Stonewall Riots

During the 1960s, riots were popular with women, African Americans, and other minority groups protesting against discrimination. Many gays and lesbians gathered around the Stonewall Inn in New York City to protest against discrimination. Many times when I read about articles like this one, where a group of people take action and stand up for what they believe in, I think, "Would I have done the same thing? Would I have gone against the majority for something that I believe in?" Sometimes I wonder if I would've been to afraid to do what they did. I think people sometimes forget to recognize just how much courage they had to be able to do what they did. They risked getting arrested, and sometimes even their life. After they protested outside of the bar, the article said, "When they moved against the Stonewall Inn, they expected that homosexuals would simply take their arrests without complaint, as they had usually done in the past. This time, however, gays fought back rather than submit, and a melee resulted in injuries to four policemen." When the police came to arrest the group of homosexuals, they decided to fight back, which ultimately resulted in them injuring four policemen. Although I don't agree with the group of men and women fighting back against the police to the point of injury, I believe that the reason why they decided to fight back against the police was because they were tired of constant discrimination and harassment against them. They may have reached their limit and just wanted the harassing to stop. Even though those riots resulted in homosexuals creating the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) to end discrimination, I wonder if the results would have differed had they did something similar to Martin Luther King's "nonviolent protests." Had they demonstrated a nonviolent protest, the result of the riots could've been different. It could've resulted in the police arresting them anyway, but maybe it could've lead to something different. The thing is, though, they followed their beliefs and fought for their rights, and I think that's something to be admired.

"Stonewall riots." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 31 Jan. 2010. http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com/

Picture- Google http://philosopedia.org/images/2/2a/Stonewall2jul69.jpg

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy

This policy was established in 1993 by President Bill Clinton which, "forbids homosexuals in the military from revealing their sexual orientation and others from asking about it." Just like how I read about this in another person's blog, there are positives and negatives of this policy. One positive aspect is that this policy allows homosexuals to participate in the military and gives them that opportunity to serve their country. What I don't understand is that the U.S. military may deny perfectly qualified and capable men and women just because of their sexual orientation. What if men and women are falsely accussed of being either gay or lesbian? It's almost as if the gay and lesbian troops are "silently" discriminated against. "Silently" meaning even though others are not actually discriminating against them, the fact that there is a policy purposely for the gay troops is discriminating. In my opinion, I don't agree with this policy because even though it allows homosexuals to particpate in the military doesn't mean those troops who are either gay or lesbian should be forced to hide or ignore a characteristic that makes them who they are. It's almost as if once they join the military, they have to ignore that characteristic, which is a large part of what makes them who they are.

"don't ask, don't tell policy." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 31 Jan. 2010. http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com/

Harvey Milk

For those who have not yet seen the movie "Milk" with Sean Penn, Harvey Milk was the first homosexual public official in San Francisco and possibly the first in the entire nation. He was an advocate in protecting gay rights as well as other social causes like childcare facilities, low-rent housing, and free public transportation. What was surprising was that Milk was originally a strict conservative where his political viewpoints only began to shift over to the liberal side after he met his first partner, a director of a musical. Since then, he would always take action in what he believed in, even if it meant risking his successful job as a financial analyst. The article said, "In April 1970, he was so infuriated over the American invasion of Cambodia that he burned his BankAmericacard before a crowd of protesters." Even though he ended up getting fired, Milk took action and blatantly displayed his opposition against the Americans invading Cambodia. Another instance where Milk took action was when in 1973, he decided to run for the Board of Supervisors, the main governing body of the city. What made him decide to run for that position was because he was infuriated at politicians after the Watergate scandal. When I read about Milk's actions, I thought back to the theme of Civil Disobedience. Milk took action, despite possible failure. He believed that what the politicians did in the Watergate scandal was unjust and ran for the Board of Supervisors to try and do something about it. At first he was denied, but then later was accepted. In 1978, he enforced one of the strongest laws in the nation that protected homosexual rights. I admire Milk for his bravery and determination because even though he wasn't elected the first time for the Board of Supervisors, he tried again and ultimately found success. He never failed to ignore his beliefs and fought for gay rights despite most of the country preventing him from doing so. Milk's actions showed courage and independence, both characteristics being ones that other gay and lesbian activists needed to possess in order to fight for their rights and achieve success.

McGuire, William, and Leslie Wheeler. "Harvey Milk." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 29 Jan. 2010. http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com/

Picture- Google http://www.elizabethcrane.com/blog/uploaded_images/harvey_milk-775464.jpg

Background on Gay and Lesbian

Gay and lesbian citizens have been discriminated against, and still are today, ever since the term "homosexuality" was known. The early 2oth century was the era when gay and lesbian citizens began to "come out" and reveal their sexual orientation in public, mainly due to the fact that it was during a time when urbanization and migration was booming. The government, in response, took action and began to enforce restrictions against anyone who was considered to be gay. Police would charge into what was believed to be a "gay areas," and arrest those who they considered to be gay. I question how the police determined who was gay and who wasn't. It wasn't as though those people who were arrested were any different from the other men in society. It wasn't like their skin was of another color or their hair was styled in a specific way. Non-gays could've been in those bars too. I wonder how they had a way of knowing who was gay and who wasn't. Not only were gay people arrested, but denied privilages to take part in plays, movies, the military, and even attend local places like bars. Liquor, surprisingly, was also commonly denied to gay citizens. In the article, it said, "The licensing of the sale of alcohol and the following creation of police-like agencies to monitor the flow of liquor and 'morality' represented the state's most powerful weapon in limiting the presence of openly gay men in public life." Police would monitor which bars would serve liquor to gay men and then press charges against them because they weren't suppossed to be serving to them. One legal case that I read about involving liquor took place in the 1960s and was about an owner of a bar who's liquor license was taken away because he served alcohol to homosexuals. In the end, he ended up getting back his license after he fought for it in court. It shocked me to read that the government would go through so much trouble of monitoring local locations like bars just to prevent the gay citizens from threatening the country. After all, it was believed that homosexuality was a "social problem" that needed to be resolved because it was considered to be a "threat to the stability of American culture." The movement for gay and lesbians have come a long way since the 1960s. For example, in 1992, President Bill Clinton supported a proposal that was to allow gays and lesbians to serve in the military and in 2000, the state of Vermont became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. Still, there are over 30 million gay and lesbian citizens in the U.S. who are still trying to achieve recognition of social, economic, and political rights.

"gay rights." American History. ABC-CLIO, 2010. Web. 28 Jan. 2010. http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com/.

Initial Thoughts on Gay and Lesbian

The reason why I chose this topic was because it was the topic that I knew the least information about and would like to learn more about. It's a topic that I feel like is generally ignored or not discussed enough about. Although I don't have any experiences related to this topic, I know that there is a significant part of the population that is either gay or lesbian. And why should their rights be restricted? The question that stands out in my mind is "Why can't two gay people get married legally in every state?" If they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, they should have the right to get married and not be discriminated against just because they are of the same gender. I want to understand the reason(s) of what's preventing them from having that right.

State of the Union Address

When President Obama first began speaking, he mentioned how "America was always destined to succeed" and how our "progress was inevitable." I thought back to the first unit of class on "What does it mean to be an American?" where one of the things that I wrote was that to be an American is to be someone who is willing to create change to benefit the country. He mentioned that the U.S. has prevailed because "we chose to move foward as one nation." I liked how he mentioned the theme of "courage" because I do believe that it is definitely an important factor in succeeding. If there is no courage, then the country will be afraid to move forward, to take that risk. There are many who believe that Obama hasn't done much for the economy, and he knows it because he addresses the devastation that still exists and that even though the worst of the recession has passed, it has caused a lot of damage. He's right to say that the whole country, all Democrats and Republicans, need to work together and put aside their differences in order to overcome these issues that the country faces today. Obama also later mentioned how the "spirit" and "hope" that our country has had in the past has led us through the difficult times, also similar to one of the essays that we read on "What it means to be an American." A lot of what he addresses is the courage and the power of the union that helped to achieve success and that, basically, the country needs to work together in order to succeed. Throughout his speech, he remains hopeful and optimistic about America's future which is what the people need to hear. That there is a plan to resolve the conflicts that the country faces today.

My blog

Mozart is my chocolate labrador doggy.