republican McConnell to step down from leading U.S. Senate
2024-02-29
U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) will step down from Senate leadership in November, having served in that capacity longer than any senator in history, The Advocate noted. McConnell has been a senator since 1985 and has ...


 


Copyright © 2024 Windy City Media Group. All rights reserved.
Reprint by permission only. PDFs for back issues are downloadable from
our online archives.

Return postage must accompany all manuscripts, drawings, and
photographs submitted if they are to be returned, and no
responsibility may be assumed for unsolicited materials.

All rights to letters, art and photos sent to Nightspots
(Chicago GLBT Nightlife News) and Windy City Times (a Chicago
Gay and Lesbian News and Feature Publication) will be treated
as unconditionally assigned for publication purposes and as such,
subject to editing and comment. The opinions expressed by the
columnists, cartoonists, letter writers, and commentators are
their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Nightspots
(Chicago GLBT Nightlife News) and Windy City Times (a Chicago Gay,
Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender News and Feature Publication).

The appearance of a name, image or photo of a person or group in
Nightspots (Chicago GLBT Nightlife News) and Windy City Times
(a Chicago Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender News and Feature
Publication) does not indicate the sexual orientation of such
individuals or groups. While we encourage readers to support the
advertisers who make this newspaper possible, Nightspots (Chicago
GLBT Nightlife News) and Windy City Times (a Chicago Gay, Lesbian
News and Feature Publication) cannot accept responsibility for
any advertising claims or promotions.

 
 

TRENDINGBREAKINGPHOTOS







Sponsor


 



Donate


About WCMG      Contact Us      Online Front  Page      Windy City  Times      Nightspots
Identity      BLACKlines      En La Vida      Archives      Advanced Search     
Windy City Queercast      Queercast Archives     
Press  Releases      Join WCMG  Email List      Email Blast      Blogs     
Upcoming Events      Todays Events      Ongoing Events      Bar Guide      Community Groups      In Memoriam     
Privacy Policy     

Windy City Media Group publishes Windy City Times,
The Bi-Weekly Voice of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Trans Community.
5315 N. Clark St. #192, Chicago, IL 60640-2113 • PH (773) 871-7610 • FAX (773) 871-7609.