by Milk, Harvey
Interestingly, Milk’s letters to Carter did not stop with the rejected invitation to the San Francisco Gay Democratic Club. Rather, Milk pushed the President throughout the Briggs Initiative battle. In one June 1978 letter, Milk wrote with the niceties and pleasantries befitting a presidential appeal: “I called upon you to take a leadership role in defending the rights of gay people. As the President of a nation which includes 15–2.0 million lesbians and gay men, your leadership is vital and necessary.” In a Desert Sun article titled “Gays Hit Carter on Human Rights” that same month, though, Milk issued a bit more vehemence in his approach: “If Briggs wins he will not stop. They never do. There will be no safe closet for any gay person!” Whether he worked through normative tactics or firmer exhortations, Milk was unrelenting in getting Carter involved in the gay rights fight.
Again, Milk wanted Carter to understand the impact of gay voters on the Democratic Party’s success and on the President’s re-election bid down the road. And over time, Milk intended to “make these gay people aware of their responsibility to vote as a major block in all elections, especially in those that can affect them greatly.” The message was unequivocal in this letter to Carter.
. . .
Dear President Carter:
Like most people in this country, I am very concerned about human rights abroad and supportive of your efforts. I have worked in San Francisco towards affecting change in the South African government’s racial policies and on other human rights concerns.
But I am also deeply concerned about the millions of fellow gay women and men in this nation who have been under attack from those who believe only in myths and fears about gay people and who lack an understanding of just who we are and why we are.
We are doing a strong educational campaign to dispel those myths and fears. We hope that soon the people of this nation and the world will judge gay people by our leaders and our elected officials rather than by our stereotypes, just as they do with Blacks, Asians, Italians, and other groups.
In San Francisco, we have a relatively strong political involvement. We—and particularly, myself—are putting together a strong political base within our own community and state and are forming alliances with the traditional minorities, feminists and union members. It is the goal of Lt. Governor Dymally that by 1990, the Democratic Minority Coalition, with the active support of gay people, will be the backbone of the Democratic Party in this state.
More to the point, the most active and politically aware group in San Francisco’s large gay community is the San Francisco Gay Democratic Club. We will be holding our annual dinner this year on June 23 rd. We have the long range goal to make that the most important political gathering in the gay community in the nation. Inviting guest speakers from all over to make their views known, we intend to let the millions of gay people who are looking for national leadership know where to look. We intend to make these gay people aware of their responsibility to vote as a major block in all elections, especially in those that can affect them greatly.
With this in mind, we would like to have you be the honored guest at this year’s event. We are fully aware of your certainly crowded schedule and the political risks you might be taking by making such an appearance. But the other side of the coin is the role of leadership that you would be playing. Sooner or later, the massive gay population will indeed win their rights as other groups have already done. Sooner or later, the strife and anger and hatred and violence against gay people will be put aside. What we seek now is to leap over the many years and great turmoil that will take place by having the person who represents these many people speak out now. We seek a strong leadership role from someone and no one is better suited for that than a president who has taken a strong position on human rights across the world.
Naturally, we would appreciate a reply as early as possible. Or, if you see fit to discuss this with Vice President Mondale and decide that he might be the one to reach out to these millions of people, we would also be honored.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Warmly,
Harvey Milk
33
“Untitled (on Gay Caucus and Gay Power)”
Column, Bay Area Reporter,” April 27, 1978
Part of Milk’s successful City Supervisor campaign involved a robust call for a statewide gay caucus that would mobilize and gather community across political, social, and coalition-building lines. The goal in this effort was to establish a united front and to foster an influential voting block rendered to put political and electoral pressure on mainstream politicians to keep GLBTQ reform issues on their radar (see Document 32 and Document 34). And of course, politicians were invited to come; it’s not that they were required, but Milk put some pressure on them. In a press release, for instance, he noted, “The caucus will . . . publicize who does and doesn’t attend and the remarks of those who do attend.” The threat to those wishing to skip the caucus meeting was clear enough—the GLBTQ community and larger public would be able to monitor which candidates thought little or nothing of gay rights.
In an April 25, 1978, public memorandum, Milk celebrated the promise of what a gay caucus could do. He wrote, “In no other state, and certainly not in California, has such an undertaking taken place. It marks another forward step for the gay movement. Maybe all the candidates will show up. Maybe none will. But now, for the first time, those who want the gay vote are being given the chance to seek it openly.” Of course, there was a clear, utile motivation behind establishing the gay caucus—political power and a check and balance of mainstream politicians. However, Milk’s insistence on a united front also emboldened the constitutive efforts of the GLBTQ community to gather strength from the caucus internally. The caucus, that is, could be a rallying point and a node of pride—pride that voice could be enacted and that a “good life” together was possible. As Milk reminded his readers in the editorial that follows, “We will see gay women and men from all over the state do what must be done and set the groundwork for the next four years and beyond. It is exciting.” Milk’s excitement punctuated this text; moreover, it translated into the eventual success of the California Gay Caucus. The caucus’s success helped enact his political vision long sought in his voter registration efforts and calls for GLBTQ economic and political power. Moreover, the caucus would ultimately help the GLBTQ community challenge what Milk called “the rise of the Right.” Part of this “Right” would eventually help launch the Briggs Initiative.
. . .
The Mayor tossed out the opening pitch for the beginning of the Community Softball League Season this weekend. The D.A. was there. The Fire Chief was there. To many of us in San Francisco, there is little new in that scene. Gay power, including power at the ballot box, has been growing to a point where no one running for a city office can ignore it. Even those who run by district, be they Supervisors or Assembly people, pay more and more attention to the gay vote.
The same thing is happening in Los Angeles, and Long Beach and San Diego are moving in that direction. And, now the full state? Why not?
The next logical extension of gay political power is to influence statewide elections. As soon as more gay people all over California come to the realization that voting for their pocketbook is not as important as voting for our rights, then the gay vote will become solid and powerful. It could certainly become as important as any other minority vote bloc in the state. If Jerry Brown faces Ken Maddy in the general election this year, the gay vote might make the difference as to which becomes Governor. If not this year, most certainly in four years, the gay vote will be powerful enough to tip the primary race or even the general election.
The task for the gay community, statewide, is to start the organizing of a true non-partisan California Gay Caucus which will put all candidates for statewide office in the same position as those who run for office in San Francisco. Votes, money, workers—they are available. The candidates must seek them and earn them.
This year will be the start
of the state Gay Caucus. The first attempt to bring the candidates and the gay community together is being tried in Los Angeles on Saturday, May 6th. Some have questioned the wisdom of doing it this year when there is no race within the Democratic Party for Governor or Lt. Governor to provide interest. But I look at it as a training ground for putting together such a state caucus. The very fact that it is taking place makes it a success.
In no other state, and certainly not in California, has such an undertaking taken place. It marks another forward step for the gay movement. We will see gay women and men from all over the state do what must be done and set the groundwork for the next four years and beyond. It is exciting.
Every candidate for every statewide office was invited. Democrats and Republicans. It will be interesting to see who attends and what is said by those who do. The Gay Caucus will publish the results throughout the state. We will not endorse, but we will say who felt it was important enough to attend and what they said.
Maybe they will all show up. Maybe none will. But now, for the first time, those who want the gay vote are being given the chance to seek the gay vote. Up front. Not private meetings with a handful of gay people.
May 6th at the Bonaventure Hotel in Los Angeles. It will tell us a lot. Lt. Governor Dymally, Senator Cranston, Mayor Moscone and Los Angeles Mayor Bradley have all joined our side. Senator Briggs and Ex-Police Chief Davis are on the other side. On May 6th, we may see some more move to one side or the other. It must happen sometime.
For those who can make it, please join us in LA on May 6th.
34
“California Gay Caucus”
Article draft, Alternate, May 12, 1978
Milk’s desire to establish a California Gay Caucus came to fruition as the first statewide convention took place in Los Angeles in mid-May of 1978. As noted previously (see Document 32 and Document 33), Milk had both promised to support such a caucus in his City Supervisor campaign and to take a firm leadership role in its efforts for social change related to GLBTQ communities. His excitement and pride came across clearly in an editorial published in The Alternative newspaper in San Francisco. Therein, he informed readers, “The first statewide political caucus of this type happened and another step towards full gay power and gay rights was taken. It was a small bit of history and a training ground for all other states and for California to improve on. That it took place as a success in itself. That ‘they’ came was interesting. That ‘they’ spoke out and joined our fight was exciting.” By “they” Milk referred to mainstream political leaders like Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally, who was a speaker at the caucus’s meeting. Dymally’s presence was an outward sign that the “checks and balances” inherent in the motivation to organize a gay caucus were working.
The California Gay Caucus meeting in Los Angeles came in the midst of two noteworthy strands of political and social context. First, several U.S. cities had suffered anti-GLBTQ legislation limiting where GLBTQ individuals could work and live—cities like Miami, Florida, where Anita Bryant’s campaign was successful. Milk used these examples of homophobic policy making as flag events to push his community forward. Second and related, California State Senator John Briggs was in the process of stumping across the state for Proposition 6, his referendum project for putting similar blockades in front of gay rights efforts. The bottom line for Milk was that what happened in places like St. Paul and Wichita could potentially happen in California. In fact, as Briggs gained popularity, the so-called possibility was quickly becoming a legitimate reality. And at one point midway through Briggs’ campaign, the possibility turned into a palpable reality for a great many Californians. This difficulty forced Milk to work even harder to organize a caucus and to use it as a launching point for his anti-Proposition 6 campaign during his first and only year in office.
The California Gay Caucus meeting could not have come at a better time. For one, the GLBTQ community needed to refocus its political efforts and concretize its commitment to each other. Also, though, Dymally’s presence in particular spoke volumes to the general California public. When Milk mentioned that “they” came out to listen to GLBTQ leaders, he also meant that Dymally railed—of his own accord—against Briggs. Or as Milk put it, “Dymally shifted to a bitter, blistering attack on Senator Briggs and his anti-gay initiative. His emotion and anger against what Briggs is trying to do came out in statement after statement.” Milk now had mainstream political support and the internal caucus that he needed to move forward against the eventual Briggs Initiative and for increased gay rights. As he had written in an earlier Bay Area Reporter reporter issue, “The battle against Briggs will be hard and dirty on his part. We must reach out to every possible group of people everywhere in the state. I urge every Gay person to get involved in their local races . . . we need as much help as we can get, and there is no better way of getting help than to start to help others now.” In the end, the caucus would serve as a catalyst for “help” both with Milk’s in-groups and his external political audiences.
. . .
It was another milestone in gay political history on Saturday, May 6th in Los Angeles. The first statewide gay political caucus took place at the new Bonaventure Hotel.
Gay people from all over the state and all political parties were invited. They came. Candidates from all parties running for state offices were invited. They came. The potentially powerful statewide gay vote finally emerged. No longer will candidates running for state office be able to avoid facing gay people. If they want our votes, they will have to seek them, out front and out of the closet.
The highlight of the day-long caucus was the remarks by Lt. Governor Merv Dymally. I use the word “remarks” because the Lt. Governor started his comments with a low-key statement, “I’m not going to give a speech, but I would like to talk about myself.” He gave a little of his experience as a black person and talked about the oppression that he has faced and the attempts by the ultra-right wing to seek a candidate to run against him. Then Dymally shifted to a bitter, blistering attack on Senator Briggs and his anti-gay initiative. His emotion and anger against what Briggs is trying to do came out in statement after statement: “Briggs is trying to constitutionalize bigotry,” “every ounce of tolerance is going to be attacked; every bit of bigotry will surface,” “Incompetent teachers threaten the lives of our children more than any gay teacher could,” “American politics survives on scapegoats,” “If blacks want their equality, if women want their equality, then they must fight for the equality of gay people.” Finally, the Lt. Governor made the pledge to make the anti-Briggs campaign part of his campaign and to take that message into the minority communities and throughout the state.
It was a powerful speech. Every gay person in the state would have joined those many gays in attendance with the rousing standing ovation that was given the Lt. Governor. He set the standards against which all other candidates seeking the gay vote should judged. It will be impossible to surpass that standard.
The first statewide political caucus of this type happened and another step towards full gay power and gay rights was taken. It was a small bit of history and a training ground for all other states and for California to improve on. That it took place is a success in itself. That “they” came was interesting. That “they” spoke out and joined our fight was exciting.
Gay political clout must move forward especially in the face of the recent defeats in St. Paul and Wichita. The counter balance must be the grassroots organization of the gay community. No longer can we vote one way for economic reasons or any other reasons. We must reach out to support only those who reach out and ask for our support . . . in public.
This was an experiment and it worked. Hats off to those in Los Angeles for putting it together, especially Don Amador, the gay liaison for LA Mayor Tom Bradley. . . And my thanks to all of “them” and “us” who came.
PART FOUR
Milk and the Politics of Gay Rights
35
“Keynote Speech
at Gay Conference 5”
Tape cassette transcription of speech, June 10, 1978
Moving beyond San Francisco and California politics, Milk gained more and more popularity on the national scene during his year in office as the District 5 City Supervisor. By the summer of 1978, he was entrenched in his epic battle with California State Senator John Briggs over Proposition 6. And this campaign had the national “eye” focused on the state and “ear” tuned into its larger implications for GLBTQ communities across the United States. But Milk’s story—in and of itself—also became fodder for political pundits and extra motivation for GLBTQ communities facing similar oppressions and concomitantly celebrating small in-roads.
Milk was invited to Dallas, Texas, on June 10, 1978, to address a regional meeting, called the Gay Conference 5, which included GLBTQ leaders and caucuses from states in the western area of the United States. Undoubtedly, Milk entertained the same themes he had attended to in his 1977 campaign addresses and his 1978 stump speeches in favor of anti-Proposition 6 efforts. Overall, the summer of 1978 was a busy time for Milk, especially as he and his political ally and anti-Briggs debate partner, Sally Gearhart, inaugurated their Fund to Defeat the Briggs Initiative on June 6. Their press release from that day notes, “To defeat Briggs, campaigns have to be waged on many levels. Because different voters are motivated by different things and different people have misconceptions about gays, many approaches will be needed.” Certainly, the fund was one way of defeating Briggs. So, too, though, was bringing the anti-Briggs message to the Gay Conference 5. Much of what follows involves Milk’s larger, nationwide appeals to support Californians in their fight against Proposition 6.
However, another spotlight of what has been deemed the “Dallas Speech” was Milk’s insistence that regardless of the gay communities’ coalition-building goals and his own populism, his sexuality was still core to his identity and public life. He told the Dallas audience, “I was always gay, and then something happened—I got elected and I was still gay.” This self-identification was important because it exhibited a balance between Milk’s mainstream political life and his sexuality—not to mention his sexual politics. At the same time, however, his sentiments below solidified that Milk centered his overall identity on being gay, an interesting move for a leader who had billed himself as a populist. Such a move, though perhaps unexpected (certainly during his walk to the inauguration wherein he held hands with Jack Lira, his boyfriend at the time), communicated both a pride and fearlessness. And if Milk was all about inspiring “hope,” what better way then by showing how one could traipse the line between private and public, while ensuring that the private remained the focal point of one’s subject position?
