Back to Modern History Course | Modern History Sourcebook |

The Struggle for Gay Rights in America

[This paper is mounted, with the writer's consent, as an example of a
very good student term paper. A MS Word version is also available.
Copyright remains with the writer. ]

                                
Michael LaRegina
The West: Enlightenment to Present
HSLF 1000: 007/Fall 1997
Professor Halsall
December 2, 1997



     The struggle for gay rights in America is one that has taken

on many forms.  From the 1950's  to the present, many

organizations dedicated to the cause of homosexual liberation

have emerged.  These organizations and their supporters can be

broken down into three categories.  The first are those who view

the struggle as a liberal individualist one.  The second are

those who feel that homosexuals are an ethnic group, and as such

suffer as an oppressed minority.  The third are those dedicated

to a complete transformation of modern society and thought

itself.  This group seeks to prove that homosexual "deviancy" is

a myth, and that current society is that which is flawed and in

need of reform.  The ultimate success of what is called the

struggle for homosexual liberation lies ultimately with the

third, revolutionary movement.

     The Stonewall Riots of New York City are generally

considered to have sparked the modern, late 20th century gay

rights movement.1  They occurred after the police raided a

popular gay bar, the Stonewall Bar, in Manhattan's Greenwich

Village.  Although other homophile groups did already exist in

America, the new energy and militancy generated by the riots

created new organizations with different goals and methods.

Where once the nation had the comparatively mild Mattachine

Society and the Daughters of Bilitis, now the country was greeted

with more vocal and demanding groups, most notably the Gay

Activists Alliance and the Gay Liberation Front .2  Each of these

three groups, the Mattachine Society, the GAA, and the GLF, can

be viewed as representative of the three movements mentioned

previously.

     The liberal movement calls for equal rights for homosexuals.

This entails the abolishment of all anti-homosexual laws, as well

as the inclusion of all rights accorded to heterosexuals which

homosexuals are denied, such as marriage.  This movement is a

civil rights movement, for homosexuals are denied the rights that

other American citizens possess.  The gay community asserts that

they are stigmatized and indeed oppressed, denied basic civil

constitutional rights, solely because they are viewed

disfavorably by the majority of American citizens and because of

the popular belief that they are sexual, psychological deviants

or inherently immoral according to the Judaeo-Christian

tradition.3  But in a nation founded on the premise of individual

liberty, and also a country which operates with a strict

separation of church and state, they are being denied rights

which they do not deserve, but rather to which they are entitled

as citizens and human beings.4

     The Mattachine Society, established in the early 1950's, was

the prime example of a gay rights organization which strove to

establish equal civil rights for homosexuals.  However, with the

onrush of the new, more militant groups spawned by the Stonewall

Riots, the Mattachine dwindled and eventually became nothing more

than a counseling center for troubled homosexuals.5   But the

Mattachine Society laid many important foundations for the gay

civil rights movement, even though it was dwarfed by the new

groups.  The reason was not due to an abandonment of the cause

for gay civil rights, but rather due to a change in scope and

attitude.

     Gays became to see themselves as an oppressed minority

group, similar to women and blacks.  This all-pervasive

oppression incited a new attitude demanding not tolerance from

the rest of America, but acceptance, employing minority-group

politics to attain goals.6  A new sense of gay pride and power

emerged, one from which homosexuals drew strength and the

willingness to stand up and have their voices heard.  Inspired by

black and feminist civil rights movements, the new gay groups

rejected the "accomodationist approach" of the 1950's in favor of

a militant ideology focusing on equal rights and direct protest.7

     The Gay Activists Alliance was representative of this new

group.  It was a civil rights organization much like the

Mattachine Society, only it viewed itself as an ethnocentric

organization for the homosexual minority in the United States.

The organization did much in the public sphere, intent on

breaking the invisibility of the gay constituency caused by fear

and bringing gays into the public, visible light of the American

community and the political world through an affirmation of and

pride in the gay lifestyle.  So, just as the Mattachine was

viewed by many as the NAACP of gays, the GAA became the gay

version of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.8

     Since it was a group that considered itself an oppressed

minority, the GAA was a political pressure group.  It strove to

be an active force in politics, worked for tax benefits and fair

employment, urged gays to vote, and publicized political

candidates' stances on homosexuals, and even sought to improve

the public opinion of gays in the media.  It differed from the

Mattachine mainly because of its greater proclivity for direct

action.9   But just as the GAA considered the Mattachine to be

too mild, so did many homosexuals view the GAA as too mild and

narrow-minded.

     Just as when the Mattachine gave way to the GAA, there was a

change in scope and attitude.  Many gays felt that the GAA's

exclusionist, single-issue stance was not enough.  The GAA was

concerned only with the issue of gay rights and gaining those

rights by political means within the existing social framework.

The GAA attempted to bully the government into giving gays their

civil rights.  But, many within the homosexual community felt

that gaining civil rights was an important step, but nowhere near

liberation, nowhere near enough.  As one gay author and activist

wrote of the GAA:  "Although I certainly admire...what the GAA

has done, I feel that...it will be part of the liberal syndrome

of reform and compromise that always lets us half solve our

problem and then ends up frustrating us to the point of apathy."10

     The Gay Liberation Front was the organization of these more

demanding, revolutionary gay rights activists.  The GLF and its

members realized that even though homosexuals might receive their

civil rights, they would still be oppressed and discriminated

against because the society and people around them see

homosexuality as "deviant" or even evil.  As long as that mental

attitude persists in America, true homosexual liberation can

never occur.  For this reason, the GLF was a revolutionary,

almost anarchistic group, dedicated to the complete overthrow of

dominant American social, moral, and political thought.11  This

was the main difference between the GAA and the GLF:  the GAA

tried to achieve freedom through the existing socio-political

world; the GLF saw that world as the very obstacle to freedom.12

     Clearly, the GLF was the most ambitious and radical gay

rights group in America.  The organization made the following

statement in it's first newspaper:


     Gay Liberation Front is a revolutionary group of homosexual
     women and men formed with the realization that complete
     sexual liberation for all people cannot come about unless
     existing social institutions are abolished.  We reject
     society's attempt to impose sexual roles and definitions of
     our nature.  We are stepping outside these roles and
     simplistic myths. Babylon has forced us to commit ourselves
     to one thing...revolution.13

The GLF saw society itself as its adversary:

     Make no mistake about our oppression:  it is real, it is
     visible, it is demonstrable. Because our oppression is based
     on sex and the sex roles which oppress us from    infancy,
     we must explore these roles and their meanings. ... You'd
     better believe we are going to do so-that we are going to
     transform the society at large through the open realization
     of our own consciousness.14

     The GLF naturally allied itself with other groups who

similarly strove to transform the very way in which society

thinks and is structured in order to achieve their liberation.

Included were the Black Panthers and many feminist groups.15  In

essence, these gay activists were convinced that they didn't need

to fit into American society, but rather that society itself was

what needed to be cured and transformed, for it is the society

that unjustly oppresses.16

     This radical, revolutionary stance is the only one that can

create a true liberation of homosexuals.  For the denial of

rights to homosexuals is reflective of an incredible prejudice,

and this very prejudice itself is inextricably bound to America's

moral, heterocentric, male-dominated society.17  This society is

the cause of much oppression, discrimination, and suffering.  In

their eyes, this can no longer be tolerated and must end.  The

moral majority may see homosexuals as freaks of nature or same-

sex unions and associations as unacceptable, but these opinions

should not dictate the law.  There must be a separation of church

morality and government.  The freedom of the individual to live

life as he/she sees fit must be acknowledged and respected, for

it is the basis of the whole ideal of personal liberty on which

American democracy is based.

     Most authors on the subject of gay liberation concur on the

claim that the winning of civil rights is not enough to insure

freedom for homosexuals.  Fundamental societal changes must be

made before any such freedom can be envisaged.  One author claims

that the achievement of equality for gays and lesbians should not

only be guaranteed by the American ideals of individual liberty,

but is even "part of the unfinished business of modern

democracy."18  Just as slaves, women, and immigrants were denied

rights and civil liberties due to the popular opinion of the

elite leaders and majority of the American population, so will

homosexuals be oppressed by prejudice.

     It is interesting to note that the founders of the

Mattachine viewed homosexual oppression in Marxist terms:  they

saw their oppression stemming not only from bias, but from

connections inherently rooted in the very structure of society.19

The revolutionary gay movement is in many ways reflective of this

aspect of Marxist thought.  The reality of homosexual liberation,

as well as equality for blacks and women, might be appeased with

the victory of laws protecting their civil rights, but as long as

deeply embedded social thought and attitudes of prejudice exist

in the minds of American citizens, from simple inhabitants and

workers to senators and Supreme Court Justices, no true freedom

can be achieved.  Moral and popular opinion must not oppress

individual rights.  In the words of a gay rights activist and

author, "We cannot deal with homosexuality...unless we realize

that our problems are enormously aggravated by a system of

values. ... We cannot merely change some piece of our world that

encompasses homosexuality.  We have to change the whole, or we

will accomplish nothing."20

     It has been seen how the gay rights movement has manifested

itself in various forms.  The late 20th century American movement

saw the emergence of a liberalistic, civil rights movement, an

ethnocentric, political pressure group, and a completely radical,

revolutionary movement which seeks to completely transform

society.  While the first two movements are similar in goal if

not in approach, they both fall short.  While adherents to those

movements strive for civil legal rights, and even might achieve

them, they will not liberate gays.  Society itself is the problem

which needs to be addressed, not homosexuality.  Until society is

transformed, homosexuals, as well as blacks, women, and others,

will never be truly free.

ENDNOTES

1 Dennis Altman, The Homosexualization of America, the 
Americanization of the Homosexual , (New York: St.     
Martin's, 1982), 113

2 Altman, 113-114

3 Roger S. Mitchell, The Homosexual and the Law, 
(New York: Arco, 1969), 14-16

4 Michael Nava and Robert Dawidoff, Created Equal: Why Gay Rights
Matter to America, (New York: St. Martin's,  1994), 4

5 John Murphy, Homosexual Liberation, (New York, Washington,
London: Praeger, 1971),  146-147

6 Altman, 114

7 John D'Emilio, Sexual Poltics, Sexual Communities: The Making 
of a Homosexual Minority in the United States   1940-1970, 
(Chicago and London: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1983), 150

8 Dennis Altman, Homosexual, (New York: Outerbridge & Dentsfrey,
1971), 110

9 Altman, Homosexual, 110-113

10 Murphy, 146

11 Altman, Homosexual, 106-107

12 Altman, Homosexual, 108

13 "First GLF Statement" in Come out!: Selections from the Radical
Gay Liberation Newspaper, (New York: Times   Change Press, 1970),
5

14 "Editorial I" in Come Out!: Selections from the Radical Gay
Liberation Newspaper, (New York: Times Change Press, 1970),
6-7

15 Altman, Homosexual, 113

16 Altman, Homosexual, 106-107

17 Nava and Dawidoff, 4

18 Morris Kaplan, Sexual Justice: Democratic Citizenship and the
Politics of Desire, (New York and London: Routledge, 1997), 3-4

19 D'Emilio, 64

20 Murphy, 182

Annotated Bibliography

Dennis Altman, Homosexual, (New York: Outerbridge & Dentsfrey, 1971).

Altman writes about the reality of gay oppression and the prospect of liberation. He explores popular belief and attitudes towards homosexuality, the bases of oppression, and the various liberation movements of the 1970’s. According to Altman, societal reform is necessary for a true gay liberation to occur, and he explores and explains this in detail.

 Dennis Altman, The Homosexualization of America, the Americanization of the Homosexual. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1982).

This book chronicles the changing face of homosexuality in American culture in the late 20th century. Altman explores the transition of homosexuality from a deviancy to an alternative lifestyle. He also describes the growth of gay culture, the gay liberation movement and its manifestations.

 John D’Emilio, Sexual Politics: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States 1940-1970, (Chicago and London: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1983).

D’Emilio chronicles the movement for social change inherent in the gay rights movement in the United States from 1940 to 1970. He attempts to describe the gay political movement and the growth of both the gay identity and the gay urban subculture. He goes into detail on the forms of gay oppression, the different homphile organizations, and the changing relationship between gays and the society they live in.

"Editorial I" in Come Out!: Selections from the Radical Gay Liberation Newspaper, New York: Times Change Press, 1970).

This editorial gives an explanation of the purpose and intent of the newspaper & of the gay rights movement as a whole. It also explores the nature of homosexual oppression as one based on sex and sex roles which are inadequate and say nothing of a person’s worth or value. The author claims that the members of the movement seek to transform the very structure of modern society. 

"First GLF Statement" in Come Out!: Selections from the Radical Gay Liberation Newspaper, (New York: Times Change Press, 1970).