- Home
- Editorial
- The Devin's Advocate
- THE DEVIN'S ADVOCATE: THIRTY YEARS AFTER HARVEY MILK
THE DEVIN'S ADVOCATE: THIRTY YEARS AFTER HARVEY MILK
- By Devin Faraci
- Published 10/29/2008
- The Devin's Advocate
Today I saw Gus Van Sant's Milk, and while I'm embargoed from reviewing the film, something struck me in the movie's second half that I think is fair game: we've come almost no distance from where we were when Harvey Milk was alive. Harvey Milk was the first openly gay man elected to a serious position in the United States, and he won his seat on San Francisco's Board of Supervisors in 1977. Eleven months later he was shot dead, along with Mayor George Moscone, by a disgruntled former supervisor, Dan White. Van Sant's film meanders throughout the first half but finds its sharp focus in the campaign that consumed Milk's final days, when he stood against California Proposition 6, which would have forced the firing of all gay schoolteachers in the state - and anyone who supported them.
Thirty years later California has another anti-gay Proposition on the ballot, and it seems like the only progress we've made is in the numbering, since this one is Prop 8. On the surface Prop 8 doesn't seem as draconian as Prop 6, but it's just as cruel and evil at its heart; Prop 8 would ban same-sex marriages in California, which had been ruled constitutional by the California Supreme Court.
Usually we go to see movies about civil rights struggles of the past and they feel like distant nagging voices to us: 'Hey, black people used to have to sit at the back of the bus! They couldn't use white people water fountains!' There's something safe about these stories, and we're allowed to shake our head at the ghosts of bigots past or the pathetic, fringe clowns who make up the race hate establishment today. We shake our heads and feel better about ourselves because we're so progressive and have come a long way, and we feel like we've done our part to keep these sorts of civil rights abuses from happening again because we saw this important movie about this important subject.
But the gay rights movement isn't something from the past*. We've made some progress - there are more gay characters on our TV shows than ever before, for example - but it feels like we're still lagging in so many ways. While it's Dan White who killed Harvey Milk, if there's a villain in Milk it's Anita Bryant, the singer who became a strident, heartless anti-gay activist. She criss-crossed the country, attacking equal rights legislation wherever it sprung up, a one issue Hitler allied with the grotesque, hateful animals of the Moral Majority. And while Bryant fell out of favor and on hard times later in her life, it feels like her spirit is alive and well in the United States today.
Proposition 8 is just the latest in a long series of assaults on gay people, who are apparently the last group you can hate without worrying about too many repurcussions. The most amazing thing about the anti-gay marriage movement is how venomously stupid it is; nobody can give you a good reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, always falling back on some kind of 'protecting traditional families' crap. I'm not going to pull out the old 'outlaw divorce if you're so worried about families' thing but simply ask: 'How the fuck is this hurting families?' Is gay marriage becoming compulsory? Is there a competition between gay marriage and straight marriage, and straight marriage is worried about losing out on all those closeted gays who have unhappy marriages just to remain hidden? I literally do not understand how gay marriage is in any way a threat to traditional marriage, since they seem to be appealing to two very different groups of people.
What a dumb argument to even be having in the 21st century. What a tragedy that there are still people who hate gays for no good reason three decades after the murder of Harvey Milk. How sad is it that there are still people who are actively trying to deny gay people the most basic rights and happinesses. How insane is it that attacks on gays for the simple crime of being gay continue to this day; here in California, on February 12 of this year, an openly gay fifteen year boy was shot dead in school for asking another boy to be his valentine. A 27 year old man was beaten to death in Washington DC a few weeks ago for being gay. Thirty years ago, Harvey Milk fought for the ideas that gay people should be allowed to be open about who they are and still keep their jobs and their lives. Thirty years later people are still fighting for these basic, obvious rights. Why have we progressed so little? Why does Milk have to be so relevant today?
*and to be fair, neither is the African-American civil rights movement.
Spread The Word
Related Articles
Comments
Comment #1 (Posted by Eastern)
wow. for the first time i agree with devin.
Comment #2 (Posted by Bryan)
fantastic devin. really well done.
california chewers: No on 8!
Comment #3 (Posted by Walt)
Well written; puts the current situation in perspective. Thanks for fighting the good fight.
Comment #4 (Posted by an unknown user)
late to the party again america. sort your shit out and join the 21st century.
Comment #5 (Posted by atomo)
Two for two, Faraci. Well done, sir.
Comment #6 (Posted by David)
I'll be honest I almost never agree with you Devin but well done on highlighting this a very well written piece.
Comment #7 (Posted by Cynic)
Hate to say it, but America is not the only country unaccepting of homosexuality. Rather, it is something of a haven compared to several dozen countries that don't even know the party exists.
Comment #8 (Posted by Elisabeth)
Well said -- and I couldn't agree more. I keep hoping that I live to see the day when sexual orientation, religious affiliation (or lack of), gender, or the color of your skin is no longer relevant to who you are as a human being.
But for every step forward, we seem to take two back.
Comment #9 (Posted by Phil Connors)
*applause*
What a fucking brilliant article. Dev, keep using your powers for Good, man.
Comment #10 (Posted by Owain Wilson)
Watching the coverage of your election from over here in the UK, along with the above article, I've really come to realise that culturally, America is centuries behind so many other countries.
Comment #11 (Posted by an unknown user)
FAG!!!!
Comment #12 (Posted by FL Chewers: Vote No on 2!)
To paraphrase Bill Hicks, we just have to wait for these cavemen to meet us at the evolutionary bell curve.
Comment #13 (Posted by Chadzilla)
Well said and every single word is true.
Comment #14 (Posted by takaspark)
Van Sant's film meanders throughout the first half but finds its sharp focus in the campaign that consumed Milk's final days
Embargo? Please define "em-bar-go."
Comment #15 (Posted by the twinkie defense)
I like how one of Jello Biafra's campaign promises when he ran for mayor of San Francisco was to erect Dan White (the man who killed Mascone and Milk) statues across the city so people could throw pies at them.
Comment #16 (Posted by asdf)
Maybe your finest article, Devin.
Comment #17 (Posted by dinobass)
On Apple's website, under Hot News, in addition to touting their new MacBooks and other products, there is a Vote No on Prop 8 headline. Gotta be impressed with that.
Comment #18 (Posted by carmen)
I've been going over and over this same issue in my head recently, also on the issue of race. I live in the racist hotbed of the South, Alabama, and I'm the lone rational minded person around m ost of the time. Great article Devin, nice to hear there's other sane people out there.
Comment #19 (Posted by Josh)
Right on! Marriage is whatever we want it to be. I say the goverment should give benefits to everyone who wants them! No matter that why the goverment recognizes and rewards traditional marriages is because that is where the next generation comes from, and they grow up as a whole more well developed, and less likely to do things the goverment disslikes in these homes. Let people marry an ol' thing they want to, and reward them because they are in love! Really people, what does the goverment care if you are in love? They don't, they legitamize marriage because it benefits society through children, same sex marriage doesnt't.
But no matter, I want to marry a tree, go prop 8!!!
Comment #20 (Posted by j)
Well said Devin.
Comment #21 (Posted by roger)
I think a "civil union" is fine. A "marriage" usually involves a church. I don't think a church should be forced to perform a marriage ceremony that is against its' religion.
Comment #22 (Posted by Richard)
We've got the same thing going through in Florida. Amendment 2, makes it so only married couples can adopt, and that only married couples can get benefits. Everyone else is screwed. It's basically aimed at keeping gay couples from adopting and from sharing each others benefits.
Comment #23 (Posted by Tony)
Hey Josh, nice try at sarcasm, but you are sadly way off the mark. There are about 3 million children living in households with gay parents. Those fighting for gay marriage rights are working to protect those children. It doesn't matter how gay people end up with children, there are many many ways, so contrary to your bigoted, closed minded, narrow experience, same sex families do include children and the next generation of america. So you can take your narrow view of the world and go back to humping your tree.
Comment #24 (Posted by Tennyson E. Stead)
I agree - I don't think the producers of Milk will mind your using the film as an opportunity to highlight hate legislation. Remember Californians, vote NO on PROP 8. And check out John August's blog for the single best breakdown of how ridiculous this whole thing is.
Comment #25 (Posted by an unknown user)
"...apparently the last group you can hate without worrying about too many repercussions..." i don't think Muslims have it all that much better right now either. And anyone who says they brought it on themselves is an ignoramus. Great article, though.
Comment #26 (Posted by Josh)
Thanks for the response Tony! I apperciate you actually using reasoning ,and not just calling me a homophobe.
My point is that the government recognizes and rewardstraditional marriage becasue it is obviously the optimum situation. A child gets a strong male and female authority influence and should grow to respect and understand both. Do same sex couples have children? Many do, but the goverment aren't under any obligation to reward them for bringing up the next generation in a to put it in your terms a more "narrow experience" that only has one gender represented as a primary authority figure.
Another concern is that if marriage is anything, why not allow marriages with multiple people? People are starting to demand it in many European countries that have allowed same sex marriage for many years.
Same sex partners should be allowed to have a ceremony and spend the rest of there lives with each other, I just don't think the goverment has any reason to reward and legitimze it by saying it is the same thing as tradtional marriage. It just isn't.
I do apologize for the sarcasm earlier. It came off as very hateful and all I want is a clear headed conversation without all the vitrol that tends to be thrown around in talkbacks.
Comment #27 (Posted by oslowe)
Cynic says that some countries don't even know "the party" exists, which bothers me slightly. It isn't like chosing Tory or Whig... oh, unless he means the "party" just goes on all the time, cause, obviously!
8=Hate
Comment #28 (Posted by Robert)
True we've made little progress.... but I can't say that I'm surprised. Changes like this are generational and in part we'll just need to wait until the older generations of intolerance die off. Still it's no consolation saying "be patient" when people are being denied their basic human rights.
Still, it helps to focus on the progress that has been made. The gay rights movement is no longer in it's infancy... it's rolling ahead. And while it may be a slow uphill climb, with millions of people's feet on the gas, it's not going anywhere.
Comment #29 (Posted by Jacob Singer)
Josh, your reasoning is off. The government simply recognizes a civil contract between two individuals. It isn't "rewarding" anybody anything. Under your thesis, the government should be restricted to only authorizing marriages of couples who intend to have children. Not everyone who marries plans on procreating, or even CAN procreate. There is no more reason to deny a same-sex marriage than there is to deny a seventy-year-old couple getting married.
Comment #30 (Posted by an unknown user)
great article! and the feedback was awesome to read also. Canada's been on the right track for a few years until the current (and once again minority) government wanted to 'revisit' the definition of marriage. but the great thing i can i say about Canadians is that as a whole it was pushed back and never 'revisted'.
Comment #31 (Posted by Joseph)
Many marriages are done in City Halls and other government locations, as well as in non-religious affiliated chapels (anyone think the Vegas Elvis is part of a denomination?). As a pragmatist, I personally don't feel calling it Civil Union, Marriage or Gayrriage is as important as allowing absolute equal rights. However, only allowing Civil Unions, and drawing a steadfast line between that and 'Straight Marriage' sets a dangerous precedent of "Separate but Equal." And we've already gone down that route in this country. Also, to Josh's point, Male/Female parents certainly offer a specific ideal, but one that rarely lives up to that romanticized ideal - look at all the screwed up murders, rapists, 'terrorists' etc in the US... how many of those came from two parent homes? Plenty, because just having a man and a woman together doesn't ensure happy upbringing. Love should be present. And even then, there is no guarantee, people are not plants that grow properly if you give them just the right amount of water and sun. It would be to the government's benefit to encourage couples who cannot conceive of their own (i.e. Gay couples) to adopt the millions of children in Foster care, and one way of doing that is to give the same rights of parenthood that married couples get, so as to make the choice all that much easier.
Comment #32 (Posted by Mike S.)
Josh. Gay Marriage isn't a slip n' slide that's going to lead to other unsavory things. It's not a getway drug. Gay Marriage isn't just marrying "any ol' thing they want to". It's the marriage of TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. It's EXACTLY like traditional marriage, it's just with two "gay" people. I don't know have any idea where the hell you get your information about the effects of same-sex parenting on children but I'm guessing it's your gut. Cause you just displayed opinions from your gut. Everything you said has absolutely no psychological basis for the effect on children. And you seem to think that this homosexuality thing is a choice of people marrying "any ole thing they want to", but contrary to what you may have heard, people have been homosexual for a very, very long time. Thousands and thousands of years. Hell, longer than people have been christians, people have been gay. That's cause for about 10% of the population it's genetic predisposition. What separates that from all your other things of "multiple marriages" and "marrying trees" is the genetic reality of homosexuality's place in society. It's two consenting adults. How more traditional can you get? Also how exactly is traditional Marriage so beneficial of society? When fifty percent of couples end in divorce? On the other side of that, a shocking amount of the kids I knew at home were abusive assholes. What a great role model: abusive dad and abused mom. I'm not trying to be too tangential on that point, I'm just saying that every single same-sex home I've seen has been a loving, thoughtful environment regardless of how you may think they are. And I've known a hell of a lot of "traditional marriages" that were awful environments. So go ahead and actually spew the traditional marriage nonsense without a lick of understanding of what the phrase actually means. It doesn't suit you well.
Comment #33 (Posted by Ryan)
Colour me impressed...we're 30 comments into this thing and and we have a disproportionately low douchebaggery count. And the douchebags present are actually on subject. You have surprised me, CHUD commenters! In the good way!
Comment #34 (Posted by Ed)
“Marriage” is a legal term as far as the government is concerned, not a moral or religious one. It helps couples and their children navigate government bureaucracy to do things like donate organs, visit each other in hospitals, inherit estates, file joint tax returns, and so forth. There is absolutely no reason why religious dogma should get caught up in the mix. I say erase the word "marriage" in law books and replace it with "civil union" or some other term. Leave "holy matrimony" to the churches and let government work for its citizens.
Comment #35 (Posted by Billy)
Amen, Devin, amen.
Comment #36 (Posted by Andy)
Ed: Well said. What I have always failed to understand in this debate is why there is any debate at all. There is supposed to be a separation of Church and State so that religious views are not forced upon the people. However, for some reason we continue to let religion dictate the definition of a word. There is no rational argument whatsoever for prohibiting gay marriage. However, calling it a "civil-union" when gays do it and a "marriage" when straights do it defies the reasoning for allowing it at all: We. Are. ALL. Equal. While some may argue "marriage" vs. "civil-union" are just semantics, I argue that a) If it's just semantics, why does it matter what word is used? And B) It's not just semantics because in this world, "marriage" has a weight that "civil-union" does not. I am married, though I never stepped in a church to do so. I'm an atheist and I believe that the union between two lovers is the closest thing to "holiness" there is to be found. Who are we to deny anyone of that right?
Comment #37 (Posted by roger)
if gay marriage were legalized and a church refused allow a service to be held in its sanctuary because it was against its' religious beliefs, wouldn't that church be accused of discrimination?
Comment #38 (Posted by Remembers when America used to be about freedom)
Great post. Marriage isn't special or sacred anymore so what's the big deal? What? Who still holds on to the ancient beliefs we used to have about men and women staying hitched for eternity? We're coming to a point in America where we have to seriously think about what it means to be american today, to be tolerant of each other's differences, or preserve some old laws and stuff that no longer applies because we're too afraid to lose them.
Comment #39 (Posted by Matt M.)
roger, I suppose it's possible that a church could be accused of discrimination, but if I'm interpreting the law correctly, the state cannot impose upon the church to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. It can, however, revoke their tax-exempt status. At this point, I suppose it comes down to an argument over whether or not you believe said revocation constitutes government interference. Personally, I say that, as long as a church plays by the government's rules (including anti-discrimination clauses), it should have the privilege of tax exemption. If it doesn't, then it has to pay taxes like any other organization.
Comment #40 (Posted by Homolvr)
Great more pro fag propaganda from Hollywood!
Comment #41 (Posted by roger)
My point exactly Matt. Churches would be forced to perform ceremonies that are against the principals of the religion or face law suits and loss of tax exemption. It would give anti-religious activists too much legal leverage.
Don't get me wrong. I am in favor of gay couples getting all the legal rights under law as hetero couples. I think that can be accomplished with a "Civil Union" or a "Civil Marriage"-type arrangement. Too me, that is what you have when you get your marriage license. It should just be called a "Civil Marriage License" to differentiate it from the "Marriage" that is performed by a chosen religion. That way, if you can find a religion that allows gay marriage you are married all the way around, otherwise, you have a "Civil Marriage".
Comment #42 (Posted by Ed)
The government is not going start forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages, just like it's not going to force the Catholic church to accept men as nuns. That's just ridiculous.
Comment #43 (Posted by roger)
Really? It is sad that you are so naive. Admittedly, at first it wouldn't. First would be the rash of lawsuits against the churches. Then Senator Harvey Milk 2 would come along and propose a bill making it a crime for a church to discriminate based on sexual orientation. The bill would also include so many other "incentives" that it would pass. Of course eventually the Muslims, who are willing to die for their beliefs, will overrun us all and we will finally have world peace.
Comment #44 (Posted by Phil)
Y'all should digg this article.
http://digg.com/educational/THE_DEVI...ER_HARVEY_MILK
Comment #45 (Posted by Devin)
That link doesn't actually work, but you can use the Digg badge at the top of the article or this tinyurl
http://tinyurl.com/6387hk
Comment #46 (Posted by Benjy)
Thank you.
Comment #47 (Posted by Steve)
Why is Penn playing Milk just like his retarded I Am Sam character? That's pretty offensive.
Comment #48 (Posted by JRyan)
True homosexuality is genetic. Not a choice. Once you realize that, it's pretty obvious what the right thing is.
Comment #49 (Posted by duh)
Shut up, Steve.
Comment #50 (Posted by an unknown user)
Asking us to digg this article for you is a laugh. Continue treating your readers like garbage.
"FUCK YOU! Oh by the way can I borrow 20 bucks?"
Comment #51 (Posted by joe)
godwin's law at....paragraph five.
Comment #52 (Posted by Tyler Foster)
Devin wasn't necessarily asking people to Digg the article. Someone else posted a link to Digg the article and it was broken, so Devin provided the correct link.
Comment #53 (Posted by coolbrick)
Monogamy is the most common form of marriage only because the Roman Catholic Church deemed it so. It is argued that the church did this to steal away property from various tribes. The Romans did it, the Greek, and on and on. Property! The whole fucking thing is about property. Sorry Christians, but you cannot use your traditional marriage argument because the closest thing to traditional marriage according to the Bible would be polygyny. Can you guess what the most preferred form of marriage is? Polygamy. Plus same sex marriage is more common than you would think. Many cultures practice it to this day, and not all are homosexual by the way.
Comment #54 (Posted by an unknown user)
Godwin's Law aside (honestly neocon =/= Hitler) this was a good article.
We really haven't come very far. Oh certainly queer men are viewed much more favorably then they once were but what about queer women? They're hot and horny and afraid of commitment on the L Word or teetering on the cusp of heterosexuality on Grey's Anatomy. Then there are the bisexuals who everyone assumes are just reckless sexaholics. Our treatment (and that includes Europe) of the LBGT community is fairly appalling.
Comment #55 (Posted by an unknown user)
~insert AIDS Joke~.......... now.
Comment #56 (Posted by hank_chinaski)
roger, you sounded semi-intelligent up until your muslim remark. it lets everyone know your a fuckin idiot. you must then believe every stereotype of everyone and everything out there. Not all Muslims are fundamentalists who wear towels around their head with bombs wanting to blow up you and your family alone, and NO ONE ELSE on their bloodless (except for your family of course) coup for the US govt. you obviously have ZERO world perspective outside your "good christian" values.
Comment #57 (Posted by Veronica)
Roger, churches are allowed to refuse any couple. Up in Costa Mesa, the church refused to perform a marriage because the couple (who are straight) wanted to use "fuck" in their ceremony. The couple sued for "discrimination" and lost.

