1
Outside the Box
How Differing Subcultures within the Gay Community United to
Advance the Gay Rights Movement during the Mid to Late Nineteenth
Century
Professor Caron
Dale Davis
4/7/15
2
The contemporary gay rights movement advocates broad sociopolitical equality through
legislation protecting civil rights including the right to work and to marry. Whereas gay rights
once referred to societal inclusion, the rights umbrella now covers protection against violence,
the right to military service, and the right to adopt children1.The movement, however, did not
always include the range of sexual and gender identities now associated with the acronym
LGBT. Throughout the mid-twentieth century, numerous homophile groups organized to define a
common ideology with which the metropolitan gay man could identify. Lesbian rights
organizations such as the Daughters of Bilitis emerged and other groups such as Harry Hay’s
Mattachine Society (MS) eventually included women, but the majority of homophile groups
focused primarily on gay men until the late twentieth century. Whereas activists engaged in
petitioning and minor litigation during the early years of the movement, by the 1980s proponents
had adopted direct lobbying, civil disobedience, and mass protests as activist tactics. Both
indirect and direct activism continued, with the latter more dominant than the former
immediately preceding and following the 1969 Stonewall Riots. Activist tactics continued to
diversify along with the gay community as the movement positively influenced a wider public
audience, evidenced through the successful campaigns against police brutality and federal
employment discrimination. Once individuals began to recognize children, friends, neighbors,
etc. as homosexuals, public opinion increasingly favored the gay rights movement as it continues
to do so today. This article investigates through case studies of homophile organizations how the
nature of activism changed within the gay rights movement during the mid to late twentieth
Leahy, Michael and Dan Cohn-Sherbok. “Part III: Gay Liberation”. The Liberation Debate: Rights At Issue.
London: Routledge, 1996: 88-89.
1
3
century. This article ultimately asserts that opposing factions within the gay rights movement
united after the Stonewall Riots and incorporated both legislative activism and mass civil
disobedience, and not solely civil disobedience, to lead the movement to success.
Social scientists and other scholars generally analyze activism within the context of the
gay rights movement as either litigious or civil, but mainly credit tactics focusing on civil
disobedience with popularizing the movement. Such activism inherently drew public attention to
protests while litigation directly concerned politicians and the courts. One scholar argues that
populist governments by nature disfavor unpopular minorities due to citizens’ role in voting
referendums2. Because the movement faced intense public and legal scrutiny during the 1950s,
organizations such as the MS accordingly relied on secrecy to protect its members. A category of
‘middle class assimilationists’ subsequently arose to argue that homosexuals did not differ from
heterosexuals save for their sexual preferences3. Robert Amsel nonetheless suggests that without
nonconformist activists the gay rights movement would have stalled at the Stonewall Riots or
even earlier4. Though parallels between the two types of activism exist, the literature
concentrates on the divisions within the gay community and fails to investigate whether or how
these different ideological advocates worked together to advance the gay cause. This article
primarily examines the discussions about activists from the creation of the MS through the
radicalization of the gay rights movement to determine how these differing ideological factions
worked together to influence the gay rights movement.
2
Pappas, Christine, Jeannette Mendez, and Rebekah Herrick. "The Negative Effects of Populism on Gay and
Lesbian Rights." Social Science Quarterly 90.1 (2009): 150-63. America: History and Life. Web. 10 Feb 2015.
3
Hay, Harry. "Our Own Faerie Way." Annual Awards Dinner. Southern California Library for Social Studies and
Research. , Los Angeles, California. 1 Jan 1994. Speech.
4
Amsel, Robert. "Back to Our Future? A Walk on the Wild Side of Stonewall." Advocate Web. 15 Sept 1987
4
The origin of the modern gay rights movement stems from the Second World War
because the war redistributed thousands of young adults from rural areas to defense industries in
metropolitan areas. Rather than leave their family homes to settle immediately with a partner as
they had throughout the century, young adults whom the war effort mobilized escaped the reach
of familial influence and instead lived independently in large cities where they experienced new
value systems and cultures. Homosexuals began to meet others like themselves, especially since
the military attracted young men with few familial or social ties, a preponderance of which were
gay men. Although the military strictly forbade gay men from enlisting, the archaic medical
exams used to detect homosexuals relied on stereotypical characteristics of gay men and many
homosexuals enlisted unexposed. The war effort thus for the first time drew large numbers of
gay men together5. Large populations of homosexuals migrated to urban areas during and after
the war, having grown accustomed to independence from families and rural social constrictions6.
The gay rights movement accelerated once homosexuals recognized that others sharing their
same sociopolitical struggle existed.
To understand why the gay rights movement developed, it is important to understand how
urban gays organized in response to arguments against homosexuality. One scholar suggests that
opponents illustrate homosexuality as immoral because they view heterosexuality as superior to
homosexuality. Gay rights advocates on the other hand appeal to the civil rights ideals of
egalitarianism and nondiscrimination7. Perhaps resulting from the heterosexual superiority
5
D'Emilio, John. Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities. Second ed. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1998: 23-25.
6
Douglass, Charles. "From Subversion to Obscenity: The FBI's Investigations of the Early Homophile Movement in
the United States, 1953-1958." Journal of the History of Sexuality18.2 (2010): 262-67. America: History and Life.
Web. 10 Feb. 2015.
7 Mucciaroni, Gary. Same Sex, Different Politics: Success and Failure in the Struggles Over Gay Rights. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2008: 94-95
5
complex, urban areas passed lewdness ordinances against homosexual conduct and enacted
discriminatory employment practices to maintain this balance against the gay community. Such
ordinances as well as anti-sodomy laws prevailed because the gay community constituted an
unpopular minority, which another scholar suggests enabled politicians to codify anti-gay laws in
order to satisfy their electorate bases8. The gay community therefore found it most difficult to
organize because these preexisting anti-homosexual stereotypes prevented gays from advocating
their cause without risking their careers and social ties. Society simply viewed homosexuals as
deviants. Due to these risks and social pressures, gay activism began in secret discussion groups
that intended to identify and then to unify gays around a common ideology.
Harry Hay created the first such discussion group in 1950s Southern California in order
to unite urban gays behind a common ideology. The group ‘came out’ to one another during the
first meeting, leading them to discover that they held more similarities in common than expected.
This type of discussion group, however, attracted predominantly middle class white men whom
Hay dubbed ‘middle class assimilationists’ because they identified as homosexual but argued for
integrating into society. These assimilationists (As) argued for cohesion with heterosexual
society because as middle class workers, they would lose their careers and social ties if revealed
as homosexual. Hay argued, however, that gays formed their own subculture independent of
mainstream society9. Not only to appease the As but also to ensure the safety of MS members,
Hay structured the organization similarly to the communist party to disguise its membership.
Activism within the discussion group thus initially consisted of distributing leaflets and posting
flyers throughout Southern Los Angeles, not the mass demonstrations associated during the
8
Pappas, Christine, Jeannette Mendez, and Rebekah Herrick. "The Negative Effects of Populism on Gay and
Lesbian Rights”, 150-52
9
Hay, "Our Own Faerie Way"
6
1960s and 1970s with the gay rights movement. These early activists relied on secrecy to ensure
the longevity of the movement because if the public knew their identities, they would likely lose
their jobs and therefore a monetary base to fund their activism. Additionally, police aware of the
MS could raid the organization and dismantle its leadership thanks to the lewdness ordinances.
Gay rights activists initially separated their identities from their activism to protect their
social status and careers. Police entrapment schemes complicated this task. When gay men
frequented known gay businesses, plainclothes police officers would proposition them and arrest
them for lewd conduct. Gay men would usually acquiesce to the charges, yet Los Angeles MS
(LAMS) member Dale Jennings decided to fight against the charges levied against him in an
entrapment scheme. The LAMS formed the Citizens Committee to Outlaw Entrapment (which
operated separately from the MS in name), formally entering into legal activism for the first
time10. The organization’s lawyers exonerated Jennings, ushering in yet another first in the
movement’s tactics: successful courtroom activism. Because the Committee and the LAMS
operated independently, the LAMS successfully maintained its relatively low profile briefly even
after this legal victory.
The LAMS grew from only 31 members to over 100 and MS chapters spread throughout
California and then to New York and Washington, DC in the years following this victory. Their
legal success, amid increased scrutiny from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the
House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), drove MS members to argue that the
organization’s leadership restructure to publicize its officers and membership base. The As
argued that if the group had nothing to hide, then its leaders would disclose the group’s
10
Douglass, "From Subversion to Obscenity”, 265-68
7
members. The rift between the leadership and the As widened, with the As successfully
eradicating the original founders from the organization largely because of Hay’s communist
ties11. This shift in organization and leadership prompted the MS to focus on operating within
rather than outside of heterosexual society because the new leaders asserted that the gay
movement would best serve gays by conforming12. As the first major gay rights organization, the
MS became the paradigm after which numerous other homophile organizations would emerge as
well as a key player throughout the 1960s.
Whereas the MS’s founders intended the organization to give the gay rights movement an
ideology, the group in just under ten years transformed from merely unifying the gay community
to lobbying the federal and state governments for rights. These tactical shifts paralleled the
public’s changing conception of the gay man as homosexuality became more apparent to the
nation. The gay rights movement gained prominence throughout the 1960s due to the growing
portrayals of gay men through mass media. Hollywood, still reeling from the Red Scare, overtly
depicted homosexuals as unstable and detrimental to society. Films and literature circulating
within gay circles oppositely attempted to show that while homosexual culture sometimes
differed from mainstream society, gays experienced similar daily struggles as heterosexuals13.
In conjunction with film and literature, journalists finally discovered the gay community
as evidenced through numerous magazines and periodicals like Time, Harpers, and the New York
Times running editorials describing the lifestyle of the metropolitan gay man. These publications
offered both pro-gay rights and anti-gay rights opinions, but columns also began to publicize the
Douglass, "From Subversion to Obscenity”, 267-70
D'Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities, 79-81
13 Ibid., 135-38
11
12
8
clinical theory of homosexuality as a mental disease14. To combat these viewpoints, the New
York MS (NYMS) turned to white-collar professionals such as doctors and lawyers to counter
such unfavorable opinions. Because assimilationist gay men in the NYMS considered themselves
white-collar professionals as well, they ironically understood these counterarguments to include
themselves yet exclude more effeminate, nonconformist gay men.
The assimilationist takeover of the Mattachine Society had driven the gay subculture
underground and subjugated working class, nonconformist homosexuals to more severe scrutiny.
As within the organization had successfully created two opposing conceptualizations of the gay
man: the white-collar heteronormative professional and the embarrassing ‘screaming queen’15.
Classifying themselves as the professional, successful workers, MS members had differentiated
their homosexuality from that of swishes, who identified as stereotypically effeminate men, drag
queens, and others who did not fit the assimilationist mold16. Society therefore associated these
swishes with negative stereotypes of gay men and routinely excluded them from social and
employment opportunities even more so than the As, who relied on their ability to be perceived
as straight to protect them from discrimination.
One radical view of assimilationists suggests that white gay men desire the same superior
social status of white heterosexual men and thus the same access to institutionalized, systemic
patterns of superiority. This argument further posits that some facets of the gay rights movement
idealized ‘signs of straight conformity’ as ‘ultimate signs of gay success’17. In this context, As
D’Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities., 137-40
Ibid., 158-61.
16
Loftin, Craig. "Unacceptable Mannerisms: Gender Anxieties, Homosexual Activism and Swish in the United
States, 1945-1965." Journal of Social History (2007): 1-16. WFU Sakai. University of Southern California. Web. 9
Feb 2015.
17 Ruiz, Jason. "The Violence of Assimilation: An Interview with Mattilda Aka Matt Bernstein Sycamore." Radical
History Review 100 (2008): 238-41. America: History and Life. Web. 10 Feb 2015.
14
15
9
positioned themselves as superior to swishes in order to ensure that heterosexual society would
condemn them yet leave As to themselves. Because conformist homosexuals usually worked
middle class careers, they wielded more influence than did swishes, a category that typically
included non-white young men, college students, and unskilled laborers.
Identifying as a swish, activist Randy Wicker briefly affiliated with the NYMS but
disassociated from the organization and created the Homosexual League of New York,
consisting solely of himself, in the early 1960s to combat the dominance of the As within the gay
rights movement. Disenfranchised by the suppression of swishes due to their general exclusion
from the movement, Wicker used the League to highlight the disjunction within the gay rights
movement between the two factions by giving a voice to the significantly more oppressed
swishes. Because society easily recognized swishes and not assimilationists, the conformists
found acceptance in society because their colleagues and friends usually perceived them as
heterosexual. Using his organization, he coordinated a radio program in which gay men would
debate the clinical position of anti-gay psychologists on air. Due to the program’s success,
Wicker gained publicity through numerous national magazines that wrote about Wicker’s
lifestyle as a gay man patronizing an area gay neighborhood known as the Village18. Once
Wicker utilized the League to legitimize the more diverse members of the gay community, these
articles began to reveal the long hidden but thriving subculture of gay men within New York
City.
To succeed, the gay rights movement began to adopt similar tactics and ideologies used
by the civil rights movement. Intertwined with these movements is the idea of patriotic protest
18
D’Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities, 158-61
10
and activism. Similar to the civil rights movement, gay rights activists attempted further to
legitimize the movement through appeals to the American Dream and the founding fathers’
principle of equality. This connection between activism and patriotism, however, required that
gay rights activists maintain their respectability19. Therein lies the chief reasoning behind the
division between assimilationists and swishes. Conformist homosexuals viewed nonconformists
as unrespectable within the context of 1960s society, in their opinion distancing themselves in
order to protect the gay rights movement. As recognized that society plainly refused to accept
swishes. The NYMS consequently rallied behind societally respected professionals such as
doctors and psychologists to prove that homosexuals deserved equal treatment. Swishes such as
Wicker, on the other hand, argued that only through changing society’s perception of
nonconformist homosexuals could the gay rights movement succeed.
Wicker’s organization as well as tactics the Mattachine Society began to adopt represents
the resurgence of the militancy within the gay rights movement during the 1960s. Modeled after
the civil rights movement, this gay militancy became an important tactic of the Washington, DC
MS (WMS), which began to lobby against federal employment discrimination20. Militancy, or
coordinated mass protests, in the context of the WMS largely intended to support the As while
ignoring the swishes because the organization refused to accept the possibility of effeminate gay
men working as white-collar professionals. The WMS nonetheless paired with their local chapter
of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to tackle federal workplace discrimination
against homosexuals. Utilizing the case of a man not hired because he displayed homosexual
tendencies, the two organizations sued the federal Civil Service Commission21. Though the judge
19
Hall, Simon. "The American Gay Rights Movement and Patriotic Protest." Journal of the History of
Sexuality 19.3 (2010): 1-28. America: History and Life. Web. 10 Feb 2015
20
D’Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities, 150-60
21
Ibid., 155-60
11
dismissed the case because the accusation proved too vague (not on the merit that discrimination
is inherently wrong), the dismissal itself signified the first time the court decided blanket
accusations of homosexuality did not necessarily constitute incompetency to work. Although the
WMS’s lobbying tactics intended to support directly assimilationists and overlooked the swishes,
the organization’s success inherently benefitted all gay men by petitioning for broad employment
nondiscrimination.
Again, the As comprised trained white-collar workers, standing to lose social status,
profitable careers, and friendships if their coworkers discovered their homosexuality. Because
they considered swishes incapable or unyielding to hide their sexualities, assimilationists posited
that swishes could not occupy the same category of the workforce as did they. The one equalizer
of gay society, however, was the “cruising” scene, or locations that homosexual men frequented
in order to meet other men. When police raided such gay bars and neighborhoods including the
Village in NYC, they paid no attention to whether the suspected “deviant” identified as a swish
or an assimilationist. Where As often lost their jobs once arrested in such raids, the NYMS began
to lobby against discriminatory police raids.
Taking inspiration once more from the civil rights movement’s sit-ins, President Dick
Leitsch of NYMS organized sip-ins during 1967 in order to protest unfair government policies
geared toward gays. Leitsch specifically fought against the city’s liquor authority, which
routinely revoked the liquor license of bars that served alcohol to three or more gays.
Threatening to sue any bar which refused service to homosexuals, Leitsch and two other gay men
asked bars to serve them alcohol until one refused. Once a bar did refuse and the threat of legal
12
action ensued, the liquor authority reversed this policy and the NYMS succeeded in better
protecting gay establishments from police discrimination. With gay bars for the most part now
protected from unwarranted police raids, the gay subculture within New York City grew and
swishes and assimilationists alike more regularly “cruised” the area.
A popular bar among swishes, the Stonewall Inn lacked proper city permits and allegedly
served alcohol to minors. Police officers hence raided the bar in the summer of 1969, arresting
the bartenders and other peaceful bar guests. A crowd of over 400 surrounded the bar and turned
violent upon the arrests, hurling sharp objects at police, who barricaded themselves inside of and
then destroyed the bar22. Deciding they had finally accepted enough discrimination from police
and As alike, predominantly drag queens and other swishes protested for several nights outside
the Stonewall23. The rift between the As and the swishes had reached its breaking point. Because
public opinion had continued to grow in favor of gays, the very public riots and police
discrimination against the gay community brought swishes to the forefront of news outlets in the
city. The Stonewall Riots ultimately legitimized swishes just as appeals to respectability had
legitimized the As. Resultant of this new legitimization, As and swishes finally worked together
to continue the battle for equality beginning after the riots.
Largely inspired by the riots and general police brutality, the North American Conference
of Homophile Organizations (NACHO) called for the radicalization of the gay rights movement
past the point of militancy at its August 1969 conference. Led by a radical caucus, students from
Columbia University’s homophile organization promoted and passed the Radical Manifesto that
advocated twelve main points, including the understanding of persecution of homosexuality as a
22
23
Amsel, "Back to Our Future? A Walk on the Wild Side of Stonewall."
Lisker, Jerry. "Homo Nest Raided, Queen Bees Are Stinging Mad." New York Daily News 6 July 1969. Web.
10 Feb 2015
13
general attempt to persecute all minorities, recognition of same-sex marriages by churches, and
development of a homosexual ethics independent of heterosexual society24. Through the
Manifesto, the gay rights movement appealed to Harry Hay’s idea of a gay subculture
independent of mainstream society for the first time since the LAMS ousted the organization’s
founders in 1953. The conference also importantly saw the unification of different factions
within the gay rights movement as well as the unification of ideologies. Because the Manifesto
not only called for the recognition of marriages but also this independent homosexual ethics, it
appealed to adopting some parts of heterosexual society while also preserving homosexual
culture. The adoption of this broader ideology enabled the movement’s advocates to promote
successfully gay rights as applicable to both swishes and assimilationists.
The rising publicity of the gay rights movement during and after the Stonewall Riots
prompted a swift backlash against advocates from the growing religious right. As a satirical
response to the newly formed concept of the ‘gay agenda’, Michael Swift’s “Gay Revolutionary”
published in the leftist Gay Community News played on the stereotypes against homosexuals
perpetuated by the political right25. While in reality the gay rights movement continued striving
for sociopolitical equality, Swift’s piece sardonically agreed with the right that homosexuals
intended a brutal and hostile takeover of mainstream heterosexual society26. Interestingly, the
first line of the piece, which affirms the article as satire, is omitted in virtually every
reproduction, further fueling the right’s belief in this ‘gay agenda’. Essentially, “Gay
24
Amsel, "Back to Our Future? A Walk on the Wild Side of Stonewall."
Swift, Michael. "Gay Revolutionary." Gay Community News 15 Feb 1987. Web. 8 Feb 2015
26
Nava, Michael. and Robert Dawidoff. Created Equal: Why Gay Rights Matter to America. First edition. New
York: St. Martin's Press, 1994, 75-78
25
14
Revolutionary” continued the gay rights movement’s swing toward radicalism by taking a
bitingly mocking stance against the movement’s enemies.
In addition to the cultural upswing of the gay rights movement, victories in the courts
enabled activists to challenge entrenched anti-gay politics. Immediately preceding and following
Stonewall, the homosexual minority in the United States began to change from unpopular to
mildly tolerated or conditionally accepted. Because the court sometimes defers to public opinion
when deciding cases, this transition further benefitted the movement27. Taking the movement to
the Supreme Court, the Bowers v. Hardwick case became the first time that the movement had
tackled sociopolitical restrictions on homosexual conduct at the national level28. Although
previous cases had concerned the gay community, Bowers directly affected how homosexuals
interacted privately with other homosexuals. Even though unsuccessful, the case instigated legal
and public scrutiny in favor of homosexuals. The first major successful case for gay rights,
Romer v. Evans added another layer to the movement: fighting for broad-reaching nondiscrimination. Because Colorado’s Amendment One would have allowed private businesses to
refuse services including housing to homosexuals, Romer’s success ensured that homosexuals
legally received the same treatment within both the federal and the private sector29. These cases
exemplify the changing tide throughout the 1980s in favor of the gay rights movement.
27
Stoutenborough, James, Donald Haider-Markel, and Mahalley Allen. "Reassessing the Impact of Supreme Court
Decisions on Public Opinion: Gay Civil Rights Cases." Political Research Quarterly 59.3 (2006): 420. America:
History and Life. Web. 10 Feb 2015.
28
McBride, Alex. "The Supreme Court, Expanding Civil Rights: Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)."PBS, 1 Dec 2006.
Web. 8 Feb 2015
29
Clark, Randall. "Platonic Love in a Colorado Courtroom: Martha Nussbaum, John Finnis, and 'Plato's Laws' in
Evans v. Romer." Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 12.1 (2000): 1-38. America: History and Life. Web. 10
Feb 2015.
15
After the Stonewall Riots in 1969, the focus of the gay rights movement shifted toward
ensuring equal treatment politically, legally, and socially. Whereas the movement had begun as a
narrow attempt to prevent McCarthyism from reducing homosexuals to societally disruptive at
best and a threat to national security at worst, the movement had by the 1980s expanded its focus
to not only unify gay men ideologically but to also promote homosexuality as a cultural and
economically important subgroup of mainstream American society. As with many minority
groups, however, homosexual men fail to constitute a single pervasive definition comprising all
members of their culture. Although an ideological struggle developed between swishes and
assimilationists that lasted until the Stonewall Riots, the opposing factions reconciled their
cultural differences to promote a broad, inclusive community that united to advocate for gay
rights. By the latter nineteenth century, homophile groups and gay rights proponents recognized
that the movement’s success depended upon unification within the movement. This transition
occurred because assimilationist gay men could not argue the value of their societal importance
and contributions while simultaneously denouncing the culture of swishes.
Similar to other minority rights movements (especially the women’s movement), the gay
rights movement gained traction once homosexuals gained a protected forum for discussion.
Manifesting in the Mattachine Society, this forum propelled the rights movement by revealing to
its members that unexpected similarities indeed existed among themselves. Although the
Mattachine Society’s dominance within the early gay rights movement enabled the rise of the
assimilationists, the movement’s initial dependence on respectability coupled with assimilationist
activism ensured its survival. While the literature predominantly asserts that swishes and other
nonconformist homosexual men single handedly energized and legitimized the gay rights
movement, assimilationists provided the movement’s early success and thus its foundation. Even
16
though assimilationists dominantly contributed to the movement’s early years, the activism
within the swish community provided the movement much needed publicity. Therefore, not only
one faction within the gay community advanced the rights movement more than the other.
Assimilationists along with swishes (and every other subgroup of the gay community) ensured
the success and longevity of the gay rights movement by successfully altering their activist
tactics to apply to the respective arena, with assimilationists largely using professionals to argue
legislative activism and swishes incorporating public protests and civil disobedience to publicize
their community. Eventually united, these communities influenced the gay rights movement as a
united front.
17
Bibliography
Primary Sources
"A Radical Manifesto: The Homophile Movement Must Be Radicalized." Documents from the 1969 Furor.
Fordham University, 28 Aug 1969. Web. 9 Feb 2015. http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1969docs.asp
Amsel, Robert. "Back to Our Future? A Walk on the Wild Side of Stonewall." Advocate 15 Sept 1987.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/bulgarians/stonewall.txt
Hay, Harry. "Our Own Faerie Way." Annual Awards Dinner. Southern California Library for Social Studies and
Research. , Los Angeles, California. 1 Jan 1994. Speech.
http://www.nathannewman.org/EDIN/.mags/.cross/.42/.42stonewall/.hay.html
Lisker, Jerry. "Homo Nest Raided, Queen Bees Are Stinging Mad." New York Daily News 6 July 1969. Web.
10 Feb 2015. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/stonewall-queen-bees/
Swift, Michael. "Gay Revolutionary." Gay Community News 15 Feb 1987.
(http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1969docs.asp)
Secondary Sources
Clark, Randall. "Platonic Love in a Colorado Courtroom: Martha Nussbaum, John Finnis, and 'Plato's Laws' in
Evans v. Romer." Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 12.1 (2000): 1-38. America: History and Life. Web.
10 Feb 2015. <http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/search/advanced?sid=a48e3cb7-d7dd-4759-b86e1e6a126c6f1b@sessionmgr4004&vid=0&hid=4209>.
D'Emilio, John. Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities. Second ed. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1998.
Print.
Douglass, Charles. "From Subversion to Obscenity: The FBI's Investigations of the Early Homophile
Movement in the United States, 1953-1958." Journal of the History of Sexuality18.2 (2010): 262-87. America:
History and Life. Web. 10 Feb 2015. <http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/search/advanced?sid=a48e3cb7-d7dd4759-b86e-1e6a126c6f1b@sessionmgr4004&vid=0&hid=4209>.
Hall, Simon. "The American Gay Rights Movement and Patriotic Protest." Journal of the History of
Sexuality 19.3 (2010): 1-28. America: History and Life. Web. 10 Feb 2015.
<http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/search/advanced?sid=a48e3cb7-d7dd-4759-b86e1e6a126c6f1b@sessionmgr4004&vid=0&hid=4209>.
Leahy, Michael and Dan Cohn-Sherbok. “Part III: Gay Liberation”. The Liberation Debate: Rights At Issue.
London: Routledge, 1996. Print
Loftin, Craig. "Unacceptable Mannerisms: Gender Anxieties, Homosexual Activism and Swish in the United
States, 1945-1965." Journal of Social History (2007): 1-16. WFU Sakai. University of Southern California.
Web. 9 Feb 2015. <www.sakai.wfu.edu>.
McBride, Alex. "The Supreme Court, Expanding Civil Rights: Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)."PBS 1 Dec 2006.
Web. 8 Feb 2015.
18
Mucciaroni, Gary. Same Sex, Different Politics: Success and Failure in the Struggles Over Gay Rights.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
Nava, Michael., and Robert Dawidoff. Created Equal: Why Gay Rights Matter to America. First edition. New
York: St. Martin's Press, 1994.
Pappas, Christine, Jeannette Mendez, and Rebekah Herrick. "The Negative Effects of Populism on Gay and
Lesbian Rights." Social Science Quarterly 90.1 (2009): 150-63. America: History and Life. Web. 10 Feb 2015.
<http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/search/advanced?sid=a48e3cb7-d7dd-4759-b86e1e6a126c6f1b@sessionmgr4004&vid=0&hid=4209>.
Stoutenborough, James, Donald Haider-Markel, and Mahalley Allen. "Reassessing the Impact of Supreme
Court Decisions on Public Opinion: Gay Civil Rights Cases." Political Research Quarterly 59.3 (2006): 41933. America: History and Life. Web. 10 Feb 2015.
<http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/search/advanced?sid=a48e3cb7-d7dd-4759-b86e1e6a126c6f1b@sessionmgr4004&vid=0&hid=4209>.
Ruiz, Jason. "The Violence of Assimilation: An Interview with Mattilda Aka Matt Bernstein
Sycamore." Radical History Review 100 (2008): 236-47. America: History and Life. Web. 10 Feb 2015.
<http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/search/advanced?sid=a48e3cb7-d7dd-4759-b86e1e6a126c6f1b@sessionmgr4004&vid=0&hid=4209>.