Harvey Milk Day Should Go Sour
73
Is Harvey Milk Truly A Hero?
The May 14th 2009 edition of San Jose's Mercury News remarked that the California Senate has approved legislation that would designate May 22 each year as a day to to honor slain gay rights leader Harvey Milk.
The bill was authored by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and claims this will be a day of special significance to recognize the late Bay area supervisor's contributions to California.
Though the bill would not make May 22nd an official holiday, it would encourage (not require) schools to educate California's students about the legacy of Milk - the first openly homosexual man to be elected to public office in the Western state. Milk was assassinated in 1978.
The bill known as SB 572 can be read at http://www.senate.ca.gov, passed 24-14 and presently is awaiting the governor's approval or disapproval. For the record Schwarzenegger vetoed a nearly identical bill last year.
While I foresee many problems with this bill, I have an equally struggle with the legacy of Harvey Milk. Is Harvey Milk day based on the fact he was a great political figure with wonderful accomplishments for the state he served, the fact he was assassinated or simply that he was the first gay man to be voted on a California Board of Supervisors.
First, as a political figure, he did not accomplish much. He did have a hand in passing a gay rights ordinance in San Francisco (lacking practically no opposition, I'm sure) and pushing through a measure that would require dog owners to pick up their dog's feces and dispose of it in a sanitary way. Does Milk's political legacy call for a special day in the state of California?
According to Dan Flynn author of Intellectual Morons, in a radio interview he stated that Milk served in his political office less than a year. Flynn also notes that Milk made up a story about being dishonorably discharged from the Navy for being gay. However, the truth be told, Milk served four years in the Navy and received an honorable discharge and was never the victim of anti-homosexual discrimination in the military.
Milk's assassinator Dan White, also Mllk's campaign manager was portrayed in the recent Sean Penn film, Milk, as a right wing nut case. According to Dan Flyn's research Dan White was pro-gay rights and was anything but a right-winger. In fact. the Dan White's motives for killing Harvey Milk and SF's Mayor Moscone had little to do with any homophobic issues. The SFWeekly argues that Dan White's motives were more about betrayal than homophobia. The article states,
"According to voting records, newspaper stories, and anecdotal information, White supported Milk's agenda with his influence, vote, and pocketbook. More than that, Sloan says, White respected Milk and actively sought his friendship. That is, until the two had a bitter falling-out over a land-use issue in White's district."
If anything, says Dan Flynn, Dan White went postal on Milk and the Mayor after feeling betrayed.
My real concern about having a Harvey Milk day is that it will become a day to push the gay-agenda on Californian school children from grades K-12. Do you want your kindergarten child to be exposed to the fact of other sexual preferences at such a young age?
I fear that homosexual, bi-sexual, gay marriage issues and transsexual indoctrination will take place in the public schools in the name of Harvey Milk day. As a tax paying citizen of California I will prohibit my teenager from attending school on May 22 should the bill be passed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
If parents want to indoctrinate their children about homosexuality, then they can speak to their children in the privacy of their homes. As a taxpayer I do not want my tax dollars to be used to push the gay agenda in the California public school system in the name of Harvey Milk.
Should agree that you do not want Harvey Milk Day in California and that you do not want SB 572 to be approved by him, please call the governor's office at 916 445 2841 and let him know of your disapproval.
CommentsLoading...
I do not want taxpayer's money to be used to expose young children to an alternative sexual preference that is highly controversial. Present sex education in the public schools is heterosexual based which is the traditional sexual lifestyle ever since the foundation of our country which is based on a Judeo-Christian ethic. Why introduce such sexual confusion to young children using taxpayer dollars? If parents want to educate their children about the gay lifestyle, leave it up to the parents not the state sponsored school system. Educating children about the gay lifestyle also opens up questions about gay marriage, male-to-male anal sex and man/boy love, which I do not advocate and would prefer to share my beliefs with my children and not have a state employee represent me.
Ok this is old, but basically I had to slump in. You are simply a homophobe. Pretty cut and dry it would seem.
The day would be used to educate and remind all people, not just children, of what harvey acheived. A gay mans malcolm-x if you will.
Also your kids shouldnt be exposed viewpoint is flawed, kids are exposed to gays everyday of their little lives, unless (id wager this may be true for your indoctrinated little ones) they are shetled from the world, ready to be released into it an ill eductaed, likely narrow minded young biggot - after a steady 18 years of indocrination from you of course. Ok so they are already exposed to gays, so shouldnt they be educated also? And cant you view it as less about sexual positions and man/boy love and more about human rights, standing up for your beliefs in the face of adversity etc etc etc.
I have no doubt (unless your black), that if you lived in the 50s you would be a hardy racist.
Religion was created as a control mechanism, it indoctrinates you, gays do not? Gay indocrinations? I mean come the fk off it. Since when? Where? How?
As a queer person I find your argument to be ridiculous. I agree with the above two comments about your idiocy. A state, nay, an entire government has to represent everyone, and that means gays too. You have no idea how many people in your life are actually queer (lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, transexual, gay, and so on) and so you will never fully know the true extent of our affulence in your community. Your arguments are totally flawed, human sexuality should be taught to children and all sexualities should have light shed on them.
Queer children are three times more likely to kill them selves than straight children, and trans children even have an even higher rate, a number I'm sure that doesn't bother you.
Being queer is not an "alternative sexual preference", your fancy wording for a "choice" anymore than you being straight and white is a choice. Oh yeah, We know you`re white. We do not convert people, all of your fancy words are failing you. The lack of respect that you have for Harvey Milk is quite frankly disgusting. He stood up for human rights and equality above all and looked out for the individual. Being queer is not about SEX or PERVERSION it is about LOVE, something you seem to know very little about.
Oh, also, the only reason he did not have a chance to accomplish much during his time in office is because people like you, one that wants to `protect` the idea of the nuclear family, a defense mechanism after the second world war that was the only thing that Americans had control over, a pathetic attempt normalizing and therefore oppressing anyone who was not white, straight, christian and wealthy or well off, executed him.
Where, in any queer education or any sexual education in fact, does it mention man/boy love? That's simply absurd.
Regardless of receiving a formal education on queer relationships, youth are still going to know about it whether you like it or not. Not every parent is going to want to discuss queer relationships, and maybe it's because they just don't know how. If they do, more often than not it's a biased opinion.
Students are going to receive sexual education through their schools, and it's integral for them to know how to protect themselves in all ways. It's a lot of pressure for a member of the queer community, especially a youth, that's learning about heterosexual sex. Education is supposed to help educate the students in an un-biased, Government approved way. It's up to the students to decide how to use this information and create an opinion.
You talk about this sexual education like they're going to teach first graders about it. Sex ed is confusing to all genders and sexual orientations around puberty. You owe it to your children to teach them to be safe, no matter what the preference.
I attended a school where there was a notice sent out to the parents informing them of the upcoming sexual education week. If you're not comfortable with it then get the school to pull your children out of class for it. The seminars will do nothing but benefit them on how to make smart decision when the time comes, but don't take that opportunity away from other students just because YOU are not comfortable.
The kids need to know that it's okay to be curious and have questions, even if it's about queer love and sex. You do realize that heterosexual relationships and queer ones aren't so different, right? They need a place to have these questions answered. Kids can't go to their parents so at least at school they have to be there for the discussion.
Don't focus on the sex, focus on teaching youth how to build healthy and positive relationships.
Also: He did get a lot done, see:
http://www.biography.com/articles/Harvey-Milk-9408
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Harvey_Milk.aspx
http://www.biographyshelf.com/harvey_milk_biograph
Could you get all that done UNDER a year? I didn't think so. ALSO:
the "land use issue" was over having a group home in White's neighborhood. He wanted to exclude people because they weren't like him, they weren't in his class financially,racially, religiously and politically, they served him no purpose and seemed like a stain on his suit. Open your eyes and stop being such a tool for hatred.
Phil: Your comment "You are simply a homophobe. Pretty cut and dry it would seem" is quite predictable. If anyone disagrees with the gay position, they are labeled a "homophobe." Perhaps you're a hetero-phobe? If you want honest dialogue between hays and straights, you have to drop this tired and worn out accusation. I am not a homephobe. It's the same when people of other ethnicities call others racist if they criticize sone of their nationality.
Do I agree that homosexuality is a valid sexual preference? No. But I don't hate gays nor do I think they are undeserving of equal rights. My view of male-female relationships is based on my biblical worldview, and I have every right to express my view that God intended men and women to be in a relationship with one another, not men with men or women with women. Can you handle the fact someone disagrees with you with getting mean spirited? Perhaps you're a free=speech phobe?
Nikita: Thank you for the information on Harvey Milk. I read them all and found them to be informative. Milk certainly lived an interesting life. However, I do not agree that Milk accomplished anything significant enough to make an official state holiday. He is not a gay martyr since he was not killed by White for being gay. White was outraged for losing his job and he shot Milk out of rage. His death was not a hate crime or an anti-gay crime. I can recall other incidents that have recently happened in which gay men or boys were tragically killed because they were homosexual.
I think Harvey Milk should be celebrated by the gay community and not require the entire state to commemorate him. As a Jewish person I don't expect our state or nation to celebrate a Golda Meir day, have an Albert Einstein day or set aside any day to celebrate a famous Jewish person.
Certainly Milk's greatest accomplishment, in my opinion, was being the driving force behind an ordinance that "prohibited discrimination in housing and employment based on sexual orientation" according to encyclopedia.com. He also was behind a few other ordinances that affect gays.
On the sex ed issue, the teaching starts in fourth grade in CA. I viewed the curriculum myself and a few videos when my sons went were age appropriate. I was concerned whether or not there would be moral principles taught pertaining to such issues as abstinence, abortion and homosexuality. The curriculum was neutral at the time I viewed them and mainly focused on male-female difference and the changes that will occur in male and female bodies as they mature. Public schools need not go any further than this and permit parents to inform their children on morals when it comes to sexual matters. The state needs to keep their nose out of such personal matters.
I have a right as their father to teach my children the biblical perspective I subscribe to
just as an atheist or Buddhist have their right to teach their children their world view. Have my children been exposed to the gay orientation? Can you watch TV or any form of media and not see gay people? In addition, my kids encountered gay people working in stores or serving in various capacities.
My children were never taught to hate gays. However, I took every right to teach them that men should marry women according to Genesis 2:24 and that homosexuality is not God's preferred will for His creation. This belief in male-female heterosexual relationships is universal despite the appearance of homosexuality in cultures as far back as Rome and beyond.
My sons were quick to remark about a man acting effeminate and thought it was unnatural. I agreed, and I have the freedom to state my belief to my kids or to anyone else for that matter as much as you have the freedom to disagree with me. I do not believe it is natural for men to wear women's clothing or to behave in a feminine manner. I lived in West Hollywood for eight years so I do know what I'm talking about. I also think it's unnatural for heterosexual men to act like immature children and behave as a man-child as seen in several of today's celebrities.
I do not want the state to "educate" children on the gay sexual orientation. They will find out soon enough. Why do you say the schools need to educate children so they can make wise decisions "when the time comes"? It sounds like you're saying every human will struggle with the decision to become gay or not. That's rather presumptuous.
The only thing schools can do in relation to the gay issue is to make sure gay teens are not mistreated by straights. Bullying of gay teens or children is unacceptable in any context. This is where the schools can step in to protect the students. The same is true for bullying on any level.
I also don't want the state pushing the Christian, Jewish or Islamic view of sexuality. It's up to parents to teach their kids on human sexuality and if they fail to do so, then shame on them.
The best thing I can say to anyone who is homosexual is to "get over yourself." Gays need to go live their lives and stop pushing their homosexula agenda This is where I have huge questions, "why are gays so obsessive with their sexual orientation"? According to Al Rantel, one time radio host on KABC, as a gay person he criticized the gay community for being overly concerned with their sexuality. He basically said to men, "So what, you have a penis and it's your business where you put it. Stop pushing your agenda on straight people." I think Al summarizes my sentiments very well.
Firstly, you're welcome, I have a lot more research if you want it, but I'm sure you get the idea. I must appologize for my initial freak out to be honest, I still find your points to be moot outside of your opinion. The two Jewish figures you mentioned, while great in their own respects, were not American. They did not push forward a part of the American civil rights movements at all, so it's not really fair to mention them, is it?
Pushing forward a movement is incredibly important and it changed the lives of millions of Americans forever. Martin Luther King did the same thing not to long ago for black Americans too, and he certainly deserves a day, his is national, we even do a little something for it here in Canada. The entire point of the day, really, is to commemorate a remarkable man's brave step into a world that thinks he isn't "natural". He stepped up, knowing he was a target, and supported the elderly, people of colour, gays and the worker's unions. It's more than just gay rights, he stood up for rights, the rights of everyone.
The boys that died recently, it wasn't because they were homosexual, it was because their bullies have been conditioned to take into account the parts of the bible that tell them "don't be like this" and COMPLETELY disregard that parts that say "Above all else, there is love." I must admit there are some parts of the bible that are pretty neat to read, being non-religious they're just stories. Many of them are horrifying and have beliefs that are completely outdated; there are stories of rape throughout, men offering their young daughters, but no one would support that would they? Times change, and so should the texts.
In Canada, sex ed begins at about fourth or fifth grade too. This is fine, I've heard stories of children becoming pregnant as early as twelve. I'm sure we both completely agree that babies shouldn't be having babies, and to teach responsible sexual habits should also be helped along by school. Kids spend most of their day there, it's just something else to learn. I had sex ed and I wasn't scarred for life. Sure, it was awkward, but I got through it and so did everyone else.
Being gay is as much a preference as your eye colour or being straight to most people. Though I believe that sexuality is a rather fluid thing, for some people it's as solid as your belief in God. You think being gay is a "preference", and others think believing in God is chasing fairy tales.
I just have to put it out there though, I am not anti-religion at al even if it might seem that way. You can't teach kids about abortion because it is controversial and up to the womyn. Her body, her rights, so a man really can't say anything; he doesn't have to go through what she does, the (most time) debilitating depression, your body becoming physically ill and so on, from both an abortion or keeping a baby. He can only be supportive of what she chooses, afterall, he's not the one with a baby in his belly for nine months.
Schools should teach about sexualities absolutely! I feel that it would lower suicide rates as these children reach middle and high school and understand one another better. It's just a way to create and reinforce understanding, that everyone is who they are and you have got to adapt because you're different too. By teaching about homosexuality (which, by the way, has nothing to do with being "effiminate" or not queer people and straight are the same aside from what they do in their homes). Sex education, aside from the reproductive system (which to me, was totally useless to learn for the most part), should teach children about sexual responsibility.
I would never want my children to be promiscuous or take advantage of other people, but if they decide to be that way then they should be intensely terrified about every disease that can be caught and the correct ways to go about having sex. What I mean by this is protection. Whatever the gender, I'm sure we can agree that a person must always protect themselves when having sex so they won't hurt themselves or anyone else in the future. I won't even be able to talk to my little brother about sex ed when it comes time for that, I'm grateful the schools will start and I'll just answer his questions.
It isn't presumptuous, about 30 million people in the US are out and proud, and the number is steadily rising as people are feeling safer to come out. Though the states has what, 300 million people, 30 million and rising is a biiiiiggg number. I have friends that are all denomonation of christian that have questioned their sexuality and openly admit to it (that being said, there's nothing wrong with that seeing as in highschool a person comes to learn more about their body and their identity).
It's not a matter of getting over ourselves, friend. It's a matter of religious zealots that take it too far that beat up, rape and kill our brothers and sisters and litterally get away with Murder. Look at Dan White. He served only 7 years in prison with his weak twinkie defense and lies while under oath as a christian man. Shame on him. Shame on the courts and shame on the whole justice system. And it's not the first time, many of us have been beaten raped and murdered and the perps got away with essentially a slap on the wrist.
Honestly I feel like that idea is like letting men getting away with raping womyn. I'm NOT saying that you are okay with this, but just bear with me a moment. Recently, the police chief in Toronto dismissed a womyn that got raped and said she "asked for it for dressing like a slut" and an eleven year old girl was raped and the courts dismissed it because "she was wearing a tube top and no bra and was looking to party" yet another womyn was raped and they dismissed it because she was wearing skinny jeans, saying she'd have to help her rapist with it. ALL these men walked, just like Dan White walked (who was released after just a year in jail) and just like many MANY other men that killed gays walked because they blamed it on them for being gay. I assure you there are zero social benefits to being gay. Sure, we're fabulous, that's a given, but there is constant torment and scrutiny that you never will have to deal with because you're a typical American male. Again, I'm not saying you're agreeing with the idea of a womyn being responsible for her own rape, I am simply saying that it is the sort of mentality that is justifying the abuse and murder of queer people.
We're as overly concerned over our sexuality as we are about womyn being paid fairly, as we are about the disproportionate number of people of colour that are in jails and people of colour being treated unfairly institutionally and economically, as we are about the rights of workers and the rights of the elderly and the rights of you and your family and us and ours.
Also: Aside from religon, there is no logical nor scientific reason to justify that any other love/sex relationship aside from a straight couple is not natural and organic. (that being said I am NOT talking about awful rape relationships, child/adult relationships and stuff like that)
Sigh... I try. I really, really try. I try so hard not to let myself comment on posts like these, because more often than not I know exactly what kind of bile I'm going to get back. But - and I love you Nikita, I really do, and you've done a wonderful job here, and I'mma let you finis - but, I have to address the point about children learning about other sexual orientations - again, orientations, not preferences - in schools.
You're making the unspoken assumption here, Louis, that a program dedicated to properly informing kids about the reality of same-sex relationships would be something as simple as the state teaching straight kids about gay sex, and that's short-sighted on far too many levels to be ignored.
First, remember that there are gay kids as young as ten years old, and they deserve to have their identity validated in the school system simply because - as Nikita has repeated multiple times - they have about as much say in their sexuality as you do in your skin colour.
Second, teaching kids properly about same-sex relationships goes far beyond (and doesn't even necessarily have to include) sex. I understand that there are many programs in schools dedicated to furthering a child's understanding of a single-parent home. So why not extend that bubble to include same-sex couples?
Third, at this point the reality is slowly coming to light that there are kids in schools WITH GAY PARENTS. Those kids have every right to feel as though they deserve to be a part of society, just like every other kid who happens to have straight parents.
And fourth, I'm sorry Louis, but the issue of gay rights and equity in schools is no longer an issue of morality, or of opinion based on religious belief. It has become a vital issue of safety. Every student, regardless of his or her (or other) orientation or the way they identify in terms of gender or sexuality, has the right to a safe and supporting learning environment. Sheltering kids from gay issues means furthering their ignorance, fear and hatred of same, which leads to bullying on a horrific scale, which has led to the numerous suicides and attempted suicides we've seen recently. There is absolutely no excuse for that, and the argument that you don't want your kids to learn about and understand gay people is far too weak an excuse. When kids are dying, or being bullied to the point of attempting to die, moral judgments and opinions no longer have any place in the school system. Keep our kids safe. I'm sure if your son or daughter was in such an at-risk demographic, you'd want to do everything in your power to keep them safe and make the school environment safe for them. And, lard knows, if your son or daughter turns out to be gay, I certainly hope you'll treat them with respect and love, despite what your prior judgments may be.
And if at the very least you can't agree that every child deserves a safe and supportive learning environment, I question your fitness as a parent.
Typo up in the first paragraph: 'I'mma let you finish*.'
Stumbled on this site again, noted that the owner didn't respond...wonder why?
Why didn't I respond? Because this discussion is endless. It's not because I think either of you are right. It's an endless discussion. I suggest you both study the McInerney case that took place in Oxnard, CA where a 15 year old gay student was murdered in his classroom. Why? Because he was gay. Yes, and because he expressed his sexuality under the blind eyes of the staff who forgot about the student's safety and allowed him to disrupt the school's educational process through his flamboyant feminine dress and makeup.
Larry King has every right to be gay, but public school is for educational purposes in accordance with the prescribed curriculum not a curriculum set by the gay community or a community set by the Muslim community. Larry King became a sacrificial goat on the altar of gay rights under the watchful eye, according to court transcripts, a lesbian school administrator. At the same time, a heterosexual girl should not come to school dressed in such a way that expresses her sexuality by wearing revealing clothing as stated in the dress code. CA Educational code states that a student should not dress in a way that is disruptive to the school educational atmosphere. Respect for gay students is an issue that is to be taught at home and expressing one's sexuality in a way that is over-the -top is another issue that should stay at home. So there would be no reason to bring this issue up in school. What should be taught is the cessation of bullying towards any student regardless of sexual orientation, religion, color etc. At OE Green Jr High school the safety of a gay student was ignored by a gay school administrator because she thought gay rights was more important than the safety of a student.
BTW: this is an old site that I do not keep up. So I was not "hiding" or ignoring your comments.
Matt G C 2 years ago
im quite interested to know why u don't want your money to be spent educating about the existence of homosexual people ?