RECENT  POSTS:  » A new 'Leif': 40 is the new baby dyke » Mental note: Never hire Randy Thomasson to write our obituaries » Audio: They talk, we transcribe their transgressions » Make your own jokes: » Some social conservatives are into bondage » ESPA: Don't do that proverbial towel-throwing thing just yet » But in their defense, company's apostrophe does imply only one boy at a time » There was this mother whose son killed himself or something. But anyway, back to what I was saying about the evil gay agenda... » No marriage equality in NY. But hey, the legislature did earn national head shakes. That's something, right? » Hey Mainers: Do you think your gay neighbors are 'evil?  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

12/02/2008

Selling snake oil 70's style: A look at a Milk era marriage ban

Milk-2As we continue our recognition of Harvey Milk and the fabulous flick that bears his name, we want to show you more of the kinds of headlines and sentiments that fueled his 70's era activism. This time we'll take a look at a 1977 marriage ban that successfully made its way through the California legislature, setting the stage for decades of future elected officials having to waste conversation on what could have been, should have been a non-issue. As you will see, there were some striking similarities (and a few key differences) between the way anti-equality lawmakers futzed with our rights then, and the way they bastardize fairness now:

(In all instances, click pic for full view)

Back in '77, they still used code wording like "sanctity of traditional marriage," framed their actions in terms of "child protection," and denied that their measures would deprive gays of anything:

Coomonmarriagearguments

However, if you dug a little deeper, you could usually see what sort of motivation was lying behind the 'mo foes' more palatable language:

Long Beach Independent
Nestande

But despite the striking similarities in playbook, we did find an interesting distinction between now and then. Back then, before the deceptive religious right turned this matter into one that is "targeting religious freedom," the anti-gay proponents seemed to more fully understand (or at least admit) the differences between civil licensing and religious ceremony:

Interestingdisctinction

Unfortunately, the post-debate headlines were also similar to the ones with which modern gays are all-too-familiar:

Loss

Interestingly, this same Bruce Nestande (whose son Brian was just elected to the CA Assembly) later became the campaign chairman for the openly gay Michael Huffington, himself a marriage equality supporter. Which would seem to indicate another similarity between old school and new school Republicans: The "Some of my best friends are folks who I chose to ban" mindset that has been giving biased social conservatives a pass for far too long.

**EARLIER 70's era insight:

Our MILK timeline:
PART 1: Brush up on your Harvey: A prequel [G-A-Y]
PART 2: 31 years, one million thank yous [G-A-Y]

The marriage fight
From Richard Nixon to Cynthia Nixon: Four decades of stagnant 'marriage protection' [G-A-Y]

Pat Buchanan's 70's era rhetoric
'Sordid and sick': The evolution of Pat's anti-gayness [G-A-Y]

gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-AddThis Feed Button gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

From the Long Beach Independent column, I wonder just which part Assemblyman Nestande thinks needed medical attention.

It all sounds pretty good to me. :)

Posted by: dave b | Dec 2, 2008 1:42:28 PM

Talk to us






*Why are my comments not appearing? See the G-A-Y Comments Policy