Channeling Harvey Milk: It's Coalition-Building, Stupid!

Gus Van Sant's marvelous Milk opened Wednesday on the 30th anniversary eve of Harvey's assassination. One of its messages from beyond: Prop 8 should have been beaten; we know how to beat the Right in California. Seeing it at an Academy preview last week, I flashed back thirty years to the lessons from the No on 6 campaign against the Briggs initiative that would have fired gay teachers. The ugly homophobic words of messianic homophobes Anita Bryant and John Briggs were the same we heard from the YES on 8 folks, only the Right has gotten more clever over its three decades in power: no single lightning-rod celebrity spokesperson, wrap bigotry in a yellow-happy-family logo; build a multi-racial religious coalition (see here).

But the themes were eerily similar: gays and lesbians threaten straight folks' children and their religion. And, yes, we've come a long way when we are fighting for the right to marry as opposed to defending the right of gay schoolteachers to work. But we could have beaten Prop 8 had we studied our own history. 1978 was a different era, a time of widespread social activism on the progressive side; organizing and coalition-building was the norm, and the latest human rights movement - the gay and lesbian movement -- learned how. Critical to Harvey Milk's election was promoting the Coors boycott in the gay community and thus building trust with labor. We came from a 25-point deficit to beat Briggs because we did exactly in 1978 what Barack Obama did this year to win the presidency: Build BOTH a professionally run, disciplined, topnotch top-down campaign AND an inclusive huge grassroots movement that engaged every single person possible in activist support.

This year, I worked in Obamaland for two months around the clock, but in 1978, I was immersed in the lesbian-feminist 'women's music' world and helped organize an amazing 10-city Holly Near/Meg Christian concert tour against Briggs that reached 50,000 people. The day after their concerts, Holly and Meg led training sessions to inspire and educate hundreds of women to become, yes, community organizers. There were a zillion other ways to plug into No on 6, and, as a result, the gay and lesbian community came together in a way that presaged fighting AIDS later. One historical note: at that time gay men and lesbians were living on separate planets, as you'll see in Milk where you meet exactly one lesbian. In truth, there was a huge and vibrant lesbian community in San Francisco, including myself, but we lived in the working-class Mission, out of MIlk's camera lens focused only on Harvey and the Castro. Together, gay men and women built a grassroots movement the likes of which had never been seen before in CA; thousands of people came "Out of the closet and into the streets", pouring into organizing meetings in bars and coffeehouses and feminist bookstores and newly emerging community centers and clinics that were our new home base. We started with our own community coalition.

But even that mass grassroots movement would not have defeated the right wing's vicious campaign without our professional political consultant, David Mixner, who got Ronald Reagan to do a 30-second radio ad that ran the last two weeks of the campaign. Mixner also had briefly run Tom Bradley's Mayoral campaign and worked with African American political leaders to deliver the Black vote in LA. Unfortunately, No on 8 did little coalition-building with the all-important black, Latino, and labor communities.

But most importantly, this year's No on 8 equivalent of that Reagan ad designed to reach the "moveable middle" should have been Barack Obama. Obama opposed Prop 8 immediately, but the campaign failed to use his endorsement until the last days of the campaign when it was too late. When Obama's CA campaign director asked me in early October why Barack's face wasn't plastered all over mailers and TV and radio - which might have made a big difference in Black and Brown communities that overwhelmingly voted for him -- I was told by a friend in No on 8's inner circle that Barack's position was "too confusing" (he says he opposes gay marriage). Confusing? Opposing Prop 8 was his ONLY endorsement in CA, despite pleas from other initiative campaigns. I've heard people blame the Obama campaign for sucking money and people out of the struggle against 8. And I've heard too much ugly anger at the Black community. But take responsibility, No on 8 leaders - you had Barack's endorsement and you didn't use it. That left it wide open for the YES folks to manipulate Obama's position into yet one more lie -- that he supported Prop 8. That was a possibly fatal error and we cannot blame the Morman Church or African-Americans for it. For my full analysis of No on 8, including Where To From Here, go to http://libertyhill.typepad.com

Torie Osborn is a longtime activist, Durfee Foundation Stanton Fellow, and senior advisor to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the United Way of Greater Los Angeles.

Comments

[mikijackson]

Truth telling is a high calling. We used to have leaders like Torie and Morris Kight and look at what we have now. Overblown egos masquerading as leaders. They did, and will sacrifice our civil rights to the imperative of being in charge.

Torie has courage. The "in" crowd often punishes any criticism. They have a wide reach and considerable money and influence behind them. They can "freeze" people out and marginalize them. I've watched it happen to people one would not think could be marginalized.

I've seen them reach far from their obvious sphere of influence and hurt people in very unexpected and "creative" ways. It's surprising what can be done when one has some of the folks who are on these organization's boards and their contacts. Calls can be made, and one can "never eat lunch in this town again", so to speak.

They are now fighting to retain control, putting on sham "town halls" where they "face" the public through computer screens, no direct personal contact. How can anyone claim to be a "leader" when they fear contact with those they supposedly "lead". Talk about "out of touch" how about refusing to be in touch.

Thank you, Torie for all your years of service and for your courage to speak truth.

Check out Torie's article at Liberty Hill and Patrick McDonald's articles and blog for the LA Weekly for some much needed truth telling.

[KevinVT]

Nice piece, Torie! It does seem (from a distance) that not enough coalition building and outreach was done. Let's hope this defeat galvanizes people to do more of that work next time.

We're also hoping that Vermont will take the next step to become the first state to legislate extending full marriage rights (in spite of our Republican Middlebury­-graduated governor).

[Pearlswan]

The "No on Prop 8" forces could have used the movie "Milk" to educate and bring some history to bear on the long and intertwined civil rights battle for LGBT people. The film should have been brought to the churches and distributed among them in order to create understanding toward and compassion for the LGBT members of those churches. It could have succeeded in combating the use of children by the proponents of Prop 8 that were used to incite fear among straight parents. Their argument was nearly identical to the argument to ban gay teachers from the schools that similarly targeted the fears of straight parents that their children would be recruited to turn gay by their gay teachers. I didn't even hear about the film until after the election was over and Prop 8 won. The gay marriage movement lacked the organization depicted in the film. It lacked unity in the LGBT community as well. This film could have unified the No on 8 efforts. It is a powerful American story. Live and learn.

[DianeDfromPhoenix]

Interesting piece on coalition building, but let's take off the rose-colored glasses, shall we?

The days of lesbian separatism were stifling for a lot of people, particularly bisexuals who were vilified by the "community". The cliche about lesbians as man-haters had its genesis in this era. Thank God it's changing, but the fact remains that the orthodoxy of identity politics plays a key part in keeping the gay/straight divide a contentious mess.

Supporting gay marriage is essentially a conversative notion because it supports stable relationships, period. Beyond the overt homophobia and religion-based bigotry, folks fighting against gay marriage are terrified of adding another perceived layer of instability to an already rapidly changing world.

In addition, on a basic level, most people know damn well that sexuality is more fluid than the gay/straight dichotomy that is being pitched these days. Kinsey wrote about it in the 1950's. This has to be addressed, although given the "dumbing down" of our culture, I'm not optimistic that mature discourse can take place.

It is key, however, to promoting responsible adult sexual behavior, whether hetero or homo, and it's an inherent part of the gay marriage debate that's been missing.

[antaeus]

Good points, although I think Kinsey's work is perhaps more problematic and rooted in its own political context than you suggest. His findings were a cultural milestone, but there are reasonable questions about some of his claims.

[pctomac]

Bisexuals can and do marry members of the opposite sex for stability, protection, money--and, in come cases, citizenship.
Bisexuals can and do hide behind an opposite sex partner when the mob lights the torches.
Bisexuals can and do reap the financial and legal benefits of marriage.
Bisexuals can and do exploit the institution of marriage to remain on the down low

Not all of you. But enough of you to make us all wonder.

Openly gay people still do not have the rights and protections you do. That is why, for all the differences and problems between gay men and lesbians, they must fight for one another's rights.

[antaeus]

This is one of the better critiques I've yet read on this issue. But to quibble just a bit: President-Elect Obama's cerebral, formalistic no-on-8 position was hardly engaging. It's not enough simply to check off the right box. Furthermore, I'm a little suspicious of your characterization of the supposed misuse of his position. It seems to me there were more than a few Dems nervously insisting-­-strenuous­ly insisting--that we mustn't jeopardize the election through an overly visible presence in the Prop. 8 fight. You claim that we failed to use Obama's opposition. I seem to remember his opposition being tepid, and many Dems happy to have it that way.

[pctomac]

I am so happy to hear the recollections of someone with an old-school, grassroots lesbian background. That era of lesbian history is really complex. It was a vibrant time to come out and yet there was so much to do to claim our rights. I sometimes wonder if the population at large knows how much lesbians really achieved. The sad part is that we were often ridiculed because of our music and because of the way we dressed and acted--although we were fighting for the rights of all, including gay men, many of whom treated us horribly. I remember walking into gay bars at that time and hearing gay men hiss, "fissshhhh,"

I am not too sad, however, because I know our voices are still heard. I like to think that our generation made it easier, or set a model for, the Rachel Maddows of today,

Rock on, sister.

[HollywoodBill]

1978's Prop6 got broad, bipartisan support and it was nice to see that exGovernor Reagan's role cannot was mentionned in this article. Prop6 was heading for passage until Reagan's editorial in the LA Herald Examiner switched public support from over 60% to a stunning defeat.

Prop8 also had broad bipartisan support. All factions including Dems favored its passage. It passed in LA County. The only growth group where it was defeated was the youth vote. The question there is whether generational replacement will continue to support same sex marriage or will they turn more conservative as they age like the Baby Boomers. The jury is out on that one.

Same sex marriage now has a 30-0 record when presented to voters. Whether the same sex advocates like it or not, it is not a constitutional right. Marriage is and can be restricted. Even worse, there is some question whether gays really want it. In all countries that allow it, and even in Massachusetts, once the initial backlog is take care of, the number of same sex marriages amounts to less than 5% of the gay community. The primary group that takes advantage of these marital rights appears to be over 45 Lesbians, which should come as no surprise to straight women in their 20s. Gay men, like their heterosexual counterparts don't appear anxious to legally wed.

There will be at least a two year cooling period. A lot can change. Or not.

[antaeus]

Gay men might indeed be "anxious" to wed; what you seem to have meant is that they do not appear _eager_ to wed. But we are still left to wonder why that debatable assertion has any bearing on the soundness of extending them the right to do so.

[ProfessorVP]

I live in California, and let me tell you, the No on 8 campaign was too stupid for words.
The whole theme was that of defending the state constitution. It was the
constitution, not human beings, not decency, that was being attacked. You're not supposed to
mess around with the constitution. Can you believe it? That was the centerpiece of No.
The Yes crowd's campaign practically screamed that children's lives could be scarred
if same-sex marriage wasn't banned; the usual predator thing. And No kept plodding along- gosh, we have to protect the Constitution of the State of California. Why Yes didn't win bigger is beyond me. No was just vapid, cowardly, ill-conceived, and plain dumb.

[Trogenhorse]

great piece. You've said better than I the reason there was not broad support. If things are left to the "right thing to do" nothing ever gets done. BTW I can tell you people in the AA community have long memories. Witness the switch from the republican party over 50 years ago. The mean nasty things said by the repubs has made it clear they really don't have room in the party for AA and that won't soon be forgotten. Something for Gay/Lesbians to consider when attacking the AA community and THEN needing a coalition. Even O didn't take the community for granted- he paid little time in Philadelphia and he did not get the AA vote in the primaries. EVERY community wants to understand why it is important for them to support something. And attacking religious beliefs will only result in no coallition at all

[Cesaria]

Being in Northern California and seeing the No vote taken for granted was very sad. There wasn't enough counter points on the attacks given by the Yes folks and the fight almost seemed to start too late. I think everyone was given a wake up call and as we see the fight continues.

[FearlessFreep]

Success has a thousand fathers; failure is an orphan.

[schoolforwonder]

Love this article. I can remember being on the other side of the country in 1978, editing the first women's magazines in Baltimore, organizing, leading, producing concerts, being immersed in lesbian culture so deeply I ached for connections with men, and now I can't recall a single man I knew back then. I stood in the crowd at Obama's largest rally last month in Denver, and wondered where the woman in me went who didn't think twice 30 years ago about standing up in front of anyone, singing boldly or talking from my heart anywhere. When I walked out of the film tonight, I felt bewildered, small, stupid. To see only one woman portrayed among so many vibrant men makes me question myself. (thankfully!) What happened to my willingness to be heard and seen? Why does it take a movie about someone who died 30 years ago to motivate me at age 53? Seeing how my leadership skills moved inward is like finding an old friend. Thanks for clarifying so many of my feelings and experience. I still teach what I need to learn.

[emily2010]

Great work, Torie! I can only hope that the spirit of activism that Obama inspired carries over to recognize gay marriages in all 50 states!

Also, I think we should start calling us pro-gay-marriage folks "PRO-LOVE.­" As in, I'm pro-love, and I voted no on 8, how about you?

[Bostonrock]

Great piece Torie, and exactly the kind of message we need to be hearing; strategic, insightful, and full of purpose. The only solicitation I received from No on 8 was from a straight friend, not even the campaign itself. Many of the community's best organizers were never approached to help. You should run it next go-around.­..

[scottslakelounge]

I have the highest respect for Torie Osborn. The big question I have for Q "leadership"
is how they ever let this ballot measure come to a public vote. If they had challenged the
ballot measure in the courts from the beginning on the grounds that the vote to repeal minority
rights was in opposition to the rights granted in the California Constitution, it would never come to a public vote. Black and Q civil rights have come from the courts historically. Now it will be done
"after the fact", you are all paid huge amounts of money to be our "watch dogs" and no one was
paying attention.

As for referencing David Mixner, I think David would be the first to point out that 16 years ago
we raised millions of dollars for the Clinton campaign and then they delivered DOMA, which
Pres. Clinton signed on to and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Forgive us if we don't totally trust all the Democrats.

You are right about coalition building, that's also something we pay "gay leadership" to do and you've
all done a piss poor job of it, now we, at the "grassroots level"
are doing it for you..... again.

Peace,

Scott

[Smith808]

Hi Scott,
The measure WAS challenged, but "activist" judges refused to hear it.