Stonewall

Thanks to Joe for the reminder that tonight is the anniversary of the beginning of the Stonewall riots. Joe has reprinted a contemporary New York Post story about the riots.

As much as Stonewall was a watershed in the history of the American gay rights movement, it’s important to remember that gay activism didn’t begin with Stonewall. It had been going on for at least 20 years before then: Harry Hay and the Mattachine Society; ONE, Inc, which brough a case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court about obscenity and the postal service; and Frank Kameny, who is still alive and who organized the first public gay protest, a picket line in front of the White House in April 1965. John Loughery, in his terrific history of American gay life in the twentieth century, The Other Side of Silence, describes Stonewall as “a culmination rather than an isolated uprising.” Nevertheless, Stonewall marked a new assertiveness – not just in gay activism, but in gay culture and gay people’s sense of themselves.

Loughery also writes:

The mythology of the riot… in its crudest form, implies that gay life in America was immediately and dramatically transformed one summer night. In reality, most gay men and lesbians in the United States did not hear anything about Stonewall until years later, if only because the media outside New York City did not cover the riot.

He says that it did get almost immediate coverage in New York, though. While the mainstream New York Times gave it only scant mention in a short article in the back of the paper under the headline “Four Policement Hurt in Village Raid,” the Village Voice gave it in-depth front-page attention.

Out of curiosity, I looked for Stonewall coverage in the Complete New Yorker and found a Talk of the Town piece in the issue of July 11, 1970, describing the first gay pride march in the city, held in commemmoration of the first anniversary of the riots. It begins, “On June 29 [sic], 1969, city police raided the Stonewall Inn, a well-known gay bar on Christopher Street, in Greenwich Village. A gay bar is a bar frequented by homosexuals.” (Not sure if that’s supposed to be tongue-in-cheek or not.) One man at the beginning of the parade route is quoted as saying, “Homosexuals are very silly. They congregate in certain areas and then spend all their time walking up and down the street ignoring each other.” (Sounds like a gay bar to me.) Later on, one marcher says, “Would you believe it? It looks like an invading army. It’s a gay Woodstock. And after all those years I spent in psychotherapy!”

Gay men still go to psychotherapy, but at least they’re no longer in it to try to “cure” themselves.

Thank you, Stonewall rioters.

Flag Burning II

The flag-desecration amendment failed. Good.

It’s a travesty that Congress is wasting time on such a frivolous issue when there are so many other important things to deal with: Iraq, post-Katrina fraud, and an overreaching executive branch, for starters.

Flag Burning

I can’t believe we might have a flag desecration amendment to the Constitution soon. The proposed amendment wouldn’t directly outlaw desecration, but it would empower Congress to outlaw it. The House has already passed it by the necessary two-thirds, and the Senate, which will vote on it this week, apparently has 66 potential votes in favor. That’s one less than is required, so it could go either way. If one more senator decides to vote for it, or if Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia can’t make it to the Senate because of his recovery from back surgery, then the amendment will pass Congress and it will move on to the states. Apparently, all 50 states have passed resolutions endorsing such an amendment, so it’s very likely that 37 states would vote to ratify it, meaning that this stupid law would be enshrined in our constitution.

The practical consequences don’t seem particularly horrible – people don’t typically burn the American flag in protests anymore, and there are countless other ways to protest without burning a flag. And (I say with trepidation) it’s doubtful that Congress would impose a very large penalty for desecrating the flag. But screw the practical consequences. It’s the principle that matters.

From Wikipedia:

The Report of the 108th Congress, in proposing this amendment, stated:

“…’desecrate’ means deface, damage, or otherwise physically mistreat in a way that the actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons likely to observe or discover his action…”

This seems to suggest that the amendment will only apply to acts where the actor intends offense.

Could there be a clearer instance of creating a category of “thought crimes”?

(This is the same reason why I’m uneasy about hate-crimes legislation, by the way.)

As Justice Kennedy stated in his 1989 concurrence in Texas v. Johnson, which held flag burning protected under the First Amendment:

Our colleagues in dissent advance powerful arguments why respondent may be convicted for his expression, reminding us that among those who will be dismayed by our holding will be some who have had the singular honor of carrying the flag in battle. And I agree that the flag holds a lonely place of honor in an age when absolutes are distrusted and simple truths are burdened by unneeded apologetics.

With all respect to those views, I do not believe the Constitution gives us the right to rule as the dissenting Members of the Court urge, however painful this judgment is to announce. Though symbols often are what we ourselves make of them, the flag is constant in expressing beliefs Americans share, beliefs in law and peace and that freedom which sustains the human spirit. The case here today forces recognition of the costs to which those beliefs commit us. It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt.