Archive of Hope
Page 21
These were strong people . . . people whose faces I knew from the shops, the streets, the meetings, and people whom I never saw before, but who I knew. They were strong and even they needed hope . . . and those young gays in Des Moines who are “coming out” and hear the Anita Bryant story—to them the only thing that they have to look forward to is hope. And YOU have to give them hope.
Hope for a better world.
Hope for a better tomorrow.
Hope for a place to go to if the pressures at home are too great.
Hope that all will be alright.
Without hope not only the gays but the blacks, the seniors, the poor, the handicapped, the US’s give up . . . if you help me get elected, that election. No, it is not my election, it is yours—will mean that a green light is lit. A green light that says to all who feel lost and disenfranchised that you now can go forward—it means hope and we—no you and you and you and, yes, you got to give them hope.
PART THREE
Supervisor Milk Speaks
26
“Harvey Speaks Out”
Interview, Bay Area Reporter, December 8, 1977
Following his election in November 1977, Milk agreed to speak with journalist George Mendenhall of the politically important Bay Area Reporter newspaper. Ostensibly, the narrative extracted from the Mendenhall interview became Milk’s first fulsome statement of goals, philosophy, ideology, and literal steps to be taken for reform during his time as City Supervisor. What follows is Milk’s vision for change and unity as the City of San Francisco moved into 1978 with a new Board of Supervisors, which would be comprised of a Chinese American, an African American woman, a Jewish woman, and, of course, Milk, the city’s first GLBTQ official. This new Board was, in Milk’s estimation, the quintessence of San Francisco’s “city of neighborhoods”—a palpable demonstration of its diversity.
Milk reminded Mendenhall of his motivation to run for office in the first place—the notion that “hope” was vital to inspire in all people. Of course, “hope” was specifically centered on gay rights first and foremost for Milk. In another Bay Area Reporter piece a few weeks later, Milk wrote about this very inspiration: “We can look to 1978 with the sparks of hope as we see the potential leap of Gay power taking place. Gay political power will move forward on many levels . . . the impact will be felt.” In the Mendenhall interview, Milk discussed how he remembered what it was like to be a teenager discovering his sexuality. Milk’s election, he averred, could potentially sound a clarion call to those in doubt and in hiding that there were possibilities for political power but, perhaps most vitally, for personal safety, empowerment, and happiness. He reiterated this memory and its connection to “kids” earlier that month when writing about his legacy, noting “I think I’ve already achieved something. I think that it’s been worth it. I got that phone call from Altoona, Pennsylvania [from a gay teenager who expressed to Milk that his election helped him come out], and there’s at least one person out there who has hope . . . and after all, that’s what it’s all about.” Milk’s role in the process of voice and liberation was to prove to others that change could and will happen.
Milk understood his role as the central GLBTQ leader in San Francisco and, perhaps, his stature as one of the most famous GLBTQ leaders in the nation. As with the “You’ve Got to Have Hope” speech, he wove his own ethos and personal experiences into a narrative with which others could connect. In a heteronormative society—then in Milk’s time, as is the case now—where marginalization and (worse) invisibility are the central travails of GLBTQ peoples, Milk seemed to come to grips with his place in the movement. Oftentimes aligning himself with Martin Luther King, Jr., and analogizing the GLBTQ cause to the mainstream civil rights movement, he charged ahead with both credibility as the movement’s primary leader and the stresses that came with the assumption of that very role.
The text below describes Milk’s plans for improvement as he would take office the following month (January 1978). Those plans included the need for a gay caucus to suggest modes and policies for change, the importance of educating the GLBTQ community on issues of rights and privileges, the demand for motivating the GLBTQ community to exercise its duties in the enfranchisement process and in organizing in unified ways, and the need to work with officials like Mayor George Moscone to enact negotiated tactics in the service of social change.
. . .
B.A.R. is pleased to present excerpts from a taped speech by Supervisor-elect Harvey Milk. He spoke before the November meeting of the San Francisco Gay Democratic Club. . . .
VICTORY
I will never forget it. I cannot. I know where it comes from. I don’t have any power or influence yet. It really doesn’t take place until January 9.
I am just a figurehead, the one who happened to step out of the back room. I am the one who happens to have done it. It is your victory, and I do not mean just the ones who worked and voted for me . . .
The opponents threw everything against us—innuendos, phony endorsements, and all—and we still won.
WALKING FROM THE CASTRO
The swearing in will be at noon on Monday, Jan. 9. We will be walking from Castro Street.
I was elected to represent the City of San Francisco and the 5th District. I also have a responsibility of being a Gay leader. I hope the walk will include everyone.
In the 98 precincts in the district, we were first in 60 and second in 33. We worked all over the district and our victory was broad-based. I knew that it would be.
WHAT THIS VICTORY MEANS
I ran three times before succeeding. Traditionally it is three strikes and you’re “out,” but I play by different rules.
When the mayor asked me a year ago what my motivation was, I told him that I remember what it was like to be 14 and Gay. I know that somewhere today there is a 14 year old child who discovers that he or she is Gay and learns that the family may throw that child out of the house. The police will harass that child. The state will say that the child is a criminal and that the intelligence of the Anita Bryants will be screaming at that child. Maybe that child read in the newspaper, “Homosexual Elected in San Francisco,” and that child has two options: move to San Francisco or stay in San Antonio or Des Moines and fight. The child has hope.
THE OBLIGATION OF GAY PEOPLE
Picture a country of hundreds of Gay clubs and organizations. National conventions with 8,000 people who are electing to national office friends of the Gay community. Maybe we never had it so good, compared with what went before, but the future can be greater.
We are now split: Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Independents. Many people say, “I cannot get involved in politics and why should I? Who is going to bother us here?”
We must begin now to be involved so statespersons will go out and change the laws. It can still happen here as it did in Germany. The Briggs’ are the Hitlers. If the Briggs’ win, they will not stop. They will taste victory . . .
It is vital that people join Gay groups even if they cannot attend the meetings. We must have members. The politicians want to know how many people are involved. Our protection is strength.
If we don’t have the money, we must have numbers. We must register people to vote. Gay people have registered 5,000 voters in front of my camera store on Castro. . . . When I first started the Castro Street Fair the city would not close the street for me. The next year I took them photos of the crowds that had been there and they closed the street.
LEARNING & BUILDING GAY POWER
There were an incredible number of speeches made at the Democratic National Convention about rights, rights, rights—but we could not get a Gay plank into the platform. This is so even though we make up 5–7% in a voting bloc. They walked away from us. My answer to that is that we shall never again go back. We must start to build toward the national convention so that we cannot be ignored. . . . The Jewish vote is estimated at a 4% bloc vote. The Democratic convention was geared to get that Jewish vote.
When “push comes to shove,” there are more of them than there are of us. We are going to need their support, and we had better start playing their games now. We must get into battles such as the International Hotel or whatever. We should work openly as Gay people so they know who is supporting them; so they will be there when we need their support.
Get involved in someone’s campaign for the June primary elections. Let them know that you are Gay. If they don’t want you, we will be finding out who is who.
A STRATEGY FOR GAY POWER
We must have a statewide caucus of Gay people, not just Gay Democrats, but also Gay Republicans, Socialists, Communists, Fascists and Independents. Then we must invite all of the candidates for state office to speak to us—not about the aerospace industry, but about their positions on Gay rights.
The time has come to embarrass our friends. We must ask ourselves some questions now that will have to be asked sooner or later. We can sit in the back of the bus where we may get shoved out when it is unpopular to have us around. We might as well find out now who our real friends are. If it embarrasses certain candidates, so be it. I am embarrassed by some of them.
NATIONAL STRENGTH
We must begin now to put together a statewide movement and learn from our mistakes in doing that. Maybe in three years we can have our own nationwide convention and invite the national candidates to find out where they are. If neither presidential candidate shows up, there may be a third candidate. There is no reason why we should vote Democratic or Republican just because we are ourselves Republican or Democratic.
What good is a nation which is economically healthy, that is beautifully run, if you are in jail because you are Gay. We must learn from history that the time for riding in the back of the bus is over; that we must ride up front or ride by ourselves. We must make that decision—not just for ourselves but for that young person in Altoona, Pennsylvania . . .
THE BOARD PRESIDENCY
Five of the ten on the coming Board want to be President, and they are very nice to me. Eventually, I will vote for one of them. Then I will have the other four to worry about.
The freshmen on the new Board may get together and share their thoughts. I have had two meetings with Supervisor-elect Dan White, who is thought of as all for Mother, God, and Apple Pie. He seemed comfortable at the Oyster House on Castro [where the two met and dined].
There are many issues: speculation, rent control, etc. I believe that we will have the votes on the new Board on Upper Market Street. I would like to see the new Gay ordinance (expanding Gay employment rights citywide) considered by the new Board so we can see how they vote. . . .
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MAYOR
I went in to see the mayor when I was elected this time. I told him, “When I criticize you, you will hear it first in this office. It is only if there is no satisfaction that they will start to hear it outside. There are certain things that the Gay community wants and needs. I will be lobbying and watching. . . . As soon as I decide who I personally think should be the next mayor, I will come and tell you. You will be the first to hear it.”
THE MAYOR’S RACE
If Mayor Moscone, who made promises to us a couple weeks ago (in a published transcript in B.A.R.), does not live up to them, look for the next candidate. He knows that he made some promises and we can no longer just sit back and let promises be enough. We must have our share—no more, but no less. He has two years.
We must get involved in the mayor’s race. If the mayor does not live up to his promises, then we will be involved in finding another candidate. He knows that. You are going to make the difference. Not me.
Last time I said early, “With five major candidates for mayor and two possible in the run-off, we can wait until close to the election and then say, ‘We offer you enough votes to put you in the run-off and this is what we want. . . .’” Many “leaders” in the Gay community who were desirous to retain their token positions let this slip out of our hands. They stopped the Gay community from making a major move at that point. Let us never let that happen again.
WORKING TOGETHER
We must stop fighting among ourselves because someone is not liberal enough or someone is not conservative enough or someone doesn’t have the right personality. We must stop fighting and work together. Even if we can’t stand each other, we have to work together. . . . There are also lots of people still “coming out” and you know what they are going through. Some are petrified about their careers. They need us to help them in their coming out.
FOCUS ON THE GAY ISSUE
It is not that the Gay issue is more important or that the other issues do not count, but we must focus on the Gay issue. There is no reason why other groups cannot discuss Gay issues. We cannot allow them off the hook.
I understand the problems of Women, Blacks, Chicanos and others, but I don’t want to give them a way out. We are the only group discriminated against by the law. I would like to see support for us on this one issue.
I don’t think that we should fall into the trap of trying to accomplish too much and allow others to say, “We are for human rights and thank you very much.” I have heard that too often. . . . I don’t see other movements speaking out against Briggs.
I want to say to the governor, “We know where you stand on employing women. We read it in the papers. How many Gay people do you employ?” I don’t see Governor Brown dumping some orange juice and announcing, “Enough of Anita Bryant.”
MY COMMITMENT
I have already scheduled meetings in the Haight area. There are about 15 District 5 neighborhood and association meetings a month. Either one of my two aides or myself will be at those meetings. I will also be available and accessible to the broader community and the Gay community.
We have to keep pushing. The mayor was right when he said, “The supervisors would have closed Polk Street for Halloween if there had been 70,000 head of cattle down there.” How far do we push?
We must be strong and be heard. We must push as hard as they push and then push a little stronger.
Since I speak as a Gay person, I am very much aware of the responsibility that I have. I will make mistakes, and when I do, my aides will remind me of them. I hope that the mistakes will not be too serious.
27
“A City of Neighborhoods: First Major Address I and II”
Reprinted speech, Bay Area Reporter, January 10, 1978, and February 2, 1978
The day following his inauguration, Milk attended a fundraising dinner for the California State Democratic Committee. Though Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally, who was running for re-election, was the official keynote speaker, all anecdotal accounts (most notably journalist Randy Shilts’s impressions in his book The Mayor of Castro Street) indicate that Milk stole the show. Speaking of Dymally, Milk noted in a letter to his movement that the politician was “more than a good ‘friend’” because he had taken a stand alongside the gay liberation movement. In fact, part of the fundraising dinner was dedicated to helping Dymally win the election, as he had “been singled out by the conservative Republicans for defeat” due, in part, to this very support. This message carried over to Milk’s “City of Neighborhoods” address presented here. Seen in this public limelight was his charming and theatrical delivery that had so attracted people in San Francisco to his causes, leadership, and personality. During this first “official” speech as Supervisor, Milk relished the media attention he received and set the lively tone for his future public addresses as one of the city’s most popular politicians. In the speech that follows, as one might expect from a populist, his message spotlighted the importance of San Francisco’s diversity and the class idea that people matter more than �
�big business.” To remedy the influence of those big businesses purporting to “transform the city,” Milk’s discourse here took as its core issue the importance of people in San Francisco lifting themselves out the problems befalling the city—crime, overpopulation, gentrification, and discrimination against Latina/os, African Americans, and the GLBTQ community. He was always concerned about those people living outside the city who commuted in to work. These folks, Milk was fond of noting, did not care much for San Francisco’s neighborhoods. They only felt “condemned to live in them”; these were heteronormative white-flighters who could barely wait to move away from the city’s centers.
In the end, Milk’s message in this document is another example of his populist rhetoric. San Francisco was about people, about communities blending together in powerful ways to improve communal and public life. His victory was for all in the city; as he wrote in the Noe Valley Voice a month after the speech that follows, “[The election] must be taken as a victory for the entire districts and not any one part. I accept this widely-based, broad support with warmth.” To Milk, only “the people” could save San Francisco, a municipal mecca that could potentially be the city of the future. San Francisco, according to Milk, could mean “new directions, new alliances, new solutions for ancient problems.”
. . .
In 1977, a large seaport city on the East Coast voted to take away the rights of some people. Later that year, a large seaport town on the West Coast voted into office one of those same people. That same West Coast city once had a frightening nightmare of the future—and the next morning promptly voted against Richard Nixon. That same city voted to decriminalize marijuana and now sees states like Mississippi follow its lead.