by Milk, Harvey
In effect, Milk called to his community one last time—with just over two months until the Proposition 6 referendum—for a last push. This Milk Forum piece showed the pressure that was mounting, and that Milk was experiencing, as the battle over the Briggs Initiative hit its crescendo. In a sense, Milk’s editorial struck fear in his audience; it appeared to him that there was no safe haven or quarter for anyone out of the closet. His last push for others’ involvement in the anti-Proposition 6 campaign was serious business—expediency, worry, and frustration framed Milk’s tone in the following editorial.
. . .
Take your choice. Strong positive or strong negative. That seems to be what’s happening in the Gay community with the Briggs/Bryant forces coming down on us. From input that I’m getting, Gays are falling into one or the other category. Take your choice!
THE NEGATIVE BEAT
There are those in the Gay community who have given up the battle against Briggs even before it gets under full steam. They take the position that no matter what we, do we cannot win. So they start to crawl back into their closets and try to shut out all light . . . all hope. They want to have every Gay “be nice.” They want Gay to become invisible. They are willing to allow all the young people who are “coming out” to go through the hell that so many people have gone through in the past—feeling alone and frightened with no help, no hope. They have even taken the position that since they are not teachers, the Briggs initiative doesn’t affect them. They won’t register to vote! “What difference does it make?” is their line.
THE POSITIVE BEAT
Then there is the positive beat. Those who feel that we can win against Briggs and will do everything possible to see that it can happen. And that spirit runs across the lines out of the field of politics and into all aspects. That spirit can be summed up by calling attention to the Gay physicians and psychiatrists who in the face of a possible witch hunt have broken down their closet doors and “come out,” destroying myths in doing so . . . giving hope in doing so. That spirit can be summed up by the San Francisco Gay Freedom Day Marching Band and Twirling Corps and the powerful sense of excitement they bring at each of their performances. That spirit can be summed up by the Gay-Police charity softball game which, once again, on many levels, showed what coexistence means. The Bryants/Briggs would never be able to understand the spirit of that game and the long-range ramifications. Bigots don’t understand. Finally, that spirit can be summed up by those who are taking an active part in the anti-Briggs campaign. The task set out to them is huge, and they are tackling it—now.
THE SIDELINERS
The rest of the Gay community, those who are on the sidelines, are those who are watching it all take place and just talk about it without getting up and joining one side or the other. If that multitude sitting on the sidelines were to get up and join the positive side en masse then Briggs/Bryant would be stopped. If they continue to sit on the sideline and just talk, then we are in serious trouble. And, if they get up and move to the negative side, then repression will become a reality. The sad thing is that right now that multitude is just sitting there and not making its positive move. It is a sad fact that when it does understand it has to move, it may be too late. The positive work takes longer and more effort than the negative approach. Maybe that is why such a relative few have made that positive move. They are not willing to fight for their rights. The hate campaign has yet to begin in full force. Once it does, it might be too late to beat it back. The fight has to begin right now . . . yesterday. It must be fired up now. Volunteers and funds are the only way to beat Briggs . . . good vibrations won’t do it!
This is as deep and as urgent an appeal as I can make. Please! If everyone in the Gay community would just commit a few hours and/ or a few dollars per week, we can win. If everyone waits for the other person to move first, we lose. If you feel that your effort won’t make the difference, you are wrong! If you think that tomorrow will do, you are wrong! The army needs to start its movement now. San Franciscans Against Briggs, BACABI [the Bay Area Committee Against the Briggs Initiative], No on 6, and A United Fund to Defeat the Briggs Initiative are making their moves, but they need you . . . badly! For they are you. Without you they really don’t exist. If Briggs wins, he will continue his Gay-hunt. He must be stopped now, and only YOU can do it.
42
“Statement on Briggs/Bigotry”
Public letter, September 22, 1978
In September 1978, Milk and other leaders of the movement to defeat Proposition 6 organized a legal symposium at the Hastings College of Law regarding gay rights under the current law and what the contours of these rights—and other minorities’ rights—would be reduced to in the event of a Briggs Initiative victory. The document below is an invitation to GLBTQ community members to attend this symposium. In the process of bringing people together to explore legal ramifications of Proposition 6, Milk laid bare some of the overt—and not so overt—“facts” about the current climate in California concerning gay rights and the larger issue of human rights. Namely, as he noted in a June campaign letter related to this topic, “We are a group of citizens who understands the Briggs Initiative to be an alarming and increasingly strong reactionary attitude in the U.S., and we further understand that gay people are linked with women, ethnic minorities, old people, disabled people and the bulk of the nation’s labor force as immediate or eventual targets of the witch hunts that would be the result of any victory for this reactionary mindset.” As always, Milk linked the GLBTQ community with other disenfranchised groups in the service of accomplishing larger goals.
Interestingly, his message in this invitation at once provoked terror while also indicating some collective strength. There is a sense of dread as the November election day drew near and Briggs seemed to be gaining momentum. At the same time, however, the power to stymie this oppressive initiative was in the peoples’ hands. As with his earlier appeals for community involvement (see Document 39), Milk argued that defeating Proposition 6 could only be done if more GLBTQ folks, in particular, contributed their energies to the cause.
. . .
Recently, I faced Republican State Senator John Briggs in a two-hour debate. Every “argument” that Briggs used was based upon myths, fears, lies, innuendos and ignorance. He obviously knows little about the subject he is discussing and cares little for the truth.
I feel the Senator is using the gay community as scapegoats, much as Hitler used the Jews as scapegoats and Nixon used the communists in his drive for power.
Senator Briggs is trying to constitutionalize bigotry. He will not be successful. His stands fly in the face of why America was formed, why the Constitution was written and why it has been amended since to guarantee the rights of Blacks, women and others.
But the horrors of the Briggs Initiative are not the only problems faced by lesbians and gay men in this state and in this country.
One would like to think that most Americans are opposed to discrimination. But history tells us that is not so. For over 100 years, we were content to treat Blacks as property. For over 100 years we were content to deprive women of the simple right to vote.
And, of course, for well over 200 years, this country has been content to treat homosexuals as something less than human. The fact is that in 1978 it is perfectly acceptable to fire a gay person from his or her job, not for any reason related to the job, but simply because that person is gay.
The fact is that in 1978, it is perfectly acceptable for police in almost any city in this country to harass a gay person, not because that person has broken a law, but simply because he or she is gay.
The fact is that in 1978 it’s perfectly acceptable to watch a gay person in jail be sexually assaulted because our sadistic morality tells us that he or she deserves it, simply because he or she is gay.
And in 1978 it’s perfectly acceptable for courts to take a child from a gay parent and place that child in a foster home because people won’t believe that a gay parent ca
n love and take care of a child as well as any non-gay parent.
The concept of gay rights frightens people. And maybe it should. Not because it threatens their children; it does not.
Gay rights frightens people because it shatters the myths that have been perpetrated by this society ever since the days when homosexuals were set afire at the stakes in Salem with bundles of stacks called “faggots.”
What is even more regretful is that many gay people have also been brainwashed with these myths and are struggling to find peace with themselves. They are not aware of what rights they do have, what rights they should have and what rights they can have.
Tomorrow and Sunday, Hasting College of the Law will host a Gay Rights Under the Law Symposium.
We have brought together leading attorneys and activists from across the United States to discuss the status and future of gay rights. The conference will provide the first opportunity for an exchange of litigation and lobbying strategies in the area of gay rights.
Representatives of the United Farmworkers and the NAACP will discuss how they have confronted the similar problems their groups have faced.
Hopefully someday soon, conferences like this will not be necessary and society will accept its gay citizens with the same respect and tolerance it affords everyone else.
43
“Overall Needs of the City”
Speech, September 25, 1978
Only six months into their terms, the newly elected San Francisco City Supervisors were accused of self-serving politics by powerful community leaders wishing to go back to citywide elections. Recall that district elections allowed individual neighborhoods to vote for their respective representatives. The overt concern of these critics was that San Francisco’s overall needs would be pushed aside in the maelstrom of the Supervisors fighting for their particular districts’ well-being. Covertly, there was speculation that these more oppressive forces did not like that one neighborhood could elect a Chinese American, one could elect an African American woman, and—of course—that one could elect an openly (and proudly) GLBTQ individual. Such a plurality of voices and diversity of backgrounds potentially threatened traditional power bases and monied interests in San Francisco.
There were a number of issues that raised doubts about the genuine care of these critics and the veracity of their claims. First, the Supervisors had barely begun their terms before a Grand Jury was called to review evidence provided by the anti-district election proponents. Clearly, there was not enough time to be able to ascertain a fair conclusion about the alleged corruption of district-elected Supervisors. Second, the critics failed to understand that any elected official represents, first and foremost, her or his district. Even in the case of citywide elections, localized neighborhoods were to be centered as key constituencies. Third, the Grand Jury focused—at least in terms of Milk—on his support of the gay rights ordnance as evidence that he only cared about District 5 (as if there were no GLBTQ individuals living in other districts). As a populist, stretching back to his foray into San Francisco politics in 1973, Milk had always been interested in overall reform. And indeed, in the press release that follows he reminded his constituents that he worked hard for every facet of the city’s people and their myriad problems. For instance, his campaign materials from the 1977 election note that his platform involved building housing developments, reducing public transportation costs for citizens, cleaning up public green spaces, fundraising for community centers, and working with police to ensure more safety in the districts. Yes, of course, he also sought a gay rights ordinance and labored to fight Proposition 6. But in the end, Milk’s populist sensibilities never gave way, even when a majority of his time and energy was focused on the Briggs Initiative.
The entire issue of the Grand Jury investigation exposed some of the fear of the power interests in San Francisco who were worried about what near-true representation of the city’s people (i.e., through district elections) would do for monied interests. If power brokers could not control cross-city elections, as they had in the past, then seemingly people in the “city of neighborhoods” would have more say. As for Milk, he questioned what antagonists thought were San Francisco’s true needs. Milk, often backed by supervisory assistant Anne Kronenberg, was fond of sending press releases from his desk in City Hall. He viewed this as a part of his daily responsibilities as a populist leader. Sometimes offering advice or a summary of doings in his office and other times seeking public support or making a scathing argument against monied interests, Milk’s press releases pepper the archive. Most of the documents are mundane, but some stand out—examples of Milk’s fiery political stances and forth-rightness. Even the mundane releases are worth examining, to get a sense for Milk’s daily work as a city and GLBTQ leader. The press release that follows, however, is not to be classified under the “mundane” category.
. . .
The Civil Grand Jury, in its report last week, chastised the current Board of Supervisors, the first one elected by district. It charged the Supervisors with being more concerned with their personal constituencies than with the “overall needs of the City.” And it attempted to link this with its major concern, that of middle class flight from San Francisco. . . .
The new Board has been in office less than a year and hadn’t been more than 6 months by the time the report was completed. This was hardly enough time for the Grand Jury to study the long-range, permanent effects of district elections.
I also question what the Grand Jury considers the City’s “overall needs.”
Many, many people have commented to me about how much more responsive the current Supervisors are to public opinion and participation. That’s an important “need” for city residents.
I know that the dirty streets of District 5 receive much more attention now than they did before—as do the dirty streets of every District where the Supervisor cares. The same is true of the many small issues that concern people. That, too, is an important “need.”
True, I spend much of my time dealing with issues of particular concern to neighborhoods and people of District 5. But I also work hard on the many city-wide issues like budgets, dog litter, Yerba Buena, housing costs, sewers and zoning and I also work on state issues, like Proposition 13 and now, Proposition 6. The same is true of the other members of the Board. This is a “need” that is being met.
But most puzzling about the Grand Jury report is how it tried to tie district elections to “middle class flight” from San Francisco. There has been no census since district elections went into effect and the current Board has been in office. I don’t know on what basis the Grand Jury could have measured “middle class flight” in the last few months.
The problem of families leaving San Francisco has been in existence for over ten years, hardly the result of something we have done only recently. It is an important problem, to be sure, but it is not one that will be solved by spending millions of tax dollars from other San Franciscans, as the report suggests.
The plight of seniors and minorities in our City is also a major problem, though the Grand Jury overlooked them. The current Board has certainly paid a great deal more attention to these people than did the old, at-large Board.
Maybe the Grand Jury should have talked to the District Supervisors before they wrote their report. I know of at least one who they didn’t bother to talk to.
Maybe that was because its members figured they knew what I’d say, just like they “knew” what the long-range effects of district elections were and they “knew” why the middle class was leaving San Francisco.
44
“Ballot Argument Against Proposition 6”
Public letter (with Frank Robinson), November 7, 1978
By the time the Briggs Initiative referendum came and went, Milk and Briggs had engaged in countless debates across the state of California. In effect, the public debates involved mostly boilerplate arguments—those that were recycled time and time again. Both Milk and Briggs could anticipat
e each other’s questions and answers. In strange ways, the two political gladiators fighting for the lives of their constituents had become friendly on the road and in the wings of their public verbal battles. Regardless of the repetition involved in the debates, Milk always shined. And the familiarity of Briggs’ performance, in particular, allowed Milk to continually push Briggs into a corner as a vociferous homophobe. Briggs’ energy seemed to wane and he became hyperbolic in his exhaustion. Meanwhile, a life on the road emboldened Milk, spurring on his biting critiques of myth making on the part of Proposition 6 supporters. Milk also began to link the Briggs Initiative to a slippery slope that would eventually harm free expression and free speech of everyone in San Francisco—regardless of their sexualities. When the votes were in, Milk had held sway. On November 7, Proposition 6 was defeated by more than a million votes, 3.9 to 2.8 million, 58-42 percent.
There is a sense in this document of the domino effect that Milk often talked about regarding the initiative. On one of the many “debate cards” that he carried to public meetings with Briggs, he wrote, “If this [Prop 6] is allowed to pass it could become part of an epidemic which will spread—as it did in Nazi Germany—to other individuals who are minorities by virtue of their race, religion, sex, political beliefs or national origins.” Indeed, the Bay Area Reporter and other California news outlets speculated that Briggs’s witch hunts could potentially carry on if the voters moved in the direction of limiting individual freedoms.
The press release below was crafted by Milk and his speechwriter and friend, Frank Robinson. The release rearticulated the anti-Briggs arguments one last time on the morning of the referendum. This would be Milk’s last public, discursive push for the defeat of Proposition 6.
. . .