Gay Patriot Header Image

Back in 1978, Harvey Milk celebrated Gay Freedom Day

Earlier this week at the LA Weekly, Patrick Range McDonald blogged about Tuesday’s celebration of “Harvey Milk Day in honor of the slain San Francisco supervisor who was one of the first gay elected officials in the United States”:

Milk was assassinated by former San Francisco supervisor Dan White in 1978. A few months before his death, he gave a stirring speech at the Gay Freedom Day Parade in San Francisco.

Emphasis added.  Gay Freedom Day?  Freedom?  You mean, back then the watchword wasn’t equality?  Wonder when it changed — and why.

Freedom means the state leaves us alone to live our lives as we choose.  All too often, equality, under its current connotation, means the state attempts to equalize the results.  Modern conservatives much prefer the former notion.

Perhaps, the early gay movement had more in common with the conservative movement than today’s gay activists care to acknowledge.

Share

21 Comments

  1. If we want to discuss revisionist history, this last line takes the cake:

    Perhaps, the early gay movement had more in common with the conservative movement than today’s gay activists care to acknowledge.

    Gay liberals are the reason why there is even a gay movement today. Period.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 24, 2012 @ 5:54 am - May 24, 2012

  2. iIRC, gay freedom became gay pride. One wonders if gay sloth and gay gluttony should also be celebrated.

    Comment by V the K — May 24, 2012 @ 8:24 am - May 24, 2012

  3. “Freedom means the state leaves us alone to live our lives as we choose.”

    No, not quite. Nowadays, freedom means the state leaves the preferred people alone to trample on the lives of others as they choose. For today’s religious fanatics, especially, religious freedom means their freedom to dominate everyone else, and the government must help them do it.

    Comment by Richard R — May 24, 2012 @ 8:43 am - May 24, 2012

  4. For today’s religious fanatics, especially, religious freedom means their freedom to dominate everyone else, and the government must help them do it.

    Comment by Richard R — May 24, 2012 @ 8:43 am – May 24, 2012

    What are some examples of this?
    Thanks!

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 24, 2012 @ 8:56 am - May 24, 2012

  5. Hey Jman. . . here’s a story

    http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/05/23/pastor-put-gays-behind-electric-fence

    Comment by rusty — May 24, 2012 @ 10:22 am - May 24, 2012

  6. but we have another older story. . .he’s not advocating gubmint intervention though. . .

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/05/02/north-carolina-pastor-sean-harris-urges-parents-to-man-up-and-punch-effeminate-children/

    Comment by rusty — May 24, 2012 @ 10:29 am - May 24, 2012

  7. And as soon as those examples get into a position of power where they can force others to violate their consciences, I’ll worry about it Rusty.

    OTOH, Richard R is proof of the ‘accept me or die’ that we see from the left.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 24, 2012 @ 10:38 am - May 24, 2012

  8. You B Right LW, and I am not worried about folk like that getting into positions of power.

    Worley Harris Phelps Wright. . .crazies, but hey they have the right to stand behind a pulpit and expound to the sheeple who gather round.

    Comment by rusty — May 24, 2012 @ 10:43 am - May 24, 2012

  9. Thanks for the links Rusty!

    The_Livewire already posted my sentiments, and I will add this:

    There are FAR FEWER example of members of the religious right trying to use the power and force of government to make others behave as they want them to, than there are liberals and leftists who do the same. There is NO comparison.
    “Inside every leftist is a totalitarian just dying to get out”. (Not an EXACT, but very close quote of one of my favorite conservatives, Dennis Prager).

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 24, 2012 @ 11:24 am - May 24, 2012

  10. Worley Harris Phelps Wright

    Snaps, Rusty.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 24, 2012 @ 11:46 am - May 24, 2012

  11. Jman1961, if you are serious about exploring the issue, here are two places to start, one from each side of the fence:

    From the side seeking Christian domination is David Barton’s Wall Builders (http://www.wallbuilders.com/default.asp). David is a historical revisionist extraordinaire. He doesn’t so much seek to impose his religion as he does to insist that our founding documents mandate it, and that the founding fathers intended to create an explicitly Christian nation. And lest you think he’s just a fringe player talking to himself in a padded room, he is a highly sought-after speaker in religious right circles. He’s one of the key go-to guys for the Christian Nation crowd.

    From the other side is Americans United for Separation of Church and State (http://www.au.org/) which does a great job of countering the theocratic delusions and dreams of Barton and many many other people and organizations. I never allow my membership to lapse, not only because I support their work, but I eagerly look forward to reading their monthly magazine, Church and State, from cover to cover.

    Comment by Richard R — May 24, 2012 @ 12:49 pm - May 24, 2012

  12. I never allow my membership to lapse, not only because I support their work, but I eagerly look forward to reading their monthly magazine, Church and State, from cover to cover.

    This explains much.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 24, 2012 @ 12:55 pm - May 24, 2012

  13. Thanks for the references, Richard.

    Your previous comment I highlighted @4, so no need to do it again. You haven’t provided any persuasive evidence that there is ANY formidable and credible threat from the right to enshrine religious doctrine and to use the coercive force of government, at any level, to impose it. Relative to your links, YOU admit as much:

    He doesn’t so much seek to impose his religion as he does to insist that our founding documents mandate it

    OK, then what’s the problem?

    Let’s take a moment to remember a few words from two of this country’s founders:

    In a speech to the Delaware Indian chiefs, George Washington said:

    “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.”

    John Adams:

    “Our constitution is only fit for a moral and religious people. It is wholly unsuited to the governance of any other kind.”

    There are countless others. And notice that neither of these men spoke of imposing these value.
    Promoting the values and principles enshrined in Christian doctrine is not synonymous with a wish to impose these values on everyone.
    I get tired of it when foolish people constantly conflate the two.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 24, 2012 @ 1:23 pm - May 24, 2012

  14. iIRC, gay freedom became gay pride. One wonders if gay sloth and gay gluttony should also be celebrated.

    Don’t forget gay wrath and gay envy!

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — May 24, 2012 @ 5:11 pm - May 24, 2012

  15. So, the side that has been on a jihad since 1962 to stop religious people from making any public display of their faith is whining that religious people want control over others?

    The irony is enough to give you hemochromatosis.

    Comment by V the K — May 24, 2012 @ 5:26 pm - May 24, 2012

  16. Jman1961, here’s David Barton in action:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK6xgNTVtbo&feature=player_embedded

    You can nitpick over the precise definition of “impose” if you want, but the fact is that there are lots of people on a crusade to have draconian Biblical laws incorporated into US law, and to force public schools to include such nonsense as creationism in science classes to discredit evolution theory.

    You said, “You haven’t provided any persuasive evidence that there is ANY formidable and credible threat from the right to enshrine religious doctrine and to use the coercive force of government, at any level, to impose it.”

    Apparently, it’s convenient to be able to forget Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann.

    Comment by Richard R — May 24, 2012 @ 8:11 pm - May 24, 2012

  17. You mean, back then the watchword wasn’t equality? Wonder when it changed — and why.

    Probably in the 80s or 90s, as the academic left and its Democratic party operatives took over the gay movement and redubbed it the LGBT movement. It’s when the Advocate went from being a celebration of gay male sexual liberation to being politically correct leftwing propaganda. Of course, the AIDS crisis played a role in the shift from “freedom” (perhaps understood primarily as sexual freedom) to left-liberal party line “equality.”

    Comment by Stephen Miller — May 24, 2012 @ 9:19 pm - May 24, 2012

  18. Or we can simply watch gays and lesbians like Richard Rush disrupting church services and attacking people and calling for Republicans and conservatives to be dragged behind pickup trucks and murdered.

    And don’t forget the statements that Richard Rush endorses and supports saying about Dan:

    Dan Blatt is a loathsome piece of sh*t who will sell out other gay people in order to curry the favor of straight Republicans who pat him on the head every now but then call him a c*ck-sucking heels-in-the-air fudge-packed girlie-boy behind his back (even though only the girlie-boy part is actually true). Dan says all this stuff because the probability that any gay man would ever give enough of a sh!t about Dan to visit him in a hospital, much less to have a relationship with him, is remote — as remote as the possibility that Dan will ever have sex with anyone other than a blind leper in a darkened truck stop in rural Alabama, and even then the leper will have to down a fifth of Jack Daniel’s before he can bring himself to do it. F*ck you, Dan, you wretched, illiterate prick.

    That’s what really exposes you as a bigot and a hypocrite, Richard Rush. You don’t oppose hate speech or violence; in fact, you support and endorse slandering other people who disagree with you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 24, 2012 @ 9:22 pm - May 24, 2012

  19. You can nitpick over the precise definition of “impose” if you want

    A poker ‘tell’: if you can’t have your way with the REAL meaning of a word, then you’ll ‘f’ with the word’s clear meaning, both it’s denotation (dictionary) and it’s connotation (common usage), so that you can have your way on this point. Anything to ‘win’, correct?

    Apparently, it’s convenient to be able to forget Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann

    And your point here is………what, exactly?

    I’ve not forgotten any of them, nor their policies, amongst which I can’t come up with one example of legislation, proposed or enacted, that remotely upholds your assertion of ‘religion based oppression’, but then it’s your task to come up with the examples; it’s your argument.
    So I’m not forgetting; but you surely are ‘remembering’…..things that haven’t occured and don’t exist.
    Some folks call that fantasy. Some call it ‘wishful thinking’. Some call it wistful.
    Me, I’ll go with hallucination.
    Or maybe even ‘outright lie’.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 24, 2012 @ 9:25 pm - May 24, 2012

  20. Jman1961 said, “. . . I can’t come up with one example of legislation, proposed or enacted, that remotely upholds your assertion of ‘religion based oppression’, but then it’s your task to come up with the examples; it’s your argument.”

    In #11 I provided two links to sources that could keep you busy reading about this issue for weeks. I’m not going to spoon-feed you. You might find more time to read if spent less time listening to Dennis Prager.

    Comment by Richard R — May 25, 2012 @ 10:08 am - May 25, 2012

  21. Thanks, Richie Boy.
    I took a look at your links; the first is inconsequential, as I’ve pointed out previously. The second one I found to be as irrational on this subject as you are. It argues its points as poorly as you do, and accounts for that wheelbarrow of rhetorical bricks that you strain mightily to push around, resulting in your physical and intellectual hernias.
    Maybe YOU could migrate to a place of increased clarity and greater perspective if you spent more time listening to Dennis Prager and less time reading (‘every month, from cover to cover’ as you informed us) baseless tripe about the oncoming ‘theocracy in America’ from the ‘hate religion’ folks at Fever Swamp Publishing.
    Try ‘The Hardy Boys’ or ‘Nancy Drew’. They won’t be as exciting, but there won’t be any opportunities for you to damage yourself further, and your current self-inflicted injuries will have a chance to heal.
    A ‘win-win’!

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 25, 2012 @ 10:41 am - May 25, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.