Pride: Start Here

First Gay Marches to Commemorate Stonewall: 1970.

The actual Stonewall uprising received scant attention in the media. There were very few reporters there and only a bare handful of photos taken of the uprising as it occurred. But in the space of a year, Stonewall had already become a single word that meant more than just a run-down bar in the Village. Gay people across the country took June 28 as their own Independence Day with commemorative marches taking place in Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and, of course, New York. The day was celebrated as “Christopher Street Liberation Day” for several years before Pride took over. (The day is still called CSD, or Christopher Street Day, in Germany.) One of the more interesting articles to appear in the mainstream media for those first Christopher Street Liberation Day marches was a brief description of the parade up Christopher Street itself on June 28, 1970 that appeared in July 11 edition of The New Yorker:

A number of policemen were standing around, looking benevolent and keeping an eye on things. Many of the marchers were carrying banners that identified them as members of homosexual organizations, like the Gay Liberation Front, the Mattachine Society, and the Gay Activists Alliance. The symbol of the G.A.A. is a lambda, which physicists use as a symbol for wavelength, and many of the kids were wearing purple T-shirts with yellow lambdas on them.

Most of the marchers chatted in anticipatory tones, and a few reporters were among them looking for interviews. One approached two boys standing together and asked them the question that reporters always ask: “How do you feel?”

One of the boys said, “I feel proud.”

At the head of the parade, one boy stood carrying the American flag. Near him stood a man talking to another man. “Homosexuals are very silly,” said the first man. “They congregate in certain areas and then spend all other time walking up and down the street ignoring each other.”

While “Pride” was still several years ago, you can already see that “pride” was already the operative word for the day. The author (whose name is not given) reported that marchers carried signs reading “Homosexual is not a four letter word,” “Latent Homosexuals Unite!” and “Hi Mom!” Anti-gay protesters were there as well, one with a sign reading simply “Sodom + Gomorrah.” But despite a few sour notes, the parade was more than just a success: it was cathartic for some:

An eighteen-year-old boy from Long Island who was marching in the middle of the parade with his arms around two friends said, “I’ve been up since six-thirty, I was so excited I couldn’t sleep. I wasn’t going to come, but then I figured I’m gay and I might as well support my people. So here I is!” Sometimes the marchers addressed the onlookers. “Join us!” they called, and “Come on in, the water’s fine!” They got a few grins for this, and once or twice somebody did step out from the crowd to join the parade. These people were roundly cheered by the marchers. Just south of Central Park, a well-dressed middle-aged woman on the sidewalk flashed a V-sign. A marcher, a young man with a mustache, shouted to a cop, also a young man with a mustache, “It isn’t so bad, is it?” The cop shouted back, “No!”

As the parade entered the Park, a young marcher said, “Would you believe it! It looks like an invading army. It’s a gay Woodstock. And after all those years I spent in psychotherapy!”

A friend of his laughed and said, “What will your shrink do without you? He’s dependent on you for the payments on his car.”

Via the ever excellent and informative Box Turtle Bulletin.

Update: Nice collection of photos from early US prides on, err, Mail Online, with patronising right-on captions that read like they were written for a student magazine.
As ever, some great readers' comments; "Sin on parade... disgusting." etc.

Jamey Rodemeyer: Hold On

I thought this piece from Box Turtle Bulletin was an interesting pause for thought amid the hysteria.

Uganda: Has The Bill Been Killed?

"Mainstream media have been wrongly reporting this for more than a year now. Every time they’ve reported it, they have been wrong. Stop doing it, mainstream media."

Jim Burroway, Box Turtle Bulletin.
How the story of the apparent return of Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill unfolded in the British and US media during last week makes for interesting reading.
Burroway points out a large number of anomalies here - which were only to be expected when much reporting was done at some considerable distance from Uganda (Something that Fagburn is as susceptible to and guilty of as anyone, of course - see below).
For example; 'Uganda lawmakers remove death penalty clause from anti-gay bill' [LA Times et al, it couldn't be at that stage), and that 'Uganda's anti-gay bill disappears from parliament's agenda after global outcry against bill' [Reuters et al, prematurely].
It was great that some two million people signed an All Out online petition; "The petition demands that Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni stop the human rights violations by publicly vowing to veto the 'Kill the gays' bill."
Though online "campaigns" always whiff slightly of "Diana Bollocks".
And apparently the president cannot veto a bill that's been voted by parliament.
Few serious commentators will commit to saying anything beyond how the fate of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill is now "uncertain" - it looks like it would have to be resubmitted as a new private member's bill after parliament reconvenes in June.
Paul Canning of LGBT Asylum News has raised an interesting point - that the bill's apparent return and the outcry against it has not been reported by the media in Uganda.
"It remains unclear how (and if) the massive international protests played a role in stalling or stopping the bill this week. It was reported that Ugandan government offices were flooded with messages from around the World, however there has been little to no reporting within Uganda of this. Such reporting would be expected if the bill was playing a 'distraction' role for President Museveni, who is being strongly criticised for repressing protest and his security forces attacks on the opposition, amongst other issues, as many had said it would." [Fagburn among them - Oops!]
As it was barely being discussed in the press in Uganda one wonders if there was an attempt to get it passed this time.
Canning has been shown to be a very reliable source on international LGBT news stories - there's an excellent primer on the AHB Bill by him here.
Writing yesterday Paul Canning concludes;
"The international pressures and the consequences, on aid and trade for example, of passing the bill are extremely serious. This must have been considered by Museveni's office and the government generally this week. Museveni himself has spoken about the pressures in the past. But exactly how that played out this week and whether it played a role in the bill's stalling/death we don't know.
"What I also discussed was the determination of the anti-gay forces. They have a lot invested in anti-gay actions, and that includes a financial investment as being an anti-gay Preacher in Uganda can be very lucrative. Because of that, I seriously doubt that the bill is dead, just halted."