IGF CultureWatch

The movement for gay equality in America has come in four basic stages. Each of these stages made a distinct contribution. Each was marked by its own missteps. Each provoked stiff resistance. Each suffered stinging defeats. But each ultimately advanced the cause and prepared the way for the next stage. With the recognition of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts - the first time a state has done so - we have entered the final stage of the gay rights movement.

Stage 1: Emergence

The first stage of the movement covered roughly the middle of the twentieth century up to the time of the Stonewall riot in New York in June, 1969. We might call this stage "Emergence," since it's when homosexuals began to emerge from the closet and to organize politically for the first time.

The atmosphere in the country during the Emergence period was harshly repressive. Homosexuality was considered not just sinful, but a mental disorder. All 50 states had sodomy laws directed and enforced primarily against gay sex. Raids on gay bars were common. Known homosexuals were forbidden in many states to obtain professional and business licenses. Same-sex marriage was unthinkable.

In the face of repression, a few extraordinarily courageous individuals declared that homosexuals were perfectly normal. They formed the first gay political and educational groups like the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis. It was during this period that the American Law Institute recommended eliminating sodomy laws, and Illinois became the first state to do so, in 1961.

Stage 2: Liberation

Stonewall marked a new and more radical stage in the gay rights movement. We might call this stage "Liberation," since the gay movement appropriated the rhetoric and methods of other "liberation" movements for women and racial minorities. Liberation is also an appropriate moniker for this second stage because the movement emphasized separation from mainstream American society and institutions through unbridled sexual freedom and revolutionary critiques of existing customs and ways of living. For many activists of this period, fighting for marriage would have seemed like a surrender to heterosexual norms.

During the Liberation period, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders, many more states eliminated their sodomy laws, gay publications and organizations mushroomed, the first openly gay officials were elected, and a few localities banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Yet this second stage engendered a ferocious backlash, led by a newly self-conscious movement of social conservatives now known as the religious right. Anita Bryant infamously led successful drives to repeal gay rights ordinances in places like Miami and St. Paul.

Stage 3: Tolerance

The heady and optimistic second stage of the gay rights movement ended with the onset of the AIDS epidemic in the early 1980s. AIDS soon sapped almost the entire energy of the movement. Gay advocates shifted from emphasizing freedom and separation to emphasizing caring, responsibility, community, and commitment - the preconditions for the development of a marriage ethic. At the same time, the brutal process of dying from a disease identified almost entirely with gay men brought many homosexuals out of the closet for the first time. The protest group ACT-UP, whose antics were sometimes childish and counter-productive, transformed the American medical establishment to be more responsive to patients' needs for care and life-saving drugs.

While some Americans responded to AIDS by calling for quarantines, the predominant reaction was one of sympathy and support. We could call the third stage of the gay-rights movement "Tolerance," since Americans now opposed many forms of discrimination yet a majority remained convinced that homosexuality was morally wrong.

During the Tolerance period, many more civil rights laws were passed, corporate America led the way to the equal treatment of gay couples, and sodomy laws were finally vanquished. Gay couples began to demand benefits, leading to the creation of private and public domestic partnerships and, toward the end of the third stage, civil unions in Vermont. Still, there were reverses, including the codification of the military's gay ban and a federal ban on recognizing gay marriages.

Stage 4: Acceptance?

On May 17, 2004, the day Massachusetts began recognizing same-sex marriages, we entered what I expect will be the end stage of the gay rights movement.

As in each stage of the gay rights movement before this one, gay advocates will be guilty of excesses and will suffer serious setbacks. Beginning this November, we are going to be plastered in a series of anti-gay-marriage initiatives on state ballots around the country. Gay marriage will temporarily win a battle here and there in a few courts, but will overwhelmingly lose. For a time, legislatures will bottle-up or defeat gay marriage bills even in gay-friendly states, like California.

Gay marriage may even lose its toehold in Massachusetts come November 2006, when citizens there may vote on a state constitutional amendment. But I doubt it, and even if we lose in Massachusetts gay marriage will resurface somewhere before long. Having seen that gay marriage causes no harm and brings much joy, Americans will allow it, by fits and starts, to sweep the country.

By the time that happens, perhaps 30 years from now, the need for an organized gay rights movement in this country will be gone. There will still be bigotry and ignorance to fight, in America and around the world, but the heavy political and legal lifting will have been done.

History can't be written before it happens, and there is nothing inevitable about progress. But, if it turns out as I expect, this final phase should be called "Acceptance," since it will end in gays' full inclusion in the nation's legal and social life.

First published on May 26, 2004, in Liberty Education Forum.

We are crossing a major demarcation line in the history of the gay rights movement. After May 17, 2004, gay marriages in America are a legal reality (if only in Massachusetts at first), not just a private commitment or an act of civil disobedience. To be sure, the fight will continue in courts and legislatures for many years, but that does not diminish the magnitude of this moment. The long struggle between gay liberation and integration has essentially been decided, and integration has won.

The conservative nature of this development has not been lost on the liberationists. Their anti-assimilationism is rapidly becoming obsolete, as gay couples across the country demand full inclusion in the central institution of our society.

As with all Lost Causes, some diehards resist recognizing their defeat. In an August 2003 article for The Boston Phoenix decrying the "marriage rights mania," Michael Bronski dismisses marriage rights as "crumbs." The social benefits of marriage aside, few would regard the 1,138 rights and privileges associated with marriage under federal law, or the additional hundreds under state laws, as mere crumbs.

Bronski treats marriage as if it hasn't changed in 50 years. In fact, legalized contraception and abortion, no-fault divorce, and the rise of marriage as an equal partnership have left the institution far different from the oppressive patriarchal tool he portrays. His grim portrait, including his unsubstantiated claim of an "ongoing epidemic of domestic violence among straight and gay couples," reads more like Peter Pan appealing to Wendy to stay in Never Never Land than a serious discussion of real families.

To hear some gay radicals tell it, this wedding season sounds more like a funeral. By adopting the strictures of marriage, so their thinking goes, our community will give up its freedom and lose its fabulousness. Many such qualms are reported by Michael Powell in a March 31, 2004 article in The Washington Post.

These lamentations remind me of the Lena Wertmuller film Swept Away…, in which a desert island is the only place where love can flower for the socially mismatched protagonists. Once they are rescued, their love is doomed. While I honor our movement's pioneers, I do not share this romantic view of our historic social isolation. Just as with the demise of the old Chitlin Circuit, which nurtured many great black performers before mainstream venues were desegregated four decades ago, few will reject the new freedom because it brings challenges along with opportunities.

For years, when faced with gay opponents of marriage, I have argued that their personal aversion was one thing, and opposing my right to choose for myself was quite another. Ten years ago, when I tried to persuade a gay-friendly D.C. mayoral candidate to endorse equal marriage rights, she pointed out that the gay community itself was divided on the issue. Indeed, Evan Wolfson, one of the earliest and staunchest gay marriage advocates, was often subjected to blistering verbal abuse by gay people who resented his rocking the boat for something they didn't even want.

The climate has now irrevocably changed. There is no longer any serious division in our community on the question of civil marriage rights. From coast to coast and across the political spectrum, we were thrilled by the rush of city hall weddings set off by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in February. The allure of alienation is melting away amid the joyous nuptials; the politics of victimhood is losing its grip even amid the anti-gay backlash; and gay families are adjusting their expectations upward. There is a growing recognition that, while the victory is far from won, the tide of history is with us.

It is only natural that such a change would take some adjusting. I can understand the nostalgia that some feel for the early years after Stonewall, when life at the margins of society brought with it a certain freedom. During the gay community's first "out" years, the lack of institutional signposts provided endless opportunities for creativity. But that was the freedom of people roaming uncharted territory. Thirty years ago, the bar scene was one of the few social options. There were no gay choruses, no gay film festivals, no gay chambers of commerce. The idea of openly gay politicians was outlandish even in the most liberal cities. Other than a few classical allusions, gay literature mostly consisted of lurid paperbacks and a magazine that was kept behind the counter at the newsstand.

Today, the number and variety of gay organizations and services is vastly greater. Whatever your interest or need, you're a quick Google search away from finding someone to share it or fill it. The truth is that we are infinitely more free than we were in the "good old days," simply by having more choices.

Twenty years ago, playwright Harvey Fierstein talked about the "perpetual adolescence" of the urban gay milieu, in which sowing one's wild oats became for many a lifetime occupation. The tragedy of AIDS forced our community to grow up, leaving us stronger and more responsible. Marriage is the next step - not just for particular couples as a legal option, but for our community as a social norm and aspiration.

Marriage isn't for everyone, of course. This is as true for gay people as for heterosexuals. But simply by becoming a realistic goal and part of the social landscape in which gay children grow up, it will give them the freedom to color with all the crayons in the box, as gay children before them never could. Imagine being a child again, and being able to blurt out your foolish dreams unselfconsciously, the same as your siblings and playmates. Imagine receiving encouragement for those dreams, and taking that encouragement for granted. Imagine the wondrous ways a child may grow if properly nurtured. That's a radical enough vision for me, and making it come true will be pretty fabulous.