Harry Hay and Don Slater: Two Views on Homosexuality from Pioneer Friends and Parallels with the Tea Party and the Founders of America

If it is worthwhile and even important to try to learn how this nation was founded and who the founders were and how they thought about the government they were establishing (Constitution/Bill of Rights) then it is equally important for citizens to know how and why a movement was started go gain civil/equal rights for homosexual Americans, and who the founders were and what they thought about homosexuality.

This civil rights movement is easy to document, and primary sources still exist with a few of the founders and historical material of their work and ideas. 

Each year there are more books written about the founding of America and the founders.  But there has been no such historical interest in the founders of this movement, even though issues of homosexuality are in the pages of most newspapers, and on tv talk shows and in the halls of Congress.

Why is there no interest in knowing the people who started a movement that was successful in about 50 years and continues to add success each year, despite opposition from bigots?  In a few cases, people working in this movement also worked in the black or women’s civil rights movements, including Dr. King’s co-worker, Bayard Rustin.  It should be worth knowing how Harry Hay, Dale Jennings, et al., started, in secret, the first organization, Mattachine (the foundation) in 1950, during the worst of times, the McCarthy anti-communist era when homosexuality was “joined” with communism to gain political power.  The irony is that most of the founders had been Communists but were kicked out of the party because of their sexuality—and thus they started this movement which has thrived while the Communist Party has essentially died.  But it is important to know that after early Mattachine was so wildly successful, with meetings all over Los Angeles and then California, it was “killed” and was reborn (the Society)  by Hal Call, et al., in San Francisco, by conservatives.

But before this happened in 1953, part of the organization had separated in 1952 to become the public voice, and publish a magazine, and thus under conservatives (Don Slater, Dorr Legg, et al) was born the first homosexual magazine, ONE, social service organization, educational work-with classes (and ONE Institute and Quarterly), some of the first homosexual books (Homosexuals Today, Game of Fools) and public lectures and legal efforts (a lawsuit against the Post Office that went to, and was barely won in, the U. S. Supreme Court (1958).

Like a new current book on America’s founders,  Madison and Jefferson, in which we again learn how the founders were able to work together while having different views on how america should be governed, a book should be written about how the pioneers of this movement also worked together, while having different views on homosexuality, how to change society, etc.

The two major views were important because they were so different.  The first was that of Harry Hay, covered in an article in one of the major glbt publications trying to discuss serious issues, The Gay & Lesbian Review, of January/February, 2008).  The author, Douglas Sadownich (and Chris Kilbourne) make the point perfectly before writing a word, by quoting Harry himself:  “We are a separate people, with, in several measurable respects, a rather different window, a different consciousness which may be triggered into being by our sexuality.”  There can be no exaggeration of the importance of Harry, and his views still exist, and his work is added to in the current issue of the Review by a co-worker, Don Kilhefner, discussing another organization/work harry co-founded, the Radical Faeries.

This view was welcomed by closet cases and bigots since it fit the stereotype that we are different, exotic and not like the majority.  

The second view was that of the ONE founders, mainly Don Slater and Dorr Legg.  Their view was based partly on the work of Dr. Kinsey and Dr. Hooker.  They took the view that this is not a lifestyle but a sex act, and all we needed was the right to privacy and we didn’t care what others thought but they should not be allowed to vote about our civil rights, especially if they based their views on some religious doctrine.  And further, we did not want to be separate—it was only society that forced us to be a minority by passing laws against us.  (This is also the view taken by a decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in a Colorado case.)  We sought integration, not ghettos.

This is relevant to issues of the Tea Party people. What authority the government has over our personal lives is what the Constitution and Bill of Rights say.  Don Slater said the legal people should re-read the Ninth Amendment.

The one point that has to be made, to newly “out” people and young homosexual men and women, is that, whether or not  they know it or like it, how they live today is based on the work and views of both Harry Hay and Don Slater.  Even though they disagreed on what they both considered basic issues, they always worked together on the major efforts, and from the start to the day they died, they loved and admired each other.  And they worked; they didn’t sit in meetings talking about terminology and making up academic words and phrases such as “gay identity,” “deconstructionism,” “gay essentialism,” “social construction,” etc.

Our rights do not depend on why we are or if we could change; they are granted to us as individual citizens. It is time for Americans to stop trying to “understand” us but to understand why some people seem to hate us and have a personal interest in denying us our rights.

And our cause will continue to become even more successful if young people and citizens interested in all citizens having equal right join us.  It is strange to hear some young people be so skeptical of politics and the ability to gain our goals.  Some even think we have gotten everything we needed—full (or close enough) equality.  The facts don’t support this—as suicides and bar raids in 2010 prove.  And to those who think we have not made positive changes over the years, I suggest they get in a time machine and go back and live in 1950.  

I say the same thing to some Tea Party people who want to go back to yesterday, when their kind were so happy and gay.  That is because they were in control, a clear majority, and thus benefitted from the way things were.  Let them try living in 1950 as a black or a homosexual citizen—and to do without the technology we have today.

Homosexual citizens and Tea Party citizens actually have the same problem with government: it is too involved in our personal lives.

Monroe's column asking what Dr. King would say/do about lgbt issues (WCT 1-20-10)

To Tracy Baim, editor of the Windy City Times:

It is very strange that for some reason there is so much discussion at once, or so it seems to me, about homosexual and racial civil rights issues, and two items seem to speak to each other and us about what we need to consider.

I watched, a rare thing for me on that channel, a documentary on Bayard Rustin on Dr. King’s holiday, on LOGO. A tangential issue, I wonder how (Rev. Irene) Monroe thought when the BET channel chose to have, on King Day, a film on Malcolm X. But I learned or was reminded of the issues Rustin faced, and King and the black civil rights movement deal with, in their work in the documentary. There have been several boks on Rustin, but i dobut young people who read them even really understand the many issues he had to deal with.

I think Monroe is right when she says/thinks that had King done much in support of the lgbt civil rights movement he would have lost much support from black citizens, and black preachers, as he started to do near the end of his life when he got into economic issues and the questioning of the Vietnam war.

And King and Rustin, like Obama, LBJ, etc all had to make choices on how best to get changes they sought without harming other changes they also wanted. Specifically, Rustin had started in the anti-war movement, a pacifist and working with the Fellowship of Redconcilation, as I recall. He then got into the black civl rights issue, and as the media finally got right, he got credit for the March on Washington. But he was under constant attack, as indirectly was King, from blacks who hated homosexuals. While some good came, for instance, from (Rev. Adam Clayton) Powell, he was vicious in accusing King of being homosexual because King chose to accept the help of a homosexual, Rustin, in his work for black civil rights. And Rustin, who had been arrested for public sex (homosexual) did little for the glbt cause as he had chosen to work for the race rather than sex issue.

And Rustin, needing LBJ’s help in the cause, did not speak out against the Vietnam war because he thought it would cause strain in getting help from President Johnson in changing laws, and he was right.

And the issue is with us today as we try to get changes in all areas of American life. Each of us can only do so much, and we must choose what group or part we will support. And hoope others will work in the areas we can not.

As we watch the issue of same sex marriage come up it is sad if not funny to hear young black people opposed to lgbt civil rights when they did nothing to gain their own rights.

It is another issue I wish we had a Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert to cover in case there is some way to deal with this issue with humor.

Bayard Rustin: Troubles I've Seen

Bayard Rustin, by life and words, left a message that too many black preachers have not learned from. I suggest they need to stop preaching hatred of homosexuals since their lives today are better because of a black homosexual: Bayard Rustin.

Do they not know that it was a homosexual who was the main force behind the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, and the main strategist for several early black civil rights groups? If not, they can read, among other books, Jervis Anderson's biography of Rustin, titled: Bayard Rustin; Troubles I've Seen. It would also be a very worthwhile book for all Americans to read, especially activists today in the black and homosexual civil rights movements.

The most important point about Rustin's life is that he, as the book shows, did not waste any time trying to explain his homosexuality to his co-workers, all of whom where heterosexual, male and female, black and white, young and old. You "hear" of his arrest on sex charges in Pasadena CA early in his career, and that is the end of discussion except for the bigots in the FBI and black organizations who tried to use the arrest to prevent him from doing his work, which they were jealous of.

There is a direct parallel between the black and homosexual civil rights movements, and only ignorant people try to deny it. Rustin was the perfect example. The tactics used by southern racists against him were due to his being a proud black man who happened to be homosexual. He combined the two movements even though he only worked for the black movement.

The issues he and the black organizations faced were the same that homosexual movement pioneers faced. They were both attacked by the FBI and politicians and churches. There are many examples given, but one that stands out to show how the media was complicit in working against both civil rights movements is that the Alabama paper allowed itself, as did the New York Times, etc, to be used by his enemies to attack Rustin and the black leaders of the march in Alabama. And it is not widely known that Rustin was a main organizer of this work, as well as the famous March on Washington. People in the black movement who were jealous of his power and influence, including Adam Clayton Powell, who blackmailed leaders to keep him out of the movement. Some good leaders tried to stop Rustin because they felt he, as was and is true of both movements today, was trying to join/combine too many issues together, in his case pacifism and black civil rights, and poverty, etc. An issue relevant today in politics thanks to Senator Clinton's famous remark that Dr. King's work and words were important but it took president Johnson to change the laws, was used by Roy Wilkins against Dr. King—he said to King, your words have not changed any laws.

Rustin, in the black movement, like Don Slater in the homosexual movement, was not always in agreement with the views and tactics of the majority of his co-workers. Many plans and events that Rustin warned his friends against turned out to do harm to the movement when his warnings were ignored. His views on affirmative action were not in the mainstream. Same with Don slater. He came to think that the time of marches had passed. Same with Don Slater. He was the most important person in the background in several organizations and few knew of his great work. The same is true of Don Slater.

Southern racists used Rustin's skin color against him. Jealous co-workers used his homosexuality against him. In the end Rustin remains the most important unknown person in the black civil rights movement. His words are as important today as when he was speaking them. And it would be a good idea for Senator Obama and his associates to take the time to read about Bayard Rustin-as he was the person behind the scenes who helped make Dr. King and later black civil rights leaders who they were. And he planned what they did.

Again, the book is: Bayard Rustin: Troubles I've Seen, a biography by Jervis Anderson, published by HarperColins, in 1997.

Thinking about how the internet would have affected the pioneers of the homosexual civil rights movent

At first it seems that if the pioneers of the homosexual civil rights movement would have been able to do a lot more if they had the tools, such as computers and the internet and cell phone, that we have today.

I don’t think so. You can not judge such things by looking back. But it is clear that nothing they could have said to more people with the internet, or had cheaper ways of reaching people, etc. would have affected the world of that day any better than they did.

We forget, not only in the homosexual civil rights movement but in all civil rights movements, that it is not just the words and “news” that the public gets that instantly changes them, but education over time. We also forget that the same “media” in the 1950s and ’60s that were extremely anti-gay were also extremely anti-black, etc.

It might be a good sociological learning experience to read a biography of Bayard Rustin, the Don Slater of the black movement, such as Bayard Rustin, The Troubles I've Seen. He was one of the greatest organizers of his time, and did the March on Washington. But he had to constantly fight the lies of the FBI, jealousy of other black leaders who were afraid Dr. King et al. would get more credit for changing things than they did. If you think Senator Clinton’s words saying that it took President Johnson to fulfill the dream of Dr. King, you will know find that Wilkins and the NAACP were thinking the same thing: he once told King that he had spoken good words but had not changed a single law, which is the same argument.

And it was the local newspaper that tried to get Bayard killed, and worked with bigoted politicians to try to stop the marches in Alabama. Nothing a computer or the internet could have done then would have changed that fact. And when Bayard’s homosexuality was used by jealous black leaders, nothing at the time would have prevented that. Rustin, like Don Slater, and sort of like the Barney Franks of today, was a practical person who didn’t waste time talking about some dream but worked to get things done that could be done at the time.

So I don't think we need an article praising the computer and internet. We need to use it today, but it would have made no difference in the ’50s and ’60s. AND, it can be helpful today ONLY because of what we did in the ’50s and ’60s to prepare people to “hear” the truth.

While is is truly frustrating in each decade to hear young people say they did not know there were others like them, and they can now find information and chat rooms on the internet, these were available from the day Mattachine’s group opened shop as ONE in 1952 and had a phone, public office, and a magazine that was available on newsstands in most major cities. Anyone who sought information in the 50s could have found ONE Magazine, and then the Mattachine Review, The Ladder, Drum, Vector, Advocate, and we were holding national meetings, appearing on radio and television shows, so that there has to be some other explanation if people in the ’60s on did NOT know that homosexuals were speaking out. We were winning court decisions in the U. S. Supreme Court in 1958. The media ignored this and only ran terror articles accusing us of being child molesters, or traitors-quoting McCarthy without doing any checking for facts, which they are guilty of today. And so it seems to me that it is the fault of these people if they did not learn about homosexuality until they saw Ellen, or saw some cute girl or guy on a TV show.

And when people seek information on the internet today, which websites do they go to? HRC’s? The Tangent Group’s? Or do they go to some sex chat room and share ignorances?

What has truly changed is that the media can no longer just publish or speak what anti-gay bigots say. And MTV shows homosexuals living with heterosexuals in The Real World. And Brothers and Sisters shows discussion of a gay wedding, and reaches people no gay publication can. LOGO does nothing that helps promote homosexuality. And the glossy gay men’s magazines do little for our community/movement—they promote expensive cars, clothing, and vacations. If that is what the computer and internet have given us, it is no improvement.

Where is serious discussion of issues of homosexuality? The media is flooded with “news” about same sex marriage. Is that the only issue homosexual Americans face? What about how we deal with issues that are not simple. For instance, we oppose in theory the war in Iraq, BUT we must face the news everyday that Islamists are killing homosexuals. What do you think we should do if you oppose the war? If you have no altgernative, you are no better than the present administration. Again, even Bayard Rustin had to come to a view about dealing with the world that he did not have at first as a pacifist. And he had to deal with the issue of trying to work for more than one cause at the same time. He chose the black cause, but never doubted that the homosexual cause needed support too, but knew that it would hurt both causes if they were combined. That is an issue we face today.

Are all of these courses/classes in colleges actually giving information on homosexuality any better than MTV? Are all of these websites and blogs on the internet giving us any better ideas? THAT is why we need the pioneers back. They were thinkers. I don't see any thinkers in our community today. And the internet, so far, can not doing the thinking. And much of their thinking is available today, in our dozen or so libraries/archives. But the gay press ignores these resources. They aren’t “sexy.”

The only hope is that once we get all of our history on the internet, some day serious citizens will seek this information out and it will be there, thanks mainly to the pioneers.

Bayard Rustin covered in documentary, Out of the Past

Of course I spend most of my time thinking about the homosexual movement, so it is not surprising that I keep finding things connected, so here I get to San Antonio and Ron has just gotten a DVD called Out of the Past and it has coverage of Bayard Rustin.

It was good on him, pointing out mostly how J Edgar Hoover/FBI tried to destroy Dr. King by exposing Rustin’s arrest/homosexuality. At first King let him resign but (partly due to A Philip Randolph I think it was) he came back in time to do the March on Washington.

I liked the plan of the documentary. It is wrapped around the young lesbian in Salt Lake City in I think 1993 or so who started the high school gsa group. And then pointed out—even though she was not aware of the early people—Gerber and Gittings/Kameny, ending with the young teenager meeting Barbara and Kay as they are riding in a car in a pride parade (I assume in New York but it could have been the gay march in DC), but it seems that it would not have been he first one, so I was confused.

My usual complaint is that this is only an East coast “production” even though the basic theme is the Salt Lake City teenage lesbian. It covers mention only, as far as I can recall of DOB. I don’t think anything from Henry Gerber “happened” until the Daughters in the East, Gittings. I’m not sure it even mentions Kameny as being Mattachine, but it sure never mentions Harry Hay et al, and never ONE. What kind of a history ignores the very basic people and group that started a continuing movement?

I continue to have mixed emotions about the basic issue of this and almost all “histories” or biographies of homosexuals. I did not follow the usual trip apparently. I never sought out a book or worried about being the “only” one. Even at LSU I did not seek out more info—just “got it” in the psychology class and did then wonder why sociology was not covering this issue. BUT why didn’t the teenagers in 1993 have all the info they needed—not in a Mormon library perhaps but LIFE had had Don Slater and Hal Call pictured as having a publication in their 1964 article, and even by the ’80s most coverage had stopped being so negative. I was glad they covered Kameny and Gittings getting the psychiatric issue covered, but intelligent people know that a lot of “education” including ONE the magazine, institute, etc had led up to that point.

Dr. King: black civil rights people and homosexual rights people

It’s sort of like the old days with Don Slater, but Paul and Ron and I are talking about various issues of homosexuality, starting even with the definition—Kinsey versus? Don of course, like Kinsey, said it is an act. I agree. But it is complicated by people like me, who have no sex, even for 20 years, but we are still homosexual. And some people have a homosexual act but are not homosexual. That is why I think I’ve said the person is homosexual if he or she has even the slightest number of acts over 50% of the time with someone of the same sex, by choice, or would have, if they could. I think it has been said that if you dream of a homosexual act, that also is an indication.

But what is still on my mind is the current discussion on the black civil rights movement, people mainly, brought on by the 40th anniversary of Dr. King’s death and my finding the book on Bayard Rustin, telling of how hard life was for him being black, trying to travel around the nation promoting pacifism, not even sexual or racial issues. And how many “liberals,” black and white, refused to help the movement people for fear of themselves being hurt. And then how some black ministers seemed to be jealous of King et al. getting too much power and publicity. And how some movement people had trouble “confusing” the public by trying to take on more than one issue—Bayard Rustin was first into Communist Party work as it seemed to be supportive of helping the blacks and trying to fight the American government, and its secret support of England, etc. against Germany and then changed when Germany invaded Russia, saying they didn’t want to “undermine” the Americans since they would be helping Russia fight Germany, so they no longer supported the black civil rights cause.

Both Jon Stewart (The Daily Show) and Stephen Colbert last night covered this issue, also an issue now because of Obama and his preacher. Jon had coverage of black speakers pointing out how the media and historians, and people with motives/agendas, have tried to “Santa Claus” King and take off the truth, that he did not always get support and many people didn’t like him, He was not a saint, and he said America was bad towards blacks and talked against the Vietnam war, etc. They said that did not make him un-American, that patriotism in not in just saying America is perfect but in trying to make America more perfect.

And it seems to me this is the same thing for women’s rights, our rights, etc. We acknowledge the great progress made, and each generation builds on what it receives and adds to, builds on that work, so that future generations will have an even better life.