Here are a few (but certainly not all) moments in which Presidents and our community interacted:
February 23, 1778 – Baron Friedrich von Steuben arrived to offer his services General George Washington (not yet President) and his Continental Army. Steuben was probably Washington’s best military asset, as he provided the training and structure that had been up until then missing from the Americans. Steuben’s methods would be utilized for the next century and a half. Although Washington officially did not tolerate homosexual acts (drumming out an officer caught in the act of, um, fraternizing), Steuben’s reputation – and accompaniment of handsome men – did not dissuade the General from placing him in authority. One could even suggest that “don’t ask, don’t tell” was the military policy from the start.

March 4, 1857 – President James Buchanan was sworn into office. Buchanan was a bachelor who had lived for 15 years with Alabama Senator William Rufus King (King had died in 1852, after serving as Vice President for less than a month). While evidence of the two as a couple is not overwhelmingly conclusive enough to convince those who are inclined to dismiss any historical inclusion of non-heterosexuality (the nieces of the two men burned their correspondences), contemporaries certainly seemed to think of them in this manner. Buchanan was our only bachelor President, a sin that would certainly be seen as a liability today.

March 5, 1861 – President Abraham Lincoln was sworn into office. While rumors about Lincoln were less pronounced than those about his predecessor, his space sharing was even more intimate than that of Buchanan. In his late 20’s he met Joshua Speed, moved in with him, and shared his bed for the next four years. The two exchanged flowery letters expressing devotion, and C. A. Tripp, in The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln, argued that Lincoln was primarily same-sex attracted. Dissenters argue that sharing beds was common in an era in which beds were scarce. However, they are a bit less adamant about a shortage of beds in the White House when Lincoln shared his bed with David Derickson, his bodyguard, when Mary Todd Lincoln was away. Whether, indeed, Lincoln was primarily homosexual in orientation, he was certainly unconventional in his bed-mate patterns and worthy of mention.

November 1, 1978 – The Briggs Initiative was on the California ballot, for a November 7 vote. If passed, it would have banned gay man and women from working in California’s public schools. Ronald Reagan, the prior Governor and soon to be President, wrote an editorial in the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner opposing the bill, saying “Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.” This was an official follow-up on a September interview in which he expressed his opposition, and the timing of the editorial is closely associated with a massive shift from strong support to overwhelming opposition. In January 1981, the decorators for Nancy Reagan are the first known gay couple to spend the night in the White House.

January 20, 1993 – President Bill Clinton was sworn into office. Clinton was the first President elected with a campaign which included specific gay rights provisions and shortly into his term, Clinton sought to fulfill his promises by lifting the ban on open service of gay personnel. He ran into immediate opposition in Congress and ultimately signed off on the “compromise” that became Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell as well as the Defense of Marriage Act, both of which still haunt us. But for a brief shining moment the world looked full of promise. In October 1997, Clinton nominated James Hormel, an openly gay man and significant contributor, to be Ambassador to Luxembourg. After a year and a half of opposition from conservative Senators, Clinton employed a recess appointment in May 1999 and Hormel was sworn in the following month.

February 23, 1996 – Former President Jimmy Carter, writing in the LA Times, called for a rejection of “the politics of hate.” He stated, “We must make it clear that a platform of ‘I hate gay men and women’ is not a way to become president of the United States.” On April 5, 2004, in an interview with the American Prospect, he set himself in opposition to George Bush’s election campaign against same-sex couples. “I personally, in my Sunday-school lessons, don’t favor the religious endorsement of a gay marriage. But I do favor equal treatment under the law for people who differ from me in sexual orientation.” In December of the following year, he reiterated, “My own belief is that there should be a distinction between so-called gay marriages, which I look upon as a possibility of a church- ordained blessing of God on a union, which I think should be between a man and a woman. But at the same time, that people who do have gay union in a court or in secular terms not relating to religion, should be treated with complete equality.”

September 18, 2001 – Michael Guest was sworn in as Ambassador to Romania. Unlike James Hormel, this George W. Bush appointment was based on civil service record and received Senate confirmation. This early in W’s first term, there was considerable optimism that he would oversee an inclusive administration.

October 29, 2001 – Reporter Deb Price ran an article based on an interview with former President Gerald Ford. To her surprise, Ford endorsed non-discrimination and declared that gay couples should have the same tax and Social Security rights as married heterosexuals. “I think they ought to be treated equally. Period.” That year Ford joined the Republican Unity Coalition, an organization dedicated to making sexual orientation a non-issue in the Republican Party, thus becoming the only President to engage in pro-gay activism. Shortly before his 2006 death, Ford discussed with his Episcopal priest the divisions in the denomination over the place of gay congregants in the church. In his homily, his pastor noted, “He said he did not think (such inclusive steps) should be divisive for anyone who lived by the Great Commandments and the Great Commission — to love God and to love neighbor.” Ford was the only President who was not elected to any position by the American voters at large. He was sent to Congress by the people of Grand Rapids. After the resignation of Vice-President Spiro Agnew, Ford was selected as a replacement based primarily on his reputation for honesty and integrity, and he become president upon the resignation of Richard Nixon.

The current President has promised to be a fierce advocate for our community. And history will advise us of the most favorable action that President Barack Obama will take in his administration. To date, we are thankful for statements made during the election cycle, for Bishop Robinson’s inaugural prayer, for several gay appointments, and for current efforts to reverse the ban on open service in the military. Let’s hope we have much for to celebrate next Presidents’ Day.

Undoubtedly, I’ve omitted several milestones, for which I apologize. Feel free to praise Presidents in the comments section (for today, let’s try and keep it to praise. We’ll start the criticism again tomorrow.)

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., August 28, 1963

Keep the dream alive.

Continue the struggle.

Since her husband passed away a few  years earlier, Pearl declared that she had no intention of sitting at home getting old. So she decided to buy an RV and see the world. She joined a Winnebago club and took trips with her friends, caravanning across the continent and down into Mexico. They even arranged trips across Europe in rented RV’s and once took a trip to Moscow, although that wouldn’t be until much later. We always looked forward to Pearl’s visits so we could hear about her latest adventures on the open road.

And that’s what we were doing that day on July 20, 1969 when Pearl came into town. We were at my great-grandparents’ house, helping Pearl load the RV with groceries while she did some laundry. Then sometime after lunch, we all packed ourselves into various cars and coaches — me, my brothers and parents in our car, my grandparents and great-grandparents in their cars, and Pearl in her Winnebago — and we headed out to a state park outside of town. I remember that Dad didn’t think she would be able to back the RV into the tight camp spot. I mean, you could barely see her above the steering wheel. But she backed it right in like the seasoned pro that she was.

We spent most of the afternoon around the picnic table under the outstretched awning beside the RV. It was hot that day, and this was before RV’s were air-conditioned. Heck, this was even before most homes and cars were air-conditioned, so an afternoon out at Shawnee State Forrest was quite a treat. At about 3:30 that afternoon, Pearl went inside and came back out with a small, portable black-and-white television. She washed the dust off the screen and plugged it into an outside outlet. Dad fiddled with the dials and the rabbit ears until he was able to pull in a snowy picture from an ABC station in Huntington, WV. (The preferred CBS station in Charleston, which would have featured Walter Cronkite, was just too far away.)

The sun was so bright that day that we couldn’t see the picture very well, so someone turned up the sound and we listened to the play-by-play as Apollo 11 slowly descended to the moon. We heard someone giving a countdown before landing, and we held our breath after that voice quit counting down. After what seemed like a lifetime of not breathing — we heard Houston barking out, “we’ve got to get down!” in a voice verging on panic — we finally heard what we were waiting for: “Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.”

Whenever I hear those words today, I get goose bumps all over again and sometimes even tear up a little. I was — and still am — that excited.  I remember jumping up and down laughing and screaming and celebrating with my brothers while the grownups commented on their own amazement. My great-grandmother, Easter, often remembered that day as an important milestone for her. Being born in 1898, she used to say, meant that she had lived through the most exciting transformational advancements in human history. Those weren’t exactly her words, but she explained it this way: “I’ve seen everything from the horse and buggy to the moon,” she said, “And no one will ever live a different lifetime in history with more progress than that.”

I wasn’t so reflective of course, so my brothers and I rushed off to a playground where we played astronauts for the rest of that hot summer afternoon, “beeping” between all of our transmissions in imitation of what we had just heard.

The moon walk itself wouldn’t be until much later that night — way past our bedtimes. But our parents promised we would get to watch it. Even so, my parents put my brothers and me to bed thinking that maybe we’d get a short nap before the moon walk was scheduled to begin. But of course there was no hope for that. Finally sometime before 11:00 p.m., our parents called us downstairs and we gathered around the Zenith console and waited impatiently as one talking head after another reviewed the events of the day and talked about what would lie just ahead.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Looking back on these images now makes it all seem so primitive. But to my young 8-year-old imagination, these pictures presaged something else: the long-awaited future was just about to arrive. Finally the CBS studio broke away to the live, grainy pictures from the moon, and we watch speechless as Neil Armstrong made history.

Click here to view the embedded video.

This is what the future looked like in 1969. It’s amazing what we were able to accomplish with such primitive technology by today’s standards. It’s also remarkable considering how difficult it still would be to pull off the same feat today.

People often talk about where they were when they heard John F. Kennedy was assassinated or when the Twin Towers fell. There are moments in history which serve as profound landmarks in our lives. I was too young to remember JFK’s assassination, and the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy in 1968 somehow passed without my notice at the time. That was a very frightening year for my parents, and they wanted to shield our innocent childhoods from it. The events of 9/11 will always remain seared in my memory, but there is no moment of history that transports me back, body, mind and spirit, as does the Apollo 11 moon landing. Whenever I watch it today, I’m eight years old again, sitting upright in rapt attention on the living room in my pajamas, watching the grainy images flickering across the Zenith console — the fancy one with the “Space Command” remote control — and seeing the future finally arrive. I knew then and there I was going to be an astronaut. I still will be someday. You’ll see.

Raymond Castro 1969

Forty years and a day ago, Raymond Castro was arrested for his part in the Stonewall Riots. (msnbc)

“When the police raided the place, I was outside,” Castro remembered. “Then I remembered a friend inside who did not have a false ID and he was going to get in trouble, so I went inside to give him one.” (Many of the police raids, he said, resulted in arrests for underage drinking). “Once I got inside, the police wouldn’t let us out. It got really hot. I remember throwing punches and resisting arrest. The police handcuffed me and threw me in the paddy wagon. But I sprung back up, like a leap frog, and when I did that I knocked the police down.”

Castro then got out of town and spent the next forty years as a baker – 30 of them with Frankie Sturniolo – building a life around caring for friends and family .

Raymond Castro in 2009

In fact, it was not until David Carter, a historian and author of “Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution,” called Castro that he started publicly reflecting on the events of 40 years ago.

But for every day of those forty years our community has owned him a debt of gratitude. Thank you, Raymond, for the part you played in our ongoing fight for freedom and equality.

The Stonewall Inn raid. (Joseph Ambrosini, NY Daily News)

Forty years ago today, in the very early morning hours of June 28, 1969, New York police attempted a raid on a Greenwich Village gay nightclub known as the Stonewall Inn. This wasn’t the first time New York police raided a gay bar, but this was the first time that patrons — for whatever reason; nobody knows exactly why — decided to fight back. The situation escalated into a full-blown riot that night, with more rioting breaking out again the next night and over the next several days.

To get just a small sense of the daily insults those patrons experienced back then, all you have to do is read the news reports about the rebellion. The New York Times buried its first day’s coverage to a very small article on page 33. If coverage was more prominent elsewhere, it was also more contemptuous. Kevin Neff at The Washington Blade posted this mocking report by the New York Daily News:

Homo Nest Raided
Queen Bees Are Stinging Mad

By JERRY LISKER, New York Daily News, July 6, 1969

She sat there with her legs crossed, the lashes of her mascara-coated eyes beating like the wings of a hummingbird. She was angry. She was so upset she hadn’t bothered to shave.

A day old stubble was beginning to push through the pancake makeup. She was a he. A queen of Christopher Street.

Last weekend the queens had turned commandos and stood bra strap to bra strap against an invasion of the helmeted Tactical Patrol Force. The elite police squad had shut down one of their private gay clubs, the Stonewall Inn at 57 Christopher St., in the heart of a three-block homosexual community in Greenwich Village. Queen Power reared its bleached blonde head in revolt.

New York City experienced its first homosexual riot.

Last Thursday, the New York Daily News ran a very different story about the Stonewall riots. This time, coverage was considerably more respectful:

Veterans of those 1969 riots outside of Stonewall – a then Mafia-run, Christopher St. bar that allowed gays to dance and drink – are still focusing on the fights ahead of them, namely legalizing same-sex marriage.

“The parallel is gay people are still fighting to be seen as full human beings and want someone to have and to hold. And the first place we were able to have and to hold is when we danced at Stonewall,” said Tommy Lanigan-Schmidt, 61.

Lanigan-Schmidt, who was 18 when he left his parents’ New Jersey home with less than a dollar in his pocket, saw the Stonewall as a place where he could finally be free, a spot where he could slow-dance and socialize openly.

“You felt protected there,” he said. “It became a place that I was able to be myself.”

When a phalanx of police raided the place and broke down its double doors on June 28, launching days of protests outside, patrons had reached their breaking point.

“That night was a joyous night for a lot of us,” said Jerry Hoose, 64, who described the atmosphere as like Carnival, but with energy and purpose.

The great saga of the Stonewall Inn Rebellion has been told and retold like a great legend around the communal fire. It’s a story that would fill a book, and for some that book would be a very sacred one. Instead of trying to retell the whole story, I’ll simply refer you to the Wikipedia page, which is a decent primer on those pivotal events. Better still, look at the original police reports and first-hand accounts at historian Jonathan Ned Katz’s amazing OutHistory.

White House protest, April 1965

But like all creation myths told around the campfire, this one often presumes that Stonewall was where everything began, that before Stonewall there was nothing. Of course, we know that’s not true. Two and a half years before Stonewall, there was the Black Cat riot in Los Angeles, when patrons at the Black Cat bar fought back against police who tried to arrest them for exchanging New Year’s kisses.  (Police charged one couple for kissing each other “on the mouth for three to five seconds.”) A year before the Black Cat riot, there were sit-ins that led to a riot in San Francisco when Compton’s Cafeteria, refusing to serve its gay customers, called the police. A year before the Compton Cafeteria riot, there were sit-ins at two restaurants in Philadelphia which led to their backing down from similar discriminatory practices. That same year and as a separate set of events, pickets first appeared in front of the White House and Independence Hall. And eleven years before Stonewall, a gay magazine managed to get the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in its favor as it fought indecency charges.

Tensions between LGBT crowd and police continued for several nights after the raid (Larry Morris, New York Times)

So if there was a birth of the modern gay-rights movement, it must be marked sometime before Stonewall. To refuse to do so would be to dismiss the remarkable achievements of those who resisted before. The Stonewall rebellion wasn’t much different from previous acts of gay disobedience, but it became different because it happened at a very crucial time.

The Stonewall rebellion caught the American zeitgeist in a way that the Black Cat riot missed, probably because the Black Cat riot, happening when it did in the first few minutes of 1967, was just ever so slightly ahead of its time. America went on to change dramatically between 1967 and 1969. The Summer of Love arrived just a few months following the Black Cat raid in 1967, two beloved leaders were assassinated in 1968, and by 1969 there was widespread campus unrest over the Vietnam War and demands for racial equality. So when Stonewall came around, it wasn’t just a rebellion against a repressive local police force; it became something much bigger because it happened within the context of a much larger set of movements challenging the status quo.

Gays and lesbians in front of the Stonewall Inn, June 1969.

So like all creation myths, it almost doesn’t matter whether Stonewall was the first but only that it happened. It’s Stonewall that has become our touchstone, to stretch a metaphoric pun. And as a touchstone, Stonewall is global. The very word no longer needs translation. Simply utter “Stonewall,” untranslated, to anyone speaking any language today (In Russian for example, just say “Стоунволла,” pronounced “Stounvolla”), and people will know instantly what you’re talking about. I said Stonewall is our creation myth, but since many see it as the birth of the modern gay rights movement (rightly or wrongly), maybe it’s better to say that it’s our Nativity Story. We’ve divided our history between pre-Stonewall and post-Stonewall just like Christianity divided the calendar based on another historic Nativity. And as with that Nativity, Stonewall marked the arrival of a new era and nothing would be the same ever again.

But that metaphor — Stonewall as a Nativity story — is unsatisfactory as well. We’re not an ancient people seeking to understand where we came from, nor are we a people awaiting a long-promised messiah who will come to save us. We are American citizens claiming our birthright. While Stonewall is now a universal touchstone the world over, the story of Stonewall is, for us Americans at least, a solidly American story more than anything else. Because they fought back, the Stonewall Inn became our Lexington and the defiant leaflets which littered the streets in the immediate aftermath were our Declaration of Independence. Stonewall reminds us that this imperfect Union still has not delivered on its promises to all its citizens, and Stonewall spurs us on to make this Union more perfect. Stonewall is yet another milestone in our country’s ongoing journey to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. That noble task is not yet finished.

One such man who stands for an institution greater than he made it is President Abraham Lincoln. Honest Abe is the American Hero, the greatest president that ever presided; a poor boy who though hard work and humble wit advanced to save the nation in its most perilous hour. And although there is a current movement to rehumanize the man, in the minds of most he will be the Great Emancipator, the one who held the Union together and freed the slaves.

Four years ago, C.A. Tripp (posthumously) published The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln, in which he argues that Lincoln was primarily same-sex attracted. This book was met with a flood of indignant rebuttals.

I found Tripp’s book to be fascinating, though not necessarily proof. Tripp presented only circumstantial evidence and, though there was a lot of it, there was no smoking gun.

But I found those who argued against Tripp to have but the flimsiest of denials for Tripp’s strongest points (“there was a bed shortage and men often shared beds for years and wrote flowery love notes to each other”), accompanied by an absolute silence on his subsidiary evidence (surely there was no bed shortage in the White House). They seemed more motivated by protecting Lincoln’s image from such a ‘vile slander’ than they did in applying any professional curiosity to the matter.

But there is a lesson to be learned. We all want to own a part of President Lincoln and his legacy. Lincoln – a flawed man all too human – took the right positions on the right issues and transcended his own mortality.

On this, the 200th anniversary of Lincoln’s birth, let us all strive to live so that others in distant decades will want to claim us as their own.

The following report appeared in the March 1959 issue of The Ladder, which was the official publication of the Daughters of Bilitis, the nation’s first organization for Lesbians. The report was of the ONE, Inc. Midwinter Institute held in Los Angeles on January 31 and February 1.

ONE, Inc, you may remember, published ONE magazine, which was the first national magazine for gays and lesbians. ONE had just come off of a stunning Supreme Court victory one year earlier in which the Court ruled that just because ONE dealt with homosexuality, it was not automatically pornographic because of the unpopular subject matter.

Unlike today’s LGBT conferences which are organized with the goal of changing laws and societal attitudes, this conference was focused on much more pressing needs for the individuals who attended: Are gays mentally ill? (The audience broke into sustained applause on the suggestion that it isn’t) Is it natural? Why is there so much hostility from religion? How do we improve the lives, mental well-being, and relationships of gay men and women? There was even a revealing roundtable discussion on social separatism between lesbians and gay men, a discussion which would foreshadow subsequent debates on political separatism between lesbians and gay men with the rise of the women’s movement in the 1960’s.

One thing that I found interesting is that the esteem held for psychology was never higher than it was then. Psychiatrists, psychologists and psychoanalysts were regarded with the same awe and deference as rocket scientists and astrophysicists. Since this conference was focused on homosexuality and mental health, they naturally took center stage, where their opinions were avidly sought but rarely questioned — except occasionally by each other. A particularly interesting discussion broke out among professional leaders and Dr. Evelyn Hooker, who was in the audience. Dr. Hooker had by then published three groundbreaking studies which suggested that homosexuality was not a mental illness (although because her studies were ongoing, she was coy about making a declarative statement to that effect at the conference). It would be another fifteen years before her work would become the basis for the APA’s removal of homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

This unabridged report from The Ladder provides a fascinating look at the state of the gay community fifty years ago, and it gives us a great perspective on how far we’ve come since then. The author of The Ladder’s report was listed as Sten Russell, which, in fact, was a pseudonym for Stella Rush; “Helen Sanders” was actually Helen Sandoz. Homosexuality was listed as a mental illness and gay bars were banned or shut down under state liquor laws. Much has changed, but there’s still much more to do. People do still get fired from their jobs and shunned by their families.

They say we can’t know where we’re going unless we know where we’re coming from. We’re still on a long journey, but we have traveled many miles in the past fifty years. This is a good opportunity to pause and reflect on that journey.

ONE Institute
Mental Health and Homosexuality
By Sten Russell, with additional contributions by Del Martin and Helen Sanders

The 1959 Midwinter institute sponsored by ONE, Inc. was held in Los Angeles January 31- February 1. Theme for discussion was “mental health and homosexuality.”

Homophile Movements in the United States Today
Del Martin, president of the Daughters of Bilitis, San Francisco, gave a resume of the purpose of The Ladder and its contents during the last year. She mentioned some of the projects which the daughters had sponsored, including sociological and psychological questionnaires circulated among lesbians.

Regarding progress in the field, she referred to Dr. Karl Bowman’s speech on homosexuality before the commonwealth club in San Francisco. While the “San Francisco Examiner” buried the speech, it made headlines and a big write-up in “The San Francisco Chronicle.” The reporter seemed most impressed by one of Bowman’s points that the homosexual social problem might never be solved due to the fear and latent homosexuality in the rest of the population. She referred also to a precedent-breaking two-hour discussion of homosexuality given over radio station KPFA last year, which was entitled “The Homosexual In Our Society” and which featured outstanding citizens of the Bay area.

One of the most recent examples of progress for the homophile was evidenced in the successful legal battle to keep gay bars from being closed down, or any bars, simply because some or most of their clientele happened to be homosexuals. Miss Martin was particularly pleased, not only because the civil rights of homosexuals had been upheld but because the homophiles themselves, by their constructive activities as reported in The Ladder, had been of some help in the case. Morris Lowenthal, San Francisco attorney, had contacted Miss Martin for copies of The Ladder in work on the Amicus Curiae brief for the “Mary’s First And Last Chance (Bar)” case. The appealing brief gave a history of the homophile movement in the United States and in particular, gave excerpts from the September and October 1958 Ladder issues. It also included the two issues in question as exhibits in the case.

Miss Martin read portions of the favorable decision handed down in which it was made crystal clear that it was no crime to be a homosexual or a “so-called pervert” in a bar so long as no immoral or illegal acts were committed while there. So far as the bar owner was concerned, he was not only not liable for the fact that homosexuals were present in his bar, but he was not liable for their actions if they happened to be immoral or illegal, unless it could be proven that he had knowledge of these acts and did nothing to stop them.

Rick Hooper, chairman, Mattachine Society, Inc., San Francisco, confined most of his progress report to the Social Service Division. He mentioned that while this was not yet a legally constituted department of the society, it was to be hoped that it soon would be. The need is great in this field; the problems are just as great. On April 4, 1959, Mattachine will hold a “social service planning day.” Mrs. Farley of the U.S. Public Health Dept. in San Francisco will speak on some of the problems of mental health and welfare. Rick said that in the past year 300 had come for help regarding the need for referral to attorneys who could help in such matters as blackmail, sex offenses, unjust collection accounts, courts martial, dishonorable discharges, etc. In employment counseling a dozen or so had been placed. Rick felt that they had been able to do the most good in lay counseling, however. Some of the ones who came with deeper problems that needed professional care were able to be referred to the “northern California service league.” he added that San Francisco Mattachine membership more than doubled in 1958 and that there now were 81 local members

James Kepner, Jr., vice chairman, ONE, Inc., Los Angeles, referred to ONE’s annual business meeting of Jan. 30, 1959, and the annual report to be published on the organization’s activities and progress in 1958. He mentioned the need for many different types of organizations because there were many different types of homosexuals. He said that ONE was not a membership organization and that there was very little organized socializing. He made the distinction between the magazine and corporation. The magazine was the first, and still the corporation’s biggest, project. However there were other departments and projects of great importance to the homophile. He spoke of the education department’s program and of individualists vs. integrationists and the need to educate both in the history of the homophile, as society needs both the individualist and the integrationist point of view.

Accepting Middle Age

At the luncheon there were approximately 42 men and 14 women to hear a delightful address by T.M. Merritt, Ph.D., Dean Emeritus of ONE Institute.

Dr. Merritt gave three things young people should do in preparing for middle and old age. (This he designated as the MOA group.) Young people should plan for financial competence in their later years. Annuity insurance was one method he mentioned which cost very little to young people and which reaped great benefits for them. Young people should develop hobbies and interests outside themselves. Thirdly, young people should try for the type of relationship which was more likely to become a permanent love affair. For if two young people grow old together the change would be so gradual that neither would ever think of the other or of himself as being old.

Dr. Merritt gave a list of advice to the MOA group larded with delightful asides:

1. Don’t cruise.
2. Relax.
3. Don’t expect what you’re probably not going to get anyway.
4. Never pretend to be what you’re not.
5. Don’t be familiar with youth. (i.e. don’t smile and wink at the boys. Dignity has its own attractions.)
6. Don’t offer drinks to strangers.
7. Don’t seek compassion by hinting at your age — such compassion does not exist.
8. Don’t try to dance if you can’t.
9. Try to cultivate outside interests.

Dr. Merritt gave some of the advantages age has over youth:

1. A large and varied experience with life.
2. Financial competence.
3. Special interests. An example was a gentleman 90 years old who is known as “Mr. California.” This gentleman is reputed to know more about California history than anyone else. The moral here seemed to be that there were great advantages to be had in making oneself an authority in some special field of knowledge.
4. The older person is in a position to offer genuine friendship and friendliness.

Dr. Merritt ended his address on the note that if the older person could learn to accept himself, to develop satisfactory intellectual pursuits and hobbies, to be good company with himself when he was alone, then he never needed to “cruise” frantically nor worry about his fate, that friends would invariably seek him out!

Panel Discussion
Eric Julber, attorney, Los Angeles, Chairman.
Blanche M. Baker, M.D., Ph.D., psychiatrist, San Francisco.
Trent E. Bessent, Ph.D., chief clinical psychologist, Metropolitan State Hospital, Norwalk, Calif.
W. Dorr Legg, A.B., B.M., M.L.D., director, ONE Institute.
Vita S. Sommers, Ph.D., clinical psychologist, Los Angeles.

Mr. Julber asked the members of the panel to give their general views on ”Mental Health and Homosexuality” before proceeding to the panel discussion proper.

Dr. Bessent did not feel that the topic at hand necessarily had any inner relationship; that whether homosexuality and the problem of mental health related or not depended on the culture, the time and the individual involved. He added that in his work at the hospital he dealt mostly with psychotic patients, people who had broken with reality. At the hospital, he and co-workers attempted to reduce the patients’ anxiety and to find out what fear or fears lay behind their anxiety. Among the many learned fears that can drive a person to the psychotic stage, Dr. Bessent listed the fear of homosexual tendencies. This, however, he emphasized, is a learned or cultural fear, instilled into the person, usually before the age of reason. The audience applauded Dr. Bessent. Mr. Julber requested that there be no more applause until the panel was over.

Dr. Blanche Baker said that her interest and concern with homosexuality had begun at an early age when much to her horror and surprise a female schoolmate fell in love with her. She said that fortunately she had an understanding father who gave her access to books on the subject so that she acquired enough of a learned viewpoint on the subject not to be cruel to her friend whom she did not understand. She said that her reading gave her the viewpoint that homosexuality was a mental illness, but that after years of psychiatric work and experience with both heterosexual and homosexual people she had come to entirely discard the concept of mental illness necessarily relating to homosexuality.

She said she felt that understanding homosexuality was the great problem of this civilization. She said everyone was a blend of masculine and feminine qualities; that the dangerous and common misconception that “men are men and women are women” was simply not true. She was greatly concerned over the “creative expression which hides behind a mask… unused… unfulfilled.” Because of this deep concern she has lent her support to the organizations ONE, Mattachine, and DOB whenever possible.

Those who felt that homosexuality was a “crime against nature” simply did not know nature, she contended. “The animals do everything people do in the sexual realm. The problems of the homophile are simply the problems of a person who is misunderstood.”

Dr. Baker thanked us for the honor of letting her attend the panel and added that although she had been advised by both doctor and friends not to attend because of the state of her health, that she would have come against all odds. There could be no doubt in the audience’s mind as to the serious physical handicap which Dr. Baker was working against in attending the Institute and it broke into spontaneous and wild applause for this great and courageous friend of the homophile and the homophile movement. After that there was no hope for the chairman’s plea that no individual speaker be applauded.

Dr. Vida Sommers said that her work was of a clinical nature with special groups of homosexuals who would like to change. She said that she did not necessarily feel that homosexuality was a clinical entity. It had various forms of expression. She said that she came to the Institute to learn from the homophiles there rather than to speak to them.

W. Dorr Legg asked the question, “Is homosexuality a defense mechanism necessarily or can it be a healthy, important part of society? Society needs the homophile and if it doesn’t have him in a recognized, constructive role, society will go down to the destruction of previous civilizations,” Mr. Legg continued.

Mr. Julber directed the question to Dr. Bessent: “Suppose society’s attitude changed towards homosexuality over the next 10 to 20 years; would this cure much homosexual anxiety?”

Dr. Bessent answered, “No, not for those who have their own interjected feelings against homosexuality.” A person asked Dr. Bessent from the floor how this could be when the person would then be raised in an accepting environment? Dr. Bessent said that such a case could only exist many steps forward in the process. He cited the instance of many cases of “masturbation guilt” which come to the hospital; yet, he pointed out, society’s attitude has been most benign of recent years. The point is: children aren’t raised by “society” in general, but by people in particular, who may have radically different views and prejudices than the prevailing temper of the times.

Another questioner from the floor asked Dr. Baker her opinion of the efficacy of “group therapy” vs. “individual therapy.” Dr. Baker answered that there was no “versus” involved; that both were wonderful and indispensable. Dr. Sommers agreed and gave examples of helpful group therapy. She added that group therapy was particularly helpful in convincing disturbed homosexuals that they were not nearly so unique and different from other people as they thought.

Dr. Sommers said that she believed the answers to homosexuality lay in “multiple causes” and the interaction between the psychological and sociological sides of life. The question was: “Why did this person choose this type of adjustment?”

Dr. Bessent said that the program he worked for aimed at reducing anxiety so that the persons so afflicted could function in society or learn to relate to even one other person. He said that they were not interested in changing one’s sexual adjustment if that seemed the best adjustment for that particular person.

Dr. Evelyn Hooker, currently at work on a research project called the “The Homosexual Community,” queried the panel from the floor regarding the question: “Are homosexuals necessarily maladjusted; i.e. is there any inherent relation between homosexuality and mental illness?” Mr. Julber asked her to give her views on the question.

Dr. Hooker did not feel that would be proper under the circumstances, but after a brief intellectual struggle with Mr. Julber did state that the purpose of her investigations was to prove or disprove the concept that homosexuality was either a mental illness or a symptom of a mental illness. As to her personal views, she said that she had a very tentative “no” in mind as she felt that she had concrete evidence to disprove the concepts. However, she continued, her evidence was only a pioneer kind of evidence and she wanted other researchers to bring in all the evidence, to research it from all levels and viewpoints. She said that in her work she searched for non-psychotic, non-maladjusted homosexuals. To find one, she said, would serve her purpose of jogging other researchers in the social sciences to investigate this field from different premises than heretofore. Actually, however, she had found many who were non-psychotic and non-maladjusted to society.

Dr. Baker concurred completely with Dr. Hooker. In medical practice naturally one found all types of maladjusted homosexuals because they were seeking help. However, in her social life and contacts she said she knew so many who were not disturbed or maladjusted.

Dr. Bessent felt that he had already covered the matter, but he stated again that he felt there was no necessary connection between homosexuality and mental illness; that it was a matter of cultural demands and prejudices which cause our anxieties.

Dr. Sommers also concurred but said that “adjustment to what?” had to be considered. After all, this is a heterosexual society; if you are not heterosexual, by heterosexual standards you would be considered maladjusted. She added that there was also a large group of maladjusted heterosexuals.

Dr. Hooker wasn’t looking for concurrence and she didn’t want her “tentative no” to be interpreted as the final answer in lieu of conclusive proof on the matter.

Mr. Legg asked, “What is heterosexuality a defense against?” This question didn’t sound quite so ridiculous when Mr. Legg followed it with the suggestion that ONE Magazine might have a series called “How Normal Can You Get?” illustrated by newspaper excerpts of cases like the mother who boiled the baby to death on the stove. He added that a study of biology would show that “nature” was not nearly as interested in reproduction as we’ve been led to believe.

A questioner from the floor asked Mr. Julber how we should go about getting the laws changed. Mr. Julber said, “Just what we’ve been doing the last seven years.” Mr. Julber continued that there must be much spade work to soften up public opinion first. The young man did not agree, “But wouldn’t a change first in the laws accomplish this?” “No,” said Mr. Julber, “statute follows public opinion, not the other way around.”

ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS

Must Christians Live With Guilt?
Moderators: Rt. Rev. Thomas Martin & Father [Bernard] Newman

The discussion was attended by approximately l9 men and 11 women. Father Martin introduced himself and Father Newman as workers for 18 years in the field of homophile problems and in helping homophiles to overcome their conflicts. Father Newman spoke for a short time on his interpretation of the question. He rephrased it to ask, “Is it necessary for one to have guilt?” He felt that it was not. He contended that there was no condemnation by Christ anywhere in the New Testament against homosexuality, per se. He asked, “Why should any man feel guilty for following his natural inborn traits given him by God?” Good question; it seemed strange to hear a minister ask it though.

He took a dim view of St. Paul’s writings wherein much of the condemnation against homosexuality or any kind of sex is to be found. He felt that St. Paul lived one thing and preached another. He said that there was proof that Timothy was a beloved of Paul’s. He cited the 18th Lesson of the 47th Verse of the Bhagavad Gita as having merit for us. He interpreted it to mean that it was better to follow one’s inner traits than to live in a manner not fitted to one. He cited an interesting passage from St. Thomas (the doubting apostle) to the effect that until man learned that he was really two spirits in one body, he would not know God.

Father Martin asked for questions and round-table discussion of the problem. Nothing happened for a few minutes. The people seemed frozen, whether through fear or awe was hard to know. Finally one soul ventured that the people seemed stunned at the possibility that ministers might understand and accept their problems as being very little different from other people’s problems and that perhaps someday they might sit in a church of their choice and be accepted and recognized as homosexuals without any fear or guilt.

Father Newman said that it was perhaps for that reason they were here. One member asked where the concept of sex being so awful came from? Another member felt that it was as Father Newman had said, if you stayed with the ancient writings you were all right; that it was when you got into churches proper that you had troubles. One brought up the problem of having confessed to a priest and having had the man betray his confidence to people he worked with. It gave him a pretty dim view of religion. Father Newman stated that the priest had not really been a Christian in his heart or he would not have done it. Another member of the group told some good stories about priests to counteract the bad impressions given.

One member felt that homosexuals were mistaken in feeling that only they were condemned to living with guilt in the Christian churches. She felt that in all churches sex itself was taught to be a sin except wherein it was used to beget children within the marriage contract, and then the people involved weren’t supposed to really enjoy this experience. About the time the group seemed to be thawing out and getting over its timidity it was time for the discussion to be over.

One person got in a last minute question: Who were these ministers and what church had they come from? They spoke differently from any other ministers she’d ever seen or heard. Father Martin gave her a card which read: “Rt. Rev. Thomas Martin, Abbot; Saint George Chapel and Monastery, The Church of Divine Love, Eastern Orthodox: 1580 Bledsoe Lane, Las Vegas, Nevada.” She asked if that were some offshoot of the Catholic Church. Father Martin said that it was not. Father Newman said the church had been in existence since 64 A.D. and that it stemmed from the teachings of St. Thomas, the doubting apostle. It then became clear what had caused a certain lack of communication between the moderators and the group. They were not connected with any of the commonly known Christian churches which have managed to infect most Christian homosexuals with a deep guilt as to their basic natures, if not most Christian heterosexual people as well.

There is a certain bafflement in speaking to, or in front of, what seem to be orthodox ministers, when these same ministers seem to feel there is no reason whatever a homosexual should feel guilty about his nature. Any orthodox minister, enlightened or otherwise, would know the emotional bias in most Christian churches and society itself which surrounds the subject of homosexuality or “perversion.” If the minister had been working in a different context, however, and had no deep prejudices drilled into him, it is reasonable why he should think that logic alone should solve any problems in the matter.

Should Men and Women Homosexuals Associate?
Mrs. V. Vostwald, moderator

There were eleven women and seven men present at the discussion. Mrs. Vostwald posed the question, ”Why do people associate?” “Mutual interest; business; religion; man is a social animal, and sex” were the answers given by the group. Mrs. Vostwald asked if it was the lack of mutual sex interest which kept the homosexual men and women apart?

One felt that it was not just the lack of sexual attraction, but a positive neurotic hostility to be found in both groups. The group didn’t do much with this thought but generally agreed that there was a need for the mingling of both sexes to share thoughts and attitudes with each other. It felt this was much healthier than strict separation of the groups. One male married couple felt that this was all very well but that in all their experience of trying to have mutual friends among the Lesbian group they had been frustrated. They didn’t know whether it meant that they personally were disliked and unlikeable, or whether it meant that Lesbians were generally difficult people who did not wish to associate with male homosexuals.

The thoughts and justifications brought up by some of the women on this problem were very interesting. Some felt that the reason their invitations had not been returned was due to the difference between the way the men and women lived…that where frequently the men were accomplished and able to entertain on a grand scale, that the women in most cases were not and that since they were unable to return in kind what they had so bountifully received, they returned nothing. This particular aspect was continued after the roundtable with many insights being gained on the matter by the participants.

Mrs. Vostwald posed the question, “Do we have a social responsibility to fraternize?” The consensus seemed to be that we did, but it was brought out strongly in one quarter that no one should be forced into such relationships unless they so desired. This faction felt that all that could be done was being done in such co-educational ventures as the ONE Midwinter Institute. The roundtable was quite successful with much participation from both sexes.

Creative Expression as Therapy
Dawn Frederic, moderator

By way of definition it was offered that “creative expression” is self expression regardless of whether it is an art form. “Therapy” may be either treatment or preventive. This form of therapy is used because there is often an inability to express anything in some mental illness and all mental illness involves isolation and inability to express and identify. Contact with environment comes with ability to express self. Creative expression can also be used in diagnosis.

The group tossed around definitions for a time, bogging down somewhat in an attempt to differentiate between art, actual creative talent, hobbies, etc. It was agreed that creative expression does not become therapeutic until it is shared with others.

Sex Repression and Mental Health
Ron Argall, moderator

The question was posed, “does the mental health program foster sex repression or does it help to overcome such situations?” The group felt that most likely our mental health program is repressive, but that this is because it is a governmental program based on tax dollars and political whim and would most certainly be of conformist nature in these early formative years.

Very likely many or most sex crimes are in some way a results of sex repression and censorship and repressive legislation cannot improve the status quo. It was offered by one member of the group that one may be mentally health even though sexually repressed. An instinctive tendency cannot be destroyed, but it can be expressed in many ways and does not have to be repressed in a given way. There are acceptable and unacceptable methods of expression and in the cases of satisfactory sublimation, the individual need not suffer deteriorated mental health. Mental hospitals and clinics do not give much thought to these philosophical concepts for they are in touch primarily with people whose repressions and anxieties have got the better of them. Undoubtedly many reasonably or highly integrated and healthy persons are sexually repressed but have other means of expression.

Is Homosexuality Natural?
Jim Kepner, moderator

The moderator opened the discussion as to whether the term natural meant normal or average and if the sex pleasure principle were to be considered as well as the “sex for procreation only” theorem. He pointed out Dr. Albert Ellis’ premise that exclusive homosexual or exclusive heterosexual conduct was neurotic.

One woman suggested that the answer to the question of the naturalness of homosexuality would depend on if one subscribed to the scientific or the religious point of view. She quoted from speeches made by Dr. Frank Beach, Jr. and Dr. Wardell B. Pomeroy as reported in previous issues of The Ladder and pointed out that both these men have stated flatly that homosexuality is part of our mammalian heritage, that it is prevalent in all species of animal and therefore cannot be considered unnatural.

Another individual suggested that behavior could be considered unnatural where adjustment has not been made — where homosexual tendencies do exist and cannot be escaped. It was further suggested that homosexuality is a state of being and not just a physical expression, that the fact a person was a homosexual before knowing about or desiring the sex act would indicate some other factor was involved. Homosexual behavior, he indicated, does not necessarily involve “choice.”

The fact that each culture determines what behavior is natural or unnatural was also brought out. What is natural in one culture may be considered unnatural in another and vice versa. It was also pointed out that many professional people in the field of psychology maintain that there is a homosexual component in all people and therefore it could hardly be an “unnatural” phenomenon.

Why the question at all before the group? someone asked. The answer lay in the problem of legal definition in the courts, in the religious point of view, and in the scientific question as to whether or not homosexuality can be cured.

It was concluded by the group that the question as to whether or not homosexuality was natural would be relevant as long as people were disturbed by the question.

Adjustment Through Partnership
Don and Jon, moderators

The need for a courtship before a homosexual marriage was pointed up in discussing necessary factors for evolving a permanent relationship. A basic friendship, companionship, common interests and community property were also found to be components of such a relationship.

One man who identified himself as an analyst said that one of the chief problems he dealt with in marriage counseling was the imbalance the parties felt in what each contributed to the union. Difference in income is often a factor here, he said, and suggested that those so disturbed draw up a balance sheet of assets and liabilities for each partner and so determine that while one may not be contributing as much money, he certainly may be contributing many intangibles of net worth to the relationship.

Difference in age need not be a factor, it was said. It would depend of course on the resilience of the elder and the ability of the younger to adapt.

Warning was issued that jealousy and demand for absolute fidelity could be most destructive in its effect on a marriage relationship.

Psychodrama — ‘A Mental Health Problem Demonstrated’ with Audience Participation.
Conducted by William F. Baker, San Francisco psychological counselor

Mr. Baker gave a short history of “role playing” from the ancient Greeks to the modern “psychodrama.” The psychodrama as such is of recent origin and used primarily by psychologists and psychiatrists in group therapy work with patients in mental hospitals.

Mr. Baker used members from the audience to demonstrate the technique of psychodrama. Two situations were chosen: one, that of a gay bar wherein two homosexual males seated alongside two heterosexual males (one a repressed homosexual) react variously to the entrance of an obvious “swish.” Two, that of a “normal” family wherein father, mother and younger brother await the arrival of 18-year-old daughter at the dinner table. Daughter has just discovered that she is a lesbian and plans on moving out.

The audience hugely enjoyed the extemporaneous performances. Mr. Baker interrupted the enjoyment to explain that in practice not more than eight to ten people could be permitted in such activity as the audience participation made the “actor” self-conscious and ended the therapeutic value of the performance. Mr. Baker had earlier pointed out that the value of this technique was two-fold. The individual could act out his secret frustrations and desires without penalty and later in consultation with his analyst could get at the true roots of his problems.

ANNUAL BANQUET

Dr. Mario Palmieri, world famous consulting engineer and writer, gave a short and moving address on the topic of “classical boy love” as conceived and practiced by the ancient Greek statesmen and philosophers. Dr. Palmieri cited parallel and attendant problems of this phenomenon in modern civilization. Don Slater, editor of ONE Magazine, was toastmaster.

TEA AND POETRY

The “tea and poetry” session, directed by the one and only “Samson”, provided a delightful ending to one of the best Midwinter Institutes ever attended. There was an array of both professional and amateur talent.

W. Dorr Legg read poems from the “Greek anthology” and “the sonnets” of Michelangelo. Antonio Reyes held the crowd spellbound with his mastery of traditional Spanish dances. He was accompanied by Mrs. Pina on the piano.

Some modern poems were movingly read by Morgan Farley, a noted actor. Especially stirring was “Sailor Boy” from “Death of the Scharnhorst.” Rachel Rosenthal, actress and drama coach, read “Songs of Sappho” attired in a striking white costume reminiscent of a Grecian nymph [Note: other sources describe her outfit as "astonishingly sheer -- Jim B.]. Later she read more modern poems from J. Phoenice and Edna St. Vincent Millay. The audience was held rapt by the musical quality of her voice and her beauty.

Rick Warren: Warren’s performance continued to highlight what an unfortunate choice it was to select him for the inaugural invocation. His inflection and style lacked gravitas and humility and at times he seemed false and fawning. I watched the ceremonies in a local coffee shop and the crowd laughed when he verbally caressed the names of the President’s daughters.

The Presidential Inauguration Committee should have closely observed his praying style before announcing Warren. Had they done so, they might have made another selection. Or perhaps they did and wanted what they got.

Vice-Presidential Oath: I wonder why the Veep has an oath that is so much longer than the President’s. It seems that this oath is not stipulated by the Constitution and so they use the same one used by Senators.

Swearing In: Did Roberts not make clear to the President that he would be offering whole sentences rather than small word coupling? And then Roberts screwed up where “faithfully” was placed in the oath.

I would never accuse the man of intentional sabotage, but it does remind us that when President Obama was a Senator he voted against confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts.

Presidential Address: This was a good speech. It began with the usual platitudes and was full of generic rhetoric, but it also gave indications where this administration will view the world with different eyes than the last. Specific references to restoring “science to its rightful place”, and “we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals” suggest direct policy changes while more general references hint at priorities that will change.

What saddened me was the continuation of excluding gay persons from any reference in the grand fabric of the nation. Of course some will dismiss this as an overreaching demand for such a small community, but Jews and Muslims – both much smaller populations in America – received specific reference. As much as I hope and wish for meaningful change for our community, I now fear that gay Americans are seen as a less insignificant part of Barack Obama’s America.

Benediction: Bless Rev. Lowery, but if anyone less prestigious had given that prayer they could not have carried it off. “The Red Man can get ahead, man”? Yikes!!

But I am particularly pleased that the reverend said:

And now, O Lord, in the complex arena of human relations, help us to make choices on the side of love, not hate; on the side of inclusion, not exclusion; tolerance, not intolerance. And as we leave this mountaintop, help us to hold on to the spirit of fellowship and the oneness of our family.

Considering the press surrounding Warren and his selection, it seemed to me that Lowery was speaking directly of the rights of gay Americans and the recognition of their relationships.

CNN: I found it of questionable taste that throughout the President’s speech they kept finding and focusing on an elderly black person. They stayed too long and the audience members’ shock of recognition of themselves on screen was distracting from the speech. And after a while it ceased seeming a confirmation of the fulfillment of a promise and began to take on a feeling of pandering and condescension. I hope that in the future media outlets can recall that this is the President of all Americans, not just old black Americans, and that we all should join together to provide our support for his leadership.

Finally, this was a joyous occasion. We should, as a nation, together hope and support and celebrate this new chapter in the history of our country. Because be we Democrats or Republicans, young or old, gay or straight, black or white or brown or chartreuse, we are Americans and Barack Obama is our President.

But by the early 1950’s American society’s view of homosexuality took a very sharp turn toward the dark side. This turn was partly sparked by the loud controversy stirred by Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948. Where before, homosexuality was little talked about; now it seemed suddenly to be everywhere. In the minds of Americans across the country, homosexuality now joined the other emerging threat, communism, as two great menaces to American order. By 1952, there had already been several purges of gays from federal employment. With the APA’s addition of homosexuality to its list of mental disorders, the fates of gays and lesbians would be sealed for the next two decades.

And as is always true in the medical and psychiatric fields, where there is an illness, there’s a quest for a cure. This was true for homosexuality long before 1952, and unfortunately it is still true today in some unenlightened circles. For the most part, the cure consisted of ordinary forms of talk therapy. But other, more abusive forms of therapy — namely electric shock therapy or therapies involving severe nausea-inducing drugs — weren’t exactly rare. And, of course, as long as gays and lesbians were labeled “mentally ill,” all manner of discrimination was made possible against those who officially declared to be operating under a mental impairment.

Thirty-five years ago today, on December 15, 1973, all of that began to change when the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees “cured” millions of gays and lesbians across America when they voted to pass this resolution (PDF: 464KB/5 pages):

For a mental or psychiatric condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder, it must either regularly cause subjective distress, or regularly be associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning. With the exception of homosexuality (and perhaps some of the other sexual deviations when in mild form, such as voyeurism), all of the other mental disorders in DSM-1 fulfill either of these two criteria. (While one may argue that the personality disorders are an exception, on reflection it is clear that it is inappropriate to make a diagnosis of a personality disorder merely because of the presence of certain typical personality traits which cause no subjective distress or impairment in social functioning. Clearly homosexuality, per se, does not meet the requirements for a psychiatric disorder since, as noted above, many homosexuals are quite satisfied with their sexual orientation and demonstrate no generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning.

The only way that homosexuality could therefore be considered a psychiatric disorder would be the criteria of failure to function heterosexually, which is considered optimal in our society and by many members of our profession. However, if failure to function optimally in some important area of life as judged by either society or the profession is sufficient to indicate the presence of a psychiatric disorder, then we will have to add to our nomenclature the following conditions: celibacy (failure to function optimally sexually), revolutionary behavior (irrational defiance of social norms), religious fanaticism (dogmatic and rigid adherence to religious doctrine), racism (irrational hatred of certain groups), vegetarianism (unnatural avoidance of carnivorous behavior), and male chauvinism (irrational belief in the inferiority of women).

The New York Times alerted the world with this Page One announcement:

The American Psychiatric Association, altering a position it has held for nearly a century, decided today that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. The board of trustees of the 20,000 member organization approved a resolution that said in part, “by itself, homosexuality does not meet the criteria for being a psychiatric disorder.” Persons who are troubled by their homosexuality, the trustees said, will be classified as having a “sexual orientation disturbance” should they come to a psychiatrist for help.

The full APA would go on to ratify the policy statement on April 9, 1974. But attempts to cure homosexuality would continue under a new illness inserted into the DSM as a compromise in 1974. Sexual Orientation Disturbance (SOD) defined homosexuality as an illness if an individual with same sex attractions found those attractions distressing and wanted to change. The new diagnosis served the purpose of legitimizing the practice of sexual conversion therapies, even if homosexuality per se was no longer considered an illness. The SOD diagnosis also allowed for the unlikely possibility that a person unhappy about a heterosexual orientation could seek treatment to become gay. Reflecting the realities of clinical practice, 1980’s DSM-III changed SOD to “Ego Dystonic Homosexuality” (EDH). That diagnosis was finally removed in 1987, but resurfaced as a brief mention under “Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified”, which describes persistent and marked distress about one’s sexual orientation.

Update: The last paragraph describing subsequent diagnoses was revised and clarified, with thanks to Dr. Jack Drescher.

So to those who knew Harvey well, it came as no surprise that shortly after the 1977 election, Harvey was on good terms with Dan White, a conservative supervisor representing a blue-collar district in the city’s southeast. White, a former cop, was supported by the city’s police union whose leaders were angry over  city policies which they considered to be soft on crime and homosexuals. There couldn’t have been two politicians from more opposite ends of the political spectrum. The local media ate it up as the two made joint appearances on local talk shows where they both talked warmly of each other. Harvey began to privately telling friends that he thought White was “educatable,” and that the two might actually be able to work together.

The warm feelings didn’t last long. During the election campaign, White had made a centerpiece of his campaign his opposition to a proposed psychiatric treatment center in his district. Neighbors worried that the center would put “arsonists, rapists and other criminals” in their neighborhood. Harvey was inclined to support White, which would have given White the 6-5 majority he needed to block the facility. But as Harvey learned more about the center, he discovered that San Francisco children would be sent instead far away to a state hospital where they would be cut off from their families. He concluded that “they’ve got to be next to somebody’s house,” and switched his vote.

The loss infuriated White, who blamed Harvey for the loss. For the next several months, White would not speak to him or his aides. Other supervisors noticed that White stopped spending as much time at his office in City Hall, and he was sullen during the weekly board meetings.

White retaliated by switching his vote on Harvey’s gay rights bill. Before the vote on the psychiatric center, White voted for the bill in committee and spoke passionately for it, tying it to his experiences as a paratrooper in Vietnam. But when the gay rights law came before the entire board a week after the vote on the psychiatric center, White changed his vote. The bill passed 10-1.

These two episodes were the start of a bitter public feud between White and Milk. White opposed every street closing or permit involving the gay community — he was often the only supervisor to do so. But as the year went on, White became increasingly disillusioned with politics. He also found that the $9,600 per year salary wasn’t enough to support his wife and infant child. He had opened a potato restaurant at Pier 39, but that business was struggling. Citing these pressures, White abruptly resigned on November 10, 1978.

This resignation gave Mayor George Moscone a tremendous opportunity to reshape the Board of Supervisors. The makeup of the eleven-member board was roughly split 6-5, and White was part of the majority who favored of conservative, business-friendly, pro-growth policies. With White’s resignation, the Mayor now had the opportunity to tilt the balance toward those who favored a more neighborhood oriented approach.

White’s supporters in the business community and police union were alarmed at his sudden resignation. They met with him to promised some financial support, and urged him to ask Moscone to reappoint him to his seat. Meanwhile, Milk and other progressive leaders lobbied Moscone to appoint someone more in line with their views. The fact that Milk vigorously opposed White’s reappointment was an open secret. Randy Shilts, writing in The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk, described an encounter between Charles Morris, a publisher of a local gay paper, and White at a political fundraiser. White appeared to be in a good mood, so Morris struck up a conversation with him. At one point, Morris suggested that “there are some in the gay community who think that you might be anti-gay.” White replied, “Let me tell you right now. I’ve got a real surprise for the gay community — a real surprise.”

Mayor Moscone set Monday, November 27 as the day he would announce whether he would reappoint White or name someone else. The night before, a reporter from KCBS called White to say that a source told her that he would not be reappointed. White refused to comment. He hung up the phone and stayed up all night, eating cupcakes and drinking Cokes. The following morning, his aide called to say that a group of his supporters planned on going to city hall to present Mayor Moscone with petitions and letters of support. Since his wife had already taken the car to go to work, Dan asked for a ride to city hall. He hung up the phone, got dressed, and loaded his .38 Smith & Wesson.

White’s aide dropped him off at City Hall. White paced around a bit, then found an open basement window. He jumped through the window, allowing him to avoid the metal detectors at the building’s entrances. He made his way to Moscone’s office, who agreed to meet with White in the outer office. White asked Moscone to re-appoint him to his former seat. Moscone declined, and their conversation turned into a heated argument. Moscone then suggested they move to a private lounge attached to the mayor’s office where they could speak privately. Once inside the small room, White pulled out his pistol and shot Moscone twice in the abdomen, then twice more in the head.

White then reloaded his gun and went down the hall to Harvey’s office. There, he asked to speak privately in an adjoining room. White later recalled that he began to scream at Harvey and that Harvey got up out of his seat. White then pulled his gun and shot Harvey three times in the chest, once in the back and two times in the head. White then fled City Hall, and eventually turned himself to his former co-workers at the police department.

Thirty years ago today, on November 27, 1978, tens of thousands of stunned mourners gathered in the Castro for an impromptu candlelight march to City Hall. The sea of candles stretched ten city blocks long. At the steps of city hall, Joan Baez led the crowd in singing “Amazing Grace” and the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus sang a hymn by Felix Mendelssohn.