More Bar Photos

This is the general location of Twist and Hyperspace. 1221 Washington

Another possible for Heartbreak Hotel? This is next to Paddy O's.

We are all stumped as to the location of Heartbreak Hotel. We think it was on South Broadway, definitely near the stadium. It was the site of Wired Women dances in the eighties, after the ones at the Church on Waterman. This is a possible site but doubtful?

The oldest bar anyone seems to know of was a place call Uncle John's. Betty says it was open when she was in junior high. It was in the area of 7th and Pine. We believe the building was torn down when the Wainwright expanded.

Bar Photo Tour with Jo

This was Studio 314 at 1730 Broadway, it had a big dance floor and closed as a gay bar about 2005. It is now Bar 101.

 The site of Hilary's, a piano bar many years ago-1017 Russell
 

        Bastille 1027 Russell







     Clementine's- the oldest gay bar in St. Louis 2001 Menard



           The French Market in Soulard

        The Library had country dancing in the 90's.

Griffiths was here in the 700 block of Lafeyette.

Lafeyette  Square-City Lights was in the back of Arcelia's. I was open in the90's. 1315 Mississippi

2280 Jefferson-The Heights

     2915 Jefferson at Pestalozzing-Cheryl's in the '90s.

Luvy Duvy's is a 2010 restaurant owned by lesbians on Jefferson at Arsenal.

We thought this might have been Monty's or Merv's. Steven Brawley tells me thought  that Monte's was where the McDonalds is now, at Jefferson and I-44.

This building pictured below is 3265 Jefferson. Was there a Merv's?

Random Notes on Bar History

Illinois

Schraeder's
Newsroom
The Front Page
Red Bull
The Grapevine-Mona's place, her gf was Jody
PK's on the main drag in E. St. Louis
Rainbow End in Collinsville, it became Circus Lounge
Smokey's in Springfield, Illinois
Zephyr-Granite City off route 3
Lil's Place-open 63-64
Escapades
Bubby and Cissy's in Alton
The Stockyards-mixed


Missouri

Bijou in the east end of the central west end. Believe it was open in 70's.
Dixie's was at Cass and Tucker, by the old bus station
There was a place at Chippewa and Bambrger in the '80s-drag shows including male impersonators
Grey Fox was on Spring
Sugar Shack on Telegraph and Lemay Ferry
Side Door 3 floors and the top was gay, it was on Market downtown?
Twist on Washington, straights took it over in the 70's, drag shows, maybe the same building as the Side Door?
More or Less
Middle of the Road-Newstead on the left, Mac McCann had it before More or Less-she did not like guys in the bars
Brandy's-in the CWE, near fountain and cobblestones, open a short time
Bottom of the Pot-Mickey Kline, across from Balabans, Potpourri was upstairs and was a guys place
Upstream on Lindell and Olive
French Market in Soulard, Margalita played organ and they held sing-alongs in the '70s, opened 1972?
"The Library" by the market in Soulard-country dancing
Pat's Bar became the Sahara, owned by Pat LaPlant
Shelley's-1956 Gas Light Square on Olive, straights and gays mixed
Golden Gate
Peyton Place
Grandma had a bar across from the bus station
The Kit Kat opened in 1962
Clementines is the oldest gay bar
Martin's, mostly guys, similar place to J. J.s guys from work in suits? closed in the 80s.
Herbie's-CWE
Girls bar in the space where Bad Dog is, by Magnolia's
The Heights
Hillary's-piano bar-Clements, winter '79, Soulard party mixed

Other gay places
Rex's on Olive, later moved to Michigan St.
Blanches Restaurant
City Cousin
Forest Park Hotel-breakfast-many gays went there, run by Herbie (not the one from the bar)

When Betty was in the 5th grade, she remembers two gay guys at school writing her a poem about seeing her at Uncle John's, it was on 7th street

St. Louis sites
http://stlgayhistory.livejournal.com/
Few gay people socialized with straights until the 80's.

St. Louis Lesbian Bar Photos

This is Attitudes, owned by Jan and Bonnie. It has been open since the late eighties and is a lesbian bar with a younger crowd. It briefly became Pink during the early 2000s but is now Attitudes again.






The new Novaks Bar and Grill. This is the nicest gay or lesbian bar that St.Louis has ever seen. It could be mistaken for TGI Fridays and on any given Friday happy hour, you will see many straights who come to socialize with the fashionable gay set.





This is the former Novaks, now Spot.












This is the very recently opened and closed JaBoni's Restaurant. In an earlier incarnation, this location was another gay restaurant.









This is the site ofthe former Genesis. Today it is a Jiffy Lube. No one was sure of what made up Genesis I but we believed that it had previously been called the Grand Finale.







Genesis II was open during the early 1980's and closed in either 85 or 86. I was there the night that it closed. They sold tickets to stay until 3 AM but at 1 PM, the police came in and shut it down. I was scared but for no reason, we were not harrassed.







This bar was located in the Central West End. It was below the current Culpeppers and was open during the seventies. To quote someone who remembered the place, "The actual name was the Potpourri. Upstairs it was failry quiet and mostly men. Downstairs is where all the dancing and women were. It became known as the Bottom of the Pot but was never the name of the bar as far as I know. None of us cared for that nickname. "












It looks like this place has seen better days. This is a close up of Georgia's. It was opened a short time because there was a shooting there.









In this area, for a brief time, there were three of these lesbian bars opened, Betty's CB, Pat's Palace, and this place. They were all at the same intersection of California and Shenandoah.






This is a close up of the front door of Pat's Palace. This was a real party place and many Saturday afternoons was the hot spot for drinking parties.









Pat's Palace and was open much later but during the some of the same time as Betty's CB.










This is the location of Betty's CB which was opened in 1951. It was a no-touch bar. This placed stayed open until the 1970's.








This is the site of the Kit Kat club at Nebraska and California.
The address was 2802 California. This place was open until the eighties.









This is the location of a bar on Grand Avenue that was bombed during the 1970s. We believed that after the bombing, Giuseppes Restaurant expanded to fill the space. But we were not absolutely certain.

More Lesbian Bar Photos

This is the former Ernie's Bar




























This was Jan's Stowaway. It was located at Broadway and Loughboro. This place opened during the eighties and was opened until the late nineties.








This the location of a former lesbian bar, name unknown. It was opened after Genesis closed and before Starz opened. During this time, the Kit Kat, Jan's Stowaway, and this place were the only lesbian bars open in St. Louis.































This was Starz and was a dance club that sort of replaced Genesis. It opened around 1986 and was only open for a few years.

Reading List

Bibliography


Chauncey, George. Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940. New York: Basic Books, 1994.

D'Emilio, John and Estelle Freedman. Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America. New York: Harper and Row, 1988.

Faderman, Lillian. To Believe In Women-What Lesbians Have Done For America-A History.
New York, New York, Houghton Mifflin Company. 1999.

Faderman, Lillian. Odd Girls and Twilight Lover: A History of Lesbian Life in Twentieth Century America. New York: Penguin Books. 1991.

Faderman, Lillian. Surpassing the Love of Men. New York, New York. Morrow.1981.

Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality Volume 1: An Introduction. Robert Hurley, trans. New York: Pantheon, 1978.

Johnson, David K. The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government, Chicago, Illinois. The University of Chicago Press. 2004.

Kennedy, Elizabeth Lapovsky and Madeline D. Davis. Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold: The History of a Lesbian Community. New York: Penguin Books, 1993.

Mann, William J. Behind the Screen, How Gays and Lesbians Shaped Hollywood 1910-1969.
Penguin. 2001.

Wallace, David, A City Comes Out: The Gay and Lesbian History of Palm Springs. 2008.

Roscoe, Will. Changing Ones: Third and Fourth Genders in Native North America.New York: St Martin’s Press. 1998.

Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold Review

Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold
By Elizabeth Lapovsky Kennedy & Madeline D. Davis. Routledge, Chapman and Hall 1993.Pp. 434.

Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold" is an account of the changes within the lesbian community in Buffalo, New York. The authors cover the time period beginning in the mid-1930s and ending with the early 1960s. Drawing on oral histories collected from many women, it provides an exhaustive history of a working-class lesbian community. These personal stories provide a new look at working-class lesbians and their impact to the future of the lesbian community. There is vast evidence that the actions of these working class lesbians increased lesbian visibility and laid the groundwork for the civil rights movement to come.
The book is based on 13 years of research, and ranges over such topics as relationships and sex, coming out, butch-fem roles, friendship, motherhood, violence, work, racism and pride.. They conducted their interviews within their own community and as such had access and trust that an outsider might never be able to obtain. The women that were interviewed in this book felt that their willingness to live their lives such that their lesbianism was not denied, was critical factor in creating change. In addition to detailing community life, this work also chronicles the intimate relationships of these lesbians. As a result of the connections made between the authors and subjects, the women interviewed are often portrayed as the heroines that many of them really were.The centerpiece of this era was, of course, the bar community. Finding ways to socialize together was critical to ending the isolation of the lesbian experience. Bar communities served both as centers of sociability and a place to find a sexual partner. It was also the center of the community political life; though many participants didn’t realize that just being a part of working class lesbian culture was a political act. For many, it was a day to day struggle. But at the same time, some reported that they understood on some level that what they were doing was important and might just change the world.
It is impossible to study this era without covering the violence that pervaded the bar culture. There were two main types of violence, first the butches fighting with straight men to maintain their social space and protect their fems. But there was also fighting between butches. There were obvious causes such as jealousy and alcohol but one cannot determine how much the stresses of their day to day life, economic frustration and self esteem issues were to blame. Often, when one has to fight just to survive on a daily basis, some of that aggression is turned inward to ones own community. But all in all, the butches did so much to promote community solidarity and the violence may have been a necessary part of women protecting their own space and place to be.The overall synopsis of butch life took a different twist than one might have expected when examining the subject of sex. In this book we clearly see that butches were not just women wanting to be men. The main focus of butch sexuality was to please their fem. Some, though not all, were stone butches so their own gratification really held a much lesser place. Because many of the femmes had been involved in relationships with men and had often experienced violence, butches offered an alternative type of love. Prostitutes were often part of the community and turned to relationships with butches. But the book makes the point repeatedly that the butches did not think they were men. They were not trying to copy men but instead develop their own kind of masculine culture. Ironically, the role playing culture that they were modeled after was only a reality in the movies and to some extent middle class culture.Another twist to the role playing was that it was the butch women who were unlikely to find employment. Without a willingness to dress in a more feminine manner, their job prospects were practically non-existent. There were many cases were the fems had to support their butches. This resulted in a dynamic that simply did not exist in straight culture.
Children were a part of the culture as well. Though, today we are seeing a different kind of lesbian baby boom, there is no doubt that many lesbians were raising children during this time. However, in nearly all cases, the women, both butch and fems, had become pregnant while in a relationship of some sort with a man.All evidence indicates the most common form of relationships was the pattern of serial monogamy. Though it was not uncommon for women to have affairs on the side, the ideal was always a committed relationship. However, without any support system outside the community and the fact that the bar continued to be the only real option for socializing, the stresses on a relationship lasting were immense. The women did report that it was sometimes frustrating and demoralizing to pass from one relationship to the next but seemed a pattern that was difficult to break. That it not to say that the relationships were not emotionally strong and deep while given support to each other in what was often an otherwise hostile world.
One of the key changes between lesbian life in the 1940s and 1950s was the role the experienced butches began to take in terms of mentoring the younger ones. In the 1940s, lesbians did not actively introduce people to gay life. But as community culture and sexuality began to become more structured and roles defined, it became more necessary to have a mentor. An experienced butch would explain all aspects of role playing and even sexually how to please a fem, though some of it was learned intuitively as well. There is no doubt that racism was a part of the experience, though many women believed that as a result of the oppression faced elsewhere, it existed on a much lesser level than in the rest of society for this time period. While the books does not attempt to cover the middle class experience of this era to any degree, it seems likely that most middle class lesbians were having an entirely different experience. With the threat of losing their jobs, most were much more circumspect, though some would venture into the bars on occasion. This book recovers a neglected chapter of lesbian and gay history and reminds us of the enduring importance of our outlaw roots. It was during this time, that the friendships and community solidarity began to form the basis for a civil rights movement to come. It also formed the basis of a lesbian identity that is still evolving.

Surpassing the Love of Men

Surpassing the Love of Men
By Lillian Faderman. Triangle Classics 1981Pp. 496.

Lillian Faderman draws on literature from the sixteenth century through the present and makes the case that until the 20th century, love between women was common, revered, and accepted by all.Faderman describes these relationships between women as romantic friendships and avoids drawing any conclusions as to whether these relationships had a sexual component. With an absence of societal negativity, there is an abundance of literature as well as letters that indicate the pervasiveness of such friendships. Many of the women dreamed of a life together but that was the limiting factor of earlier eras. Women had no way to support themselves financially without a “man” in their life and consequently, there were few women who were able to successfully live out their friendship fantasies.

One of the key elements during these years was in the fact that men were practically of another species. Most of life was homosocial and the truth of the matter was that men and women had little in common. Since women were forbidden to participate in the arenas of men, had their intellect brushed aside, and were generally ignored, they found in other women a place of solace. Women valued each other’s ideas and shared a common sense of wanting, to do more and be more.Trouble ensued if a woman tried to usurp male privilege, by dressing or passing as a man. Society disapproved and found this quite disturbing.

From 1761 until 1815, a British Annual Register records the cases of 15 women who were prosecuted for dressing as men. However, lesbian sexual behavior might have been acceptable in some cases as it was seen as an apprenticeship to preparing the woman for a man. Men during early eras enjoyed a degree of confidence that is no longer possible. There may have even been a separation, sexual relationships between women seen as devoid of love. And love between women must be devoid of sex.But as some of these notions evolved, women learned the ideals of Platonic friendship from Renaissance writers. These friendship ideals applied to both men and women. In many ways, friendship between women served the interest of men. But a few took their friendship to another level.

The famous Ladies of Llangollen, as a result of access to financial means, were able to actually live and build a life together. The perception that upper-class women were naturally chaste added innocence to the times.Marriage was a commercial affair and had little to do with an actual friendship or partnership between the man and woman. Women could only find any sort of respect or friendship in relationships with other women.Faderman uses literature to paint a picture of societal norms and values. She provides many examples were the heterosexual liaisons end in unhappiness, while the same sex friendships are happy. Though there are few examples of women who were actually able to live together is this blissful ideal, it was clearly the dream and aspiration for many.

She pulls in literature from Europe primarily but by the eighteenth century, finds evidence in American literature that romantic friendship had become an institution there as well. However, twentieth century biographers have often censored what was once accepted. An example of this regards Emily Dickinson letters to a woman as well as those of Mary Wollstonecraft. Because there was no stigma during their era, these women had felt perfectly free to write letters of great passion. But read through the eyes of this century, one would assume it to be lesbian passion.In 1811, there was a court case involving the two women who were the headmistresses of a school in Scotland. One of the students accused them of illegal conduct with each other. The lawyers defended the women by proving that they had a depth of love between them but such a thing as lesbian sexuality was not only unthinkable based on their great love and affection but perhaps even impossible. Such a naïve viewpoint only applied to women, male homosexuality was well known.

One of the most compelling features of same sex adoration was that seemed to be one of the driving motivations for a women to achieve, accomplish or excel at something. Because women found little respect from men, only other women could provide them with praise or words of encouragement. Literature and letters both indicate that not only did society accept this but also in many cases, men were happy with the arrangement. It was during the time that works by Sigmund Freud and other sexologists, that the idea of same sex love became stigmatized.

Faderman concludes her work with the rise of lesbian-feminism. In many feminist novels, lesbians are re-inventing themselves. They re-create society without patriarchy. This is in contrast to a current trend with lesbian politics, which is to propose that lesbians are just like everyone else, the only difference is the sex of the individual that they love.

Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers A History of Lesbian Life in Twentieth-Century America

Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers A History of Lesbian Life in Twentieth-Century America
By Lillian Faderman. Penguin Books 1991Pp. 373.

This can really be considered the third work in Faderman’s historical trilogy though it was written before her more recent “What Lesbians Have Done for America”. She begins with a synopsis of her first book that covers in detail the subject of romantic friendships and takes us through to the twentieth century. During this time, we see the evolution of women’s relationships of all kinds as the veil of sexual innocence is finally removed. As in all her work, she reminds the reader that the concept of sexual orientation that we have today has not always been so. And this book documents “the extent to which sexuality,” and sexual categories, can be affected by a broad range of social factors and not just sexual drive. As she takes us beyond romantic friendships, Faderman describes the works of the early sexologists and the theory of sexual inversion. She believes that it was the publicity of their works that was responsible for giving a kind of sexuality to women. On the other hand, any woman who was drawn to non-feminine pursuits was often considered an invert. In many ways, sexuality had little to do with the label but instead a lack of acceptance of the proscribed roles of women.
During the 1920’s, we see an era where there is a real progression in terms of women’s roles and sexuality. At a time, when some people began to tentatively cross some of the required racial borders, the same can be said in terms of gender roles though most of the experimentation was a passing phase. But during this era, there was bisexual experimentation and the blossoming of a bohemian subculture that accepted gays and lesbians. There were also more public images of working class lesbians that dressed as men and took some degree of male privilege. But at the same time, the concept of compaionate heterosexual marriages began to take root. It was this, as much as anything that created a need to suppress women’s same sex relationships.The limited gains of the twenties were quickly reversed by the Great Depression. Living life as a lesbian was a great challenge and a bisexual compromise such that was made by Eleanor Roosevelt was the best that most women could do. From this time onward, the book chronicles several phases of what could be considered the modern era of lesbian identity.
During World War II, we see more lesbian social opportunity. War offers a much more difficult emotional issue that displaced the focus on sexual morality. In addition, many women were joining branches of the armed services which were often a magnet for women with an emotional pull toward other women. These factors combined with an opportunity to leave small home towns left more women than ever with the chance to meet others like themselves. So that even when the repression of the fifties began, the knowledge that they were not alone and an unwillingness to accept that fate helped form the basis for later political activism. And during that time, working class women began to form a clear structured distinct subculture.
Faderman’s analysis of the intersection of lesbian and feminist politics is perhaps the most interesting part of the book. Lesbian-feminist revised the concept of identity to suggest that all women had the potential to be lesbians. They also widened the definition of lesbianism to a love and support of other women. It was much more political than sexual and as a result added to the ranks, at least temporarily, of those that could be called lesbians. But the concept of forming a lesbian nation never really got off the ground. In-fighting and perhaps the fact that many of these women were on some level sexually drawn to men made the doom of this concept a certainty.From lesbian feminism evolved another cultural clash over the very basic concept of what kind of sexuality is acceptable. Traditional feminists felt that lesbian sex had to be within the bounds of lesbian ethics as they defined them. Many other, more sexually oriented lesbians were branching off to explore and experiment with pushing the sexual boundaries. Ironically, the reader may find that this was a war that marginalized the majority of lesbians who fell in neither camp. And that takes the story to its final chapter which shows that there was no longer “one way” to becoming a lesbian.This book is profound in that is able to present lesbianism not only as a sexual orientation, but as a cultural and political movement. And as such, it has been affected by the evolution of culture and politics. There are chapters left to write as the final chapter, called “The Tower of Babel to Community” ends before our present day venture into the world of marriage. While the baby boom continues, nothing defines the lesbian experience in 2005 than where each woman stands on the question of marriage.

To Believe in Women;

To Believe in Women; What Lesbians Have Done For America-A History
By Lillian Faderman. Houghton Mifflin 1999Pp. 434.

Lillian Faderman manages to cover most of the few famous women that we studied in school and draw out a much more personal picture. In this monumental work, she covers several important areas of women’s history, suffrage, social work, education and the professions. In each chapter, Faderman helps the reader to realize that most of the women that made these movements spent their personal lives in committed relationships with other women. The reader is left with the understanding and feeling that the world would be a very different place today without the work and devotions of these women who would have been, in a later time, described as lesbians. She includes the very famous such as Susan B. Anthony and lesser known women as well.For some, her controversial claims are a welcome completion to biographies that erased lesbian existence. Though this is not all new information as other historians have discovered much of this already but Faderman puts it all together in a cohesive view of the personal lives and loves of these women. There are those who will argue that there is no evidence to prove that these women were lesbians. On the other hand, there is also no conclusive evidence to prove that they were not.
Considering that the idea of self-identifying based on sexual orientation is a relatively new phenomenon, as Faderman discusses in several of her works, it is really a moot point. But one thing is certain; much historical documentation has been skewed away from presenting this side of the story due to the stigma of lesbianism.
Faderman begins with her study of the women’s suffrage movement leaders, which includes Anna Howard Shaw and Carrie Chapman Catt. She describes Shaw as someone who actually fit the “Sexual Inversion” model that was being popularized by Havelock Ellis. She was, to put it simply, a life long tomboy, both in hobbies and dress and left records that would indicate she might very have been considered a lesbian in later eras. Catt’s story was a little more complex. She married George Catt after the death of her first husband and insisted on her heterosexuality to the public. But her private letters indicate that she had a passionate relationship with another suffrage leader, Molly Hay and might have been bisexual if not a lesbian. Faderman continues with the social welfare arena, covering the lives of Jane Addams and Frances Kellor. She continued with women leaders in education such as M. Carey Thomas and Mary Emma Wooley and concluded with the field of medicine, covering the life of Emily Blackwell.
Some of the women in her book were married to men, though largely to understanding men who gave them much freedom. But many of these female pioneers were never married to men but instead in “Boston marriages” to other women. It is on this issue where Faderman makes her key point. She points out that heterosexual marriage historically tends to burden women with bearing children and overseeing household chores. Many of these women did not enter into these types of marriages but even more telling is that by entering into committed relationships with other women, they actually had support that enabled their works. In some cases, that support was financial, in some cases, one of the partners actually did run the household allowing the other to have more freedom to pursue social activism. And finally, the emotional support was critical in allowing these women to do their work.
Faderman makes note of the fact that that same-sex pairs were treated with the respect generally reserved for heterosexual couple. It is not entirely clear how far the knowledge of their intimate arrangements traveled outside their own circles but there did seem to be an acknowledgement of these relationships that existed on a wide scale basis. There is no doubt that this work will be inspiring and validating to many lesbians. Understanding what this tells us about lesbianism and what this tells us about women will continue to be studied and critiqued as examination like this continue in years to come.

The History of Sexuality

The History of Sexualtiy
By Michel Foucault

This is the first in Foucault’s three part History of Sexuality. It is a difficult read but worth it if you can walk away and question the meaning of normality in terms of sexuality. This book makes a case for the theory that the construction of sexual identity is a function of economics and politics. He also questions the struggle between sex as something that is liberating and something that has become a burden. The book was too difficult to understand to do much more than change the context with which to continue asking the questions when it comes to the topic of sexuality.

Gay New York

Chauncey, George.
Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940. New York: Basic Books, 1994

George Chauncey, of the University of Chicago produced this wonderful history that is a thorough and scholarly work. It is also a very interesting and vibrant read as it covers an almost forgotten era of gay cultural life that existed in New York City between 1890 and 1940. Many recent historical writers on American gay life have assumed that a real gay world only came into existence after World War II or even as late as the 1969 Stonewall resistance in New York. Instead of focusing on anti-gay hostility as preventing the development of an extensive gay subculture, he focuses on how that culture thrived despite the oppression. We see that many gay men lead anything but solitary lives. He also destroys the myth that gay men internalized the dominant culture's view of them as sick, perverted, and immoral. Instead of self hatred and acceptance of the policing of their lives, many men in this book found ways to resist it and affirm their lives and loves.

One thing that the book makes abundantly clear is that gay identify as we know it today did not exist during this time period. He covers the different labels used at the time, fairies, trade, and “normal men” to make clear that as long as one did not take the feminine role, he could move it and out of the culture. This was quite common with soldiers and sailors visiting New York. He contrasts the large class of fairies, who paraded their femme gayness openly and defiantly in the Village, Harlem, Times Square and the Bowery, and queers (a term that was gaining use in New York) or homosexuals. These men sometimes did affirm their homosexuality but often detested effeminacy. Many men, who engaged in frequent homosexual behavior but stuck to "manly" roles, just didn't regard themselves as being "that way."

He traces the changes that seemed to take place in these forms of identity over the years and quotes positive attitudes on the subject expressed by members of each class.Chauncey’s sources include newspapers, gossip sheet reports, cartoons, reports made by a wide assortment of vice investigators, and other now public records as well as the memoirs of individual gay men. Chauncey paints an authentic picture that includes widespread cruising in various streets, parks, and bathrooms. He also discusses the numerous if random examples of vice arrests. He notes that the leading "protectors of morality" at that time were more interested in curbing female prostitution than other male activities but at times, focus would turn to homosexual activity.

He shows that a vast culture existed in particular apartment buildings and at the YMCA. Chauncey describes the YMCA, which ironically was established to prevent the very sort of "immoral" activity, as a center of gay cultural life. He ties this together with the statistics that show such a large number of single men residing in New York which required affordable bachelor housing facilities. He also shows that there were numerous public gathering places such as restaurants, bars, and cafeterias that were frequented by the gay subculture though few exclusively gay places. Because of the fluidity of participation in the gay life, it was much likely that individuals would come and go, socializing with those on the fringe of the subculture.He describes the culture of the baths, which arose within all cultural groups but survived longer in the gay subculture than most. Perhaps this phenomenon survived longer and was safer haven because the baths provided a very private sort of public space. In addition to providing a place for sexual experience, the baths were also a place where economic lines could be easily crossed. They were also a place where friendships that lasted for years were spawned, even though the men may only have socialized in this more private environment. Raids were not common but they did happen and the arrest records bear out the fact that more affluent men frequented the baths.

He details drag shows and heavily advertised drag balls which sometimes drew as many as 8,000 attendees. Many of those in attendance included straight society members who came to watch. There were many newspaper stories elaborating on these events, in detailing the dress worn by those in drag. Lesbians also attended these gala events. The dangers of arrest, raids, gay bashers and exposure were there, but seemed less common than they would later be, and New York's overt gay world seems to have been much more open from 1910 to 1930 than it was between 1940 and 1950..As long as historians remember that gay identify was vastly different in years past, there is an incredible world of culture that is still to be discovered. Though this era was a repressive time in some ways, there was a freedom to pursue gay culture that was lost during the 1950s. And though gay culture might have been somewhat invisible to outsiders, it was not invisible to those who went looking. During that era, “coming out” meant coming out in the gay subculture. It was years later before the concept of coming out to straight society became associated with that term.


Since reading this book, I found this very interesting map. 

Intimate Matters

Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America
By John D’Emilio and Estelle B. Freedman

The authors did an excellent job of presenting a descriptive non-judgmental history of sexual practices in the United States from colonial times to the1980s. They covered sexual meanings and language, sexual regulation, and sexual politics.In early America, the main deterrent to premarital sex was the fear of pregnancy and community norms. Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth century, reproduction and sexuality were critically linked. Sexuality was not a private matter and family and community roles were ever present.But in the eighteenth century, with the first signs of a decline in marital fertility, we see a foreshadowing of changes that were to come. Reproductive control and growing power of women in the domestic sphere were both factors. Adultery and pre-marital sex did occur and because of the double standard, the repercussions were much more severe for women. And pregnancy still was an ever present possibility for women.Throughout the nineteenth century, the meaning of sexuality balanced between the reproductive side of the past and the romantic leanings of the present. It was during this time that sexuality and romantic love began to merge within the confines of marriage. At the same time, race and sexuality was an area where the political aspects can most visibly be seen. Bans on interracial marriage and fears of race mixing pervaded the south and were major factors in the racial strife to come.
The publication of Alfred Kinsey’s studies in 1948 and 1953 put sex into the public discourse in a brand new way. The studies revealed that the ideal of sex only within the confines of sanctioned marriage was not reality. All kinds of sexuality were much more common that anyone imagined and this included homosexuality.And during the 1960s, sexuality emerged as an issue of power and politics, with both the rise of feminism and the gay civil rights movement. At the same time, the ideal of associating sex with equality was more important than ever before. The sexual revolutions spawned the realization that not everyone could agree on sexual idea. There was a variety in sexual images that had never existed during prior generations.

The Lavender Scare

The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government
By David K. Johnson. University of Chicago Press 2004Pp. 277.

There have been many studies of the Cold War era including those that specifically focus on what is commonly known as McCarthyism. In this book, David Johnson provides us with a much needed analysis of a key element of that repression. He shows us how the U.S. government came to focus on gays as "security risks." During this time, homosexuals were often considered on a par with or more of a threat than suspected communists. In this book, we see how members of Congress and national security bureaucrats found it necessary to systematically purge gays and lesbians from all kinds of government positions.
Many historians of the Cold War have marginalized the persecution of gays as part and parcel of McCarthyism. Johnson points out that the “Lavender Scare” was instead a deeply ingrained part of fifties culture which actually pre-dated McCarthyism and long outlived it.This book clearly indicates that the purge of gays and lesbians was more than just McCarthyism. Even though McCarthy often made references in his speeches to “communists and queers”, he was not the principal architect of the homosexual purges. Speculation has centered on his own fear that as a middle age bachelor, the charges might come back and stick to him as well. As we see throughout, it was not just homosexuals that had to fear this persecution; anyone could be a target as most of the investigations were based on innuendo and stereotypes.
During the peak of the New Deal, there is no doubt that Washington DC had become a gay city. With the job opportunities available and the appeal of being away from their families of origin, it made sense that gays would choose to migrate to some of the larger cities and DC was no different. The process of urbanization was critical in creating a social and economic base for a gay and lesbian subculture. Washington DC was unique in that civil service jobs were appealing to those that lived outside of societal norms. Government jobs were the only ones where women had any chance of chance of breaking in. And the old-boy network was not as pervasive as in business. So there was truth that fact that gays and lesbians could be found throughout government service. As a result the gay community had begun to gain in visibility. This did not go unnoticed nor was it without repercussions, with frequent “pervert elimination campaigns”. These primarily targeted the gay cruising areas that were actually world renowned, like Lafayette Park.There were other incidents that helped seal the association of government service, particularly the State Department, with homosexuality. One such event was the scandal involving the head of the dept, Sumner Welles. The story was that he had sexually propositioned an African American porter on a train trip back to Alabama from DC. There was an attempt hush up the incident for Welles, who was a married man, though ultimately, he was forced to resign. And ultimately, the State Department began examining its policies and came to the conclusion that it was necessary to remove homosexuals. The reasoning was not that there was a threat of blackmail or national security issues but that their presence created a morale issue for non-gay members who did not want to work with them or be associated with such a reputation.As the effort to purge gays and lesbians grew and there were official congressional studies, the security risk factor was raised. The irony is that there was little or no evidence of any security violations and the sensationalist stories such as that of Sumner Welles were about married men who had homosexual affairs. However, it is clear that the more repression that is directed towards gays and lesbians, the more they have to fear and the more likely it is that blackmail might be effective.
And yet, there was never any evidence to indicate that it really happened. As Johnson observes, the Lavender Scare long outlived the Second Red Scare and during the Eisenhower administration it became institutionalized. In his memoirs, Eisenhower commented that he perceived gays as unintentional security risks. It is important to remember that this was before the concept of sexual orientation as an identity so the perception was that anyone could succumb to moral weakness and commit a homosexual act.At the end of the books, we see how this repression actually fostered the gay civil rights movement and led many to unite and fight discrimination. He shares a few personal stories that help portray the constant fear and stress that had become part of the gay government employee experience. He also points out how the experience of being fired simply for being gay drew some into the Washington gay sub-culture. Out of a job, with less to lose, these gay individuals began to identify themselves by their sexual identity. Johnson examines the national Mattachine Society and the local Mattachine Society of Washington. This group was led by Frank Kameny, an astronomer fired by the federal government for being gay. Though he never intended to be a political activist, his experience led him to a new approach of social activism. And while many consider Stonewall to be the official beginning of the gay civil rights movement, Johnson points out that there were many facets that led to change.This work is an important contribution to the history of the cold war. It also reminds us that the fight for gay and lesbian civil rights and the very concept of a gay identity has its origins in more than one historical event. It was the government’s repressive action that ultimately helped to unite gays and lesbians. And this repression helped to spur the modern gay civil rights movement.

Article by David Bianco

Article by David Bianco, author of "Gay Essentials" (Alyson Publications), a collection of his history columns.

"Butch-femme" usually signifies the lesbian bar culture of the
middle part of the 20th century. But the origins of butch-femme
identity may go back at least 100 years before that time, and its
social and cultural legacy continues to the present day.

The exact origins of butch-femme identity are unknown, though there
are scattered 19th-century references to female companions who might
be the precursors of later butches and femmes. In the 1820s, for
example, "Miss Willson and Miss Brundage" were two unmarried women
who lived together on a farm in upstate New York. Sarah Brundage
wore the pants in the family -- literally -- and undertook
traditionally male chores, like plowing and planting. In contrast,
Mary Ann Willson performed the more "womanly" tasks of caring for
their cabin and painting watercolors. Their relationship inspired
the 1972 lesbian novel "Patience and Sarah."

In a New England newspaper 20 years later, writer and critic William
Cullen Bryant made a brief reference to another proto-butch-femme
couple whom he had encountered in northern Vermont. "One of them ...
might be said to represent the male head of the family," Bryant
wrote; the other he described as "a gentle companion, ... a fond
wife."

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a number of upper-class
women paired off in romantic relationships, with one partner
perceived as "mannish" in appearance and manner, while the other was
more traditionally "feminine." Poet Amy Lowell, for example, smoked
cigars and wore tailored suits, while her companion, Ada Dwyer
Russell, gave up her career on the stage to type Lowell's
manuscripts. Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas were another
prominent female couple whose relationship incorporated traditional
heterosexual gender roles; the two even referred to each other
as "Hubbie" and "Wifie."

In the 1920s British writer Radclyffe Hall immortalized a butch-
femme couple in her novel "The Well of Loneliness." Hall's Stephen
Gordon was a classic butch woman, based on actual case studies of
female "inverts" from the files of sexologist Havelock Ellis, who
thought of lesbians as men trapped in women's bodies. By contrast,
Stephen's lover Mary was more feminine and therefore not a true
invert. Lesbian historians have suggested that Hall's widely read
novel may have set the stage for the butch-femme culture that began
forming in American cities in the following decade.

Unlike Hall's focus on aristocrats, recent historians have studied
working-class butch-femme couples of the mid-20th century. With the
rise of industrialization and the growth of cities in the years
following both world wars, working-class women were freer to move
away from their families, find jobs, remain unmarried, and form
social networks. An urban lesbian subculture began to emerge and
thrive particularly well in bars -- havens where women could meet
each other for love and friendship.

The subculture of lesbian bars had rules that governed its
membership: a lesbian (or "gay girl," as was often said at the time)
was either butch or femme. Codes for dress and behavior were strict.
One lesbian bar in Massachusetts even had separate washrooms, with
doors marked "butches" and "femmes."

Butches -- or studs, as they were also called -- dressed in male
attire, held doors for their femmes, and lit their cigarettes.
But "I never considered myself being a man," Mabel Hampton, an
African-American lesbian said of her butch identity. "I never liked
the men that much. And anything I don't like, I don't take up."
Femmes, on the other hand, cultivated a more traditionally feminine
appearance and manner, often wearing high heels and makeup and
acting demure.

Some lesbians found it difficult to find a place for themselves
within this strict dichotomy. In her memoirs, poet Audre Lorde
described the quandary of being unable to identify as either butch
or femme. "I wasn't cute or passive enough to be 'femme,' and I
wasn't mean or tough enough to be 'butch,'" Lorde wrote. "I was
given a wide berth." Women who refused to choose one or the other
role were sometimes called "kiki."

Besides being a social set-up, butch-femme identity also constituted
a security system. Butch-femme couples, who were more obviously
queer than middle-class lesbians, often faced anti-gay harassment,
rape, and other violence. Butches, who were seen as usurping male
privilege, were particularly targeted by straight men. The butch's
job was to protect herself and her femme. "I took care of my woman,"
Hampton said proudly of her long relationship with Lillian Robinson.

Sometimes violence erupted among butches themselves, though. One
lesbian in Buffalo recalled a raucous night in a bar when "glasses
were flying and everything. I remember I went under a table and
thought, 'Oh God! What is this?'" But the woman continued to
frequent the bar because it was the only place in town, she
noted, "where I could get to know people like me."

With the coming of the women's liberation movement, some lesbians of
the 1960s and 1970s dismissed butch-femme roles as imitative of
heterosexuals. In place of butch-femme, many lesbians opted for an
androgynous look and manner as a feminist political statement.

But butch-femme roles earlier in the century were political, too.
They provided a way for lesbians to maintain a separate space for
themselves and survive in a hostile environment, and that in turn
led to the forging of lesbian identities. In the 1980s, many
lesbians began to reclaim butch-femme identity, and it remains an
important means of expression in contemporary lesbian culture.

Lesbian and Gay Anthropology

Lesbian and Gay Anthropology

The late 1960s saw the increasing radicalization of many areas of the civil rights movement in the United States, including the movement for lesbian and gay rights. Gay liberation's repudiation of psychology as the ultimate arbiter of the social status of its political constituency coincided with a revival of studies of homosexuality in other social science disciplines.The increasing importance of feminist studies in anthropology was already demonstrating that the analysis of gender and sex roles was key to an understanding of social structures such as kinship and economic exchange. Gay and lesbian politics provided an additional impetus for this kind of study.Anthropology as a discipline, too, was changing and radicalizing.The Vietnam War had made American anthropologists aware of their colleagues' complicity in the war effort by providing intelligence to the United States government; this in turn prompted a critical reflection on anthropology's tacit support of past colonial and genocidal regimes.Anthropologists also began to challenge hitherto unquestioned assumptions about their field methods, including the social identity of the anthropologist while in the field, as well the taboo topic of sexual relations with one's informants.It was during this self-critical but expansive period in the discipline's history that a lesbian and gay anthropology--typically the study of apparently homosexual people that did not seek to reduce their behavior to a question of social pathology, conducted by anthropologists who were usually themselves lesbian or gay--began to take shape.

The Anthropology Research Group on Homosexuality (ARGOH), a professional organization, was formed in the early 1970s and had its first official meeting in 1978. The 1972 publication of Esther Newton's Mother Camp, a study of professional drag queens in Chicago and Kansas City based on research conducted in the mid-1960s, marked the first book-length study of gay people by an anthropologist and spurred much additional work in the area by the end of the decade.During the 1980s and 1990s, anthropological research on homosexuality tended to cluster around a handful of topics. Primary among these, in defiance of the New Right's emphasis on "family values" and continual attempts to deny civil rights to lesbian and gay people, were studies that focused on lesbian and gay family life in the United States. These included studies of "chosen families" of friends, lesbian and gay commitment ceremonies, and children of lesbian and gay parents. Great Books Out in the Field: Reflections of Lesbian and Gay Anthropologists by Ellen Lewin Margaret Mead Made Me Gay Personal Essays

Things to make you Think

Why my marriage is even more sacred as a result of discrimination:

As we sit and wait to see if the voters of California will allow their fellow citizens to marry their soul mates, the person that they love, I pondered our situation. Without any of the protections from my own state or federal government, we live our lives in love and commitment to each other. When these amendments are passed, the real net affect is to cost us money but it doesn’t lessen our love.
We traveled to Canada and were married legally there so legality does have meaning in our life. But we also went to our friends’ commitment ceremony last week. They stood up in front of all of us and made a commitment that has no legal standing. They also didn’t spend $25,000 on the ceremony. And yet somehow, it was so real and so beautiful and just as likely to last. What really matters is what you do with your love for one on another. And no legal or financial benefit can make or break a family, only love.

Maybe the right term is Falling in love orientation?
The Tipping Point-make the case for equality to one of the "few" and making it sticky.

How to create a compelling argument that marriage is about civil privilege?
How to accept that life is not fair and that being cast as a second class citizen does not mean you are.

This turned out to NOT be from Bette Midler but whoever wrote this did a good job: 

Dear President Bush,

Today you called upon Congress to move quickly to amend the US Constitution, and set in Federal stone a legal definition of marriage. I would like to know why. In your speech, you stated that this Amendment would serve to protect marriage in America, which I must confess confuses me. Like you, I believe in the importance of marriage and I feel that we as a society take the institution far too lightly. In my circle of family, friends and acquaintances, the vast majority have married and divorced - some more than once. Still, I believe in marriage. I believe that there is something fundamental about finding another person on this planet with whom you want to build a life and family, and make a positive contribution to society. I believe that we need more positive role models for successful marriage in this country - something to counteract the images we get bombarded with in popular culture. When we are assaulted with images of celebrities of varying genres, be it actors, sports figures, socialites, or even politicians who shrug marriage on and off like the latest fashion, it is vitally important to the face of our nation, for our children and our future, that we have a balance of commitment and fidelity with which to stave off the negativity. I search for these examples to show my own daughter, so that she can see that marriage is more than a disposable whim, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As a father, I'm sure you have faced these same concerns and difficulties in raising your own daughters. Therefore I can also imagine that you must understand how thrilled I have been over the past few weeks to come home and turn on the news with my family. To finally have concrete examples of true commitment, honest love, and steadfast fidelity was such a relief and a joy. Instead of speaking in the hypothetical, I was finally able to point to these men and women, standing together for hours in the pouring rain, and tell my child that this is what its all about. Forget Britney. Forget Kobe. Forget Strom. Forget about all the people that we know who have taken so frivolously the pure and simple beauty of love and tarnished it so consistently. Look instead at the joy in the beautiful faces of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon - 51 years together! I mean, honestly Mr. President - how many couples do you know who are together for 51 years? I'm sure you agree that this love story provides a wonderful opportunity to teach our children about the true meaning and value of marriage. On the steps of San Francisco City Hall, rose petals and champagne, suits and veils, horns honking and elation in the streets; a celebration of love the likes of which this society has never seen. This morning, however, my joy turned to sadness, my relief transformed into outrage, and my peace became anger. This morning, I watched you stand before this nation and belittle these women, the thousands who stood with them, and the countless millions who wish to follow them. How could you do that, Mr. President? How could you take something so beautiful - a clear and defining example of the true nature of commitment - and declare it to be anything less? What is it that validates your marriage which somehow doesn't apply to Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon? By what power, what authority are you so divinely imbued that you can stand before me and this nation and hold their love to a higher standard? Don't speak to me about homosexuality, Mr. President. Don't tell me that the difference lies in the bedroom. I would never presume to ask you or your wife how it is you choose to physically express your love for one another, and I defy you to stand before Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon and ask them to do the same. It is none of my business, as it is none of yours, and it has nothing to do with the "sanctity of marriage". I'm sure you would agree that marriage is far more than sexual expression, and its high time we all started focusing on all the other aspects of a relationship which hold it together over the course of a lifetime. Therefore, with the mechanics of sex set aside, I ask you again - what makes a marriage? I firmly believe that whatever definition you derive, there are thousands upon thousands of shining examples for you to embrace. You want to protect marriage. I admire and support that, Mr. President. Together, as a nation, let us find and celebrate examples of what a marriage should be. Together, let us take couples who embody the principles of commitment, fidelity, sacrifice and love, and hold them up before our children as role models for their own futures. Together, let us reinforce the concept that love is about far more than sex, despite what popular culture would like them to believe. Please, for the sake of our children, for the sake of our society, for the sake of our future, do not take us down this road. Under the guise of protection, do not support divisiveness. Under the guise of unity, do not endorse discrimination. Under the guise of sanctity, do not devalue commitment. Under the guise of democracy, do not encourage this amendment.

Another letter, this from a colleague's daughter Subject: Letter from my daughter

Sharon -- I thought you would appreciate reading this personal note. Here is a note from my 16-year-old daughter, Evan, on the topic of gay marriage. The note speaks for itself. I am a bit speechless in what her words say to me as her gay dad, and as a gay man in general. I asked for her permission to share this, with you, so here it is. Peace...Robert

Hey. Today at lunch my friend katie and i got in this huge fight about gay marriages. suprisingly i didnt bring it up and i was TRYING to stay out of it until she brought me into it by saying i was a tree-hugging democrat or something retarted like that, (which by the way is not true because i dont know that much about politics to go either way) so we got into it and i just decided since i can write things better than i can scream them..lol... Id type them out for her to aviod any more conflict with her. I just wanted to see what you think about what i said. I brought up all her stupid points. there were more but i couldnt remember them.. anyway..ok Katie maybe your religion has a problem with it, but as a country founded upon equality for all I find it almost hard to believe that something like this is debated so fiercely because of people's BELIEFS. it has nothing to do with legalities or rights or anything like that...people are uncomfortable with it so they're opposed to it. There is NOTHING in our law or constitution against it right now...so WHY is this debate even going on? the main reasons you're saying that its wrong are these...1. "Marriage is between one man and one woman." Well, that's the most one you always hear, But its definitely the weakest. Who says what marriage is to be defined by? It seems to me that if the we can't show a reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And these stupid reasons cant be enough. They're really more like an expression of prejudice more than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a actual reason to do so is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights. You cant deny someone a fundamental human-right without giving them an actual reason.2. "Marriage is for reproduction". Well then. We should ban infertile couples from being allowed to marry. I would love to be there when the this argument is used to explain to a post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings. Wouldn't that be fun to watch! Funny republicans. Id be first in line to take George's wedding band. Again, this doesn't make any sense because of the marriages that society does allow...you don't even have to think about it.3. "Same-sex couples aren't a good environment in which to raise children. "Hmm... That's an interesting one, in light of who society does allow to get married and have children in their marriage. murderers, convicted felons, even child molesters are all allowed to marry and reproduce, with hardly a second thought by you. So if children really are the priority here, why is this allowed? I would be willing to bet the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. What makes the difference is LOVE not freaking gender. And gay people are as capable of loving children as anyone else. I should know. But America says that a Child molester can marry and have kids because its the NORMAL way...he's the NORMAL and TRADITONAL way. A kid in that situation would have a better chance of growing up normally. Right?4. "Gay relationships are immoral." Says who? The Bible? Somehow, I always thought (and was taught) that freedom of religion also gave the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no power in American law, and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules on others simply because it says its wrong or immoral. Someone told me recently that NO religion accepts homosexuality, KATY, which is a LIE. Not all religions have a problem with homosexuality; many parts of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. hmm...so doesn't that mean their religious freedom is being infringed? So basically if you believe in religious freedom then the argument about homosexual immorality is basically pointless and hypocritical. But you wouldnt happen to think about that would you?5. "Same-sex marriage would threaten the sacred institution of marriage."(ok maybe not your exact words but i think they were the presidents) Hmm...This one gets me the most. By allowing people to marry we are threatening...marriage...what? That's so incredibly hypocritical I don't even know where to start. I think by banning homosexual marriage that's infringing upon the 'institution of marriage even more than if you were to allow it.... If it is the institution of heterosexual marriage that worries you, then think about this... no one would requires you or anyone else to participate in a gay marriage katie. So you would have freedom of choice of choosing what kind of marriage you wanted to have-- more freedom than what you have now. More freedom...less freedom.. Beat that. And speaking of divorce -- to say that preserving marriage is so important that you have to impose laws which prohibit gays from getting married...how about you strengthen divorce laws then? seems to me you can almost walk in and out of a court room or even make a phone call to your lawyer and be divorced just like that...sacred marriage...oOoh fear it.6. "Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution." This is morally the worst one to me. What about slavery? Slavery was also a traditional institution, based on traditions that went back to the very beginnings of human history Greeks and Romans and. the French lol.... But hm...by the 19th century, we had realized it was an evil evil thing and abolished it. It was wrong...it wasn't right. Just because something is traditionally one thing doesn't mean it isn't right or can't be changed.Just a side note..while were at it why dont we prohibit Jews from getting married. Purify the race ya know? sounds good to me Bush.


I read a politician's comment that it is impossible to feel anything but fondness for a member of the same sex and I didn't know if I should laugh or cry. Another form of ignorance floating around out there. And so I coined the term that may be more appropriate than sexual orientation and that is falling in love orientation. That's the point. I read another politician's statement about the supposed threat that is posed by gay marriage. And I thought, realitistically what will gay people bring to the institution of marriage? Very likely, gay people will bring to marriage what we have brought to the former "ghetto neighborhoods" that we have pioneered and that would be beauty, class, quality, and romance.

I have realized recently that a lot of the power as well as the responsibility lies with all of the closeted gay folks out there. Keep in mind that there are lots of degrees of being in the closet. There are those that try to live invisible lives, sort of a "don't ask, don't tell." And then there are the majority who only come out sometimes to some people, maybe to all of their close friends but not a stranger on an airplane. I truly believe that if most gay people could come out in some way to 10 more people they encounter in the next few weeks that we could change the numbers for gay marriage from 40% to 50% in a matter of months. I think putting a face on our lives and loves can make all the difference in the world. There may be such a thing as a gay "Uncle Tom" , those folks that seem to agree that their lives and love are not worthy of the respect that is given straight lives and loves. During the civil rights movement, not every Black person was willing to stand up and fight, there were those who continued to accept second class status. The reasons probably varied, some just weren't political, some were afraid, and some had internalized that status and couldn't see life any other way.

Ruth 1: 16, 17 states: "And Ruth proceeded to say: 'Do not plead with me to abandon you, to turn back from accompanying you; for where you go I shall go, and where you spend the night I shall spend the night. Your people will be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I shall die, and there is where I shall be buried. May Jehovah do so to me and add to it if anything but death should make a separation between me and you'."While no mention is made of actual sexual activity between this same-sex couple, it must be pointed out that these couples had made covenants with each other. To the ancient Israelites, a covenant was viewed as a holy bond, a powerful uniting of two people.More on Marriage So why marriage? Well it really is very simple. First people are born gay, it is part of God's plan. Ask any gay person who has finally met the love of their life if maybe God didn't bring that person into their life. Church sactioned gay ceremonies have been going on for years and there really isn't anything that the state can do about that.But aside from church weddings, there is this institution called marriage that encompasses a variety of manifestatations. Sometimes it is based on love, sometimes on money, sometimes on convenience. Some start in churches, some marriages start in Las Vegas. Hindus have arranged marriages, Muslims have their own variation.But what all marrriages have in common is that is the joining of two people to form a family.Traditionally, same sex couples have not been allowed to join this institution. Traditionally, up until 150 years ago, slavery was a recognized institution as well. That doesn't mean that we can't evolve for the better. Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves. Gay marriage comes down to this. Either we open this institution to same sex couples which will strengthen the institution or if gay marriage is constitutionally banned from same sex couples, it is likely to become a dying institution, replaced with some sort of civil partnership. Many people think that is for the best.

But the magic of marriage is how it makes a family out of two legal strangers.What is marriage all about? If you are gay, it might be worthwhile to ask yourself some of these questions and examine what you really believe about marriage.

In order to do that, you have to step back from any bitterness. Yes, you are denied entry into marriage by the conventional means.But let’s look at the parts that typically make up the institution of marriage:
Public commitment of two people to share their lives together and be a family.
A religious commitment in the eyes of God.
A rite of passage to adulthood.
An excuse for a party and gift giving.
The formation of an economic unit
The formation of a legal family with rights and privileges that apply to health decisions, etc.
A sexually exclusive partnership.
It is a commitment made when one is in love with the other person, then and only then should one marry.
It can also be out about playing out gender roles or not at all.

And it is also critical that you examine your feelings about this institution:
I respect the idea of marriage and basically want all the pieces of the pie.
I might have respected it but because I am banned from full participation, I have chosen a different response.
Because it is best not to want what you cannot have, I have relegated marriage to a heterosexual thing.
I respect straight marriages only.
I do not respect their marriages because I am banned.
I agree with part of it but not the entire institution as it exists today.
I think it is a bad idea for both and straight and gay people.
I think it is great for others but not for me.

Take some time to consider all of the implications of the marriage institution and try to be really get to the root of your own feelings. It is virtually impossible that one could grow up in American society and not have pretty strong feelings. At this point, just consider your own feelings and not those of your lover or your family. Now that you know how you feel about marriage,what's next? Clearly you cannot have the whole package as it stands in the U.S. today. And trying to change that is clearly going to be the final step in this exercise.

But meanwhile, taking a hard look at what you want out of marriage and then making some of it happen is a choice. While we all want things to be simple and the idea of this one act, getting married, and thus obtaining all of these pieces at once, is very appealing. But for now, take it apart and see what you can and cannot achieve. You might be surprised at how much difference it makes to your life.

Why are we who we are?

From Science Daily “Our findings may explain why we feel male or female, regardless of our actual anatomy,” Vilain said. “These discoveries lend credence to the idea that being transgender — feeling that one has been born into the body of the wrong sex — is a state of mind. “From previous studies, we know that transgender persons possess normal hormonal levels,” he said. “Their gender identity likely will be explained by some of the genes we discovered.” Vilain’s findings on the brain’s sex genes may also ease the plight of parents of intersex infants, and help their physicians to assign gender with greater accuracy. Mild cases of malformed genitalia occur in 1 percent of all births — about 3 million cases. More severe cases — where doctors can’t inform parents whether they had a boy or girl — occur in one in 3,000 births. “If physicians could predict the gender of newborns with ambiguous genitalia at birth, we would make less mistakes in gender assignment,” Vilain said. Lastly, Vilain proposes that the UCLA findings may help to explain the origin of homosexuality. “It’s quite possible that sexual identity and physical attraction is ‘hard-wired’ by the brain,” he said. “If we accept this concept, we must dismiss the myth that homosexuality is a ‘choice’ and examine our civil legal system accordingly.” The UCLA study was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Science Foundation and with start-up funds from the UCLA Department of Urology. Vilain’s co-authors included Phoebe Dewing, Steve Horvath and Tao Shi, all of UCLA.

Link to a very interesting article for more information
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/

A number of things that I wanted to say have come to mind so hopefully I will be able to sit here and organize them into coherent thoughts. First, let me talk about gender. I do happen to believe, though many other gay and straight people do not, that there are gender differences. And the reality of the human condition on that count is complex. Some people are born with no biologically set gender and there is another state where people are a psychological blend of genders. I believe that is the case with me. I am sure that some of our gender preferences come from societal training, etc. but I do think there are inherent differences. I definitely identify as a woman in some ways, certainly biologically that is the case, but there is an essence of masculine tendencies in me. I have worn girls clothes because I wanted to fit in or needed a job but I always feel like I am in drag. It makes me very uncomfortable. I wanted to do boys things as long as I can remember. When I was younger, I used to wear a neck tie and snuck off to buy boys shoes which I hid under my bed. Before, I go on, let me make it clear that I do not want to be a man. I am very at peace with the whole of me. But I did not get married in a dress. I wore a tuxedo jacket and a very feminine blouse, totally symbolizing who I am. If I try to imagine myself as straight, I can only imagine that possible if I were a male, a sensitive male but a guy. I just cannot even imagine myself as a straight woman. I tried to not be gay and during that time, my life was a disaster because I was living a lie, trying to please society and my parents, but not God. God did not approve of my denying the gift that I have been given to see the world through the eyes of both genders. Native Americans, before they were taught homophobia, called people like me third and fourth gendered and I think there is something to that. They were honored as special people because the blending of the two is wonderful gift. And for me, only love with another woman can fit with who I am. Carol is that perfect fit for me. I am not speaking for all gay people, many have an entirely different experience and would vehemently disagree with my perspective but that is how I see things. When I was a young kid in Sunday school, I remember reading the story of Ruth and Naomi and having hope for me. I believe that it is, as well as the story of Jonathan and David, a story of same sex love.  Now, on the subject of changing values, let me make this point. Slavery was an accepted condition throughout all of human history until the last 150 years. The Bible allows and encourages it and one of the key reasons that I do not consider the Bible the final word from God is because no where does it condemn what to me is perhaps the greatest evil of all time, the concept of one human being "owning" as property another human being. I do believe there are moral absolutes but I also think there is moral relativity. Thomas Jefferson was a great man but he did own slaves and had he lived his exact life in the last 50 years, he would be considered an evil man. But in the context of his times, he was not and thus cannot be judged as such. Of course, judging anyone is dangerous stuff and is something that I try to avoid. I believe that how society treats people like me will have a similar story. People will realize in time, as many already have, that being gay is a natural, positive life for some people and that it is in everyone's best interest to encourage love, stability, etc. among those for whom being gay is a natural condition. And someday, people will look back on those that tried to block that basic human decency and treat them the way we judge Thomas Jefferson, in the context of his time. God will get to sort the important stuff out.


Below is an interview worth reading: Jimmy Cater interviewed by Sean Kennedy From The Advocate, January 17, 2006

Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis (Amazon.com)

You’re a Christian, but you don’t have a problem with gay men and lesbians as many other Christians do. Why? I’m a worshipper of Jesus Christ, who never mentioned homosexuals in any way—certainly not in a deleterious fashion. And when it has been mentioned in the New Testament, it’s been combined with things like selfishness or something like that. So I’ve never looked upon it as any sort of reason to condemn a person. I think it’s an inherent characteristic just like other things that we do with our lives. You point out in your book that the Bible more forcefully condemns sins like adultery, but Christian fundamentalists are less obsessed with that than with homosexuality. Why do you think they pick on gay people? This is an aspect of fundamentalism, where they tend to deal with social issues in absolute black-and-white. They see that this resonates with some people as an emotional factor, homosexuality, and they have escalated it into the political arena deliberately as a divisive issue. What I’ve tried to do in this book is to address not only the question of gay and lesbian people but also abortion, gun control, the death penalty, and other things, and [say] we need to get them out of the political altercations that divide Americans and find some common ground. Among your proposals is leaving marriage to the church to sanction but having the government provide equal rights for all couples in civil unions, including gays. I know that people have different opinions about that, but that’s my own proposal for rational coming together. If an individual church or synagogue doesn’t want to have marriage vows expressed by gay people, I think that ought to be a religious decision. But under no circumstances do I think a gay couple ought to be deprived of their rights as citizens. Why is fundamentalism such a threat? You see it in the Congress every day: You’re either absolutely right or you’re absolutely against me. Even President Bush does that in foreign affairs: You’re either with us or against us. The fundamentalists in religious circles believe that they have a unique relationship with God; therefore their beliefs are absolutely right, and anyone who disagrees with any aspect of their beliefs is wrong and inherently inferior. How do we make them compromise? My book had to go to press in July, but what’s happened since then—with public-opinion polls and the realization among the American people about what’s happening in Washington—is quite indicative that there’s going to be some basic changes made. The 2004 elections were highly distorted by the fact that 9% or 10% of American voters always tend to support the incumbent president no matter whether they disagree with him or not—that sense of patriotism distorted the outcome of the election. And my opinion is, in 2000, Al Gore won both throughout the nation and in Florida. We’d be in a very different place today if that outcome had been legally affirmed. I think so—and if fundamentalism hadn’t penetrated, to such an extent, Washington and its environs


This is funny and sad:
The following is an Open Letter to Dr. Laura which was posted on the Internet: Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your radio show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific Bible laws and how to follow them. a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors bitch to the zoning people. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. What do you think would be a fair price for her? She's 18 and starting college. Will the slave buyer be required to continue to pay for her education by law? c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense and threaten to call Human Resources. d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?....Why can't I own Canadians? Is there something wrong with them due to the weather? e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should this be a neighborhood improvement project? What is a good day to start? Should we begin with small stones? Kind of lead up to it? f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. I mean, a shrimp just isn't the same as a you-know-what. Can you settle this? g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Would contact lenses fall within some exception? h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die? The Mafia once took out Albert Anastasia in a barbershop, but I'm not Catholic; is this ecumenical thing a sign that it'sOK? i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again Dr. Laura, for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Op Ed Piece in Vermont Newspaper:

"Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people. I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny. My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay. He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6.

In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear to continue living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life without dignity. You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that. At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won't get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I don't know. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn. If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?

A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul a Vermonter, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for "true Vermonters. "You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the "homosexual agenda" could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart. He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't the measure of the man.

You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance. How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage. You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin. The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about "those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing" asks: "What ever happened to the idea of striving . . . to be better human beings than we are? "Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that?"

The following presents some very interesting demographics and is a quite effective way of helping all of us realize how fortunate we are.

IF EARTH'S POPULATION WAS SHRUNK INTO A VILLAGE OF JUST 100 PEOPLE WITH ALL THE HUMAN RATIOS EXISTING IN THE WORLD STILL REMAINING, WHAT WOULD THIS TINY, DIVERSE VILLAGE LOOK LIKE?

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT PHILLIP HARTER, A MEDICAL DOCTOR AT THE STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE,ATTEMPTED TO FIGURE OUT. THIS IS WHAT HE FOUND.

57 WOULD BE ASIAN
21 WOULD BE EUROPEAN
14 WOULD BE FROM THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE
8 WOULD BE AFRICAN
52 WOULD BE FEMALE
48 WOULD BE MALE
70 WOULD BE NONWHITE
30 WOULD BE WHITE
70 WOULD BE NON-CHRISTIAN
30 WOULD BE CHRISTIAN
89 WOULD BE HETEROSEXUAL
11 WOULD BE HOMOSEXUAL
6 PEOPLE WOULD POSSESS
59 PERCENT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD'S WEALTH, AND ALL 6 WOULD BE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
80 WOULD LIVE IN SUB-STANDARD HOUSING
70 WOULD BE UNABLE TO READ
50 WOULD SUFFER FROM MALNUTRITION
1 WOULD BE NEAR DEATH
1 WOULD BE PREGNANT
1 WOULD HAVE A COLLEGE EDUCATION
1 WOULD OWN A COMPUTER

What to do with Osama bin Laden....Killing him will only create a martyr. Holding him prisoner will inspire his comrades to take hostages to demand his release. Therefore, it has been suggested that we do neither. Let the Special Forces, Seals or whatever, covertly capture him, fly him to an undisclosed hospital and have surgeons quickly perform a complete sex change operation. Then we return HER to Afghanistan to live as a woman under the Taliban regime.