(12) Moving Toward Marriage: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America

"We're here, we're queer, we're redefining the term 'family'." A 1992 study reported that 55% of gay men and 71% of lesbians were in committed or steady relationships. However, they were unable to marry and obtain the legal benefits of marriage, including insurance coverage as spouse and access to the hospital to visit a dying partner. Seeking to change this, lesbians and gay men created their own weddings and ceremonies. In 1993 at the third March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Rights three-thousand couples gathered for a mass wedding. That same year the Hawaii Supreme Court, in response to an appeal from a lower court decision denying marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, ruled that the prohibition of same-sex marriages constituted discrimination and was probably unconstitutional. 1.

The Lambda Legal Defense and Educational Fund had worked to lay a groundwork for winning the right for gays to marry. In 1995 they announced the formation of its Marriage Project to serve as a national coordinator and clearinghouse. A network of volunteer attorneys, law professors, and law students were mobilized to research legal arguments against backlash. The Project developed the Marriage Resolution:

"Because marriage is a fundamental right under our Constitution, and because the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, RESOLVED, the State should permit gay and lesbian couples to marry and share fully and equally in the rights and responsibilities of marriage." 2.

Federal and State Defense of Marriage Acts

When Hawaii became the first state to move toward gay marriage, other states and the Federal Government wrestled with the possibility that through the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause they would be required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Hawaii. In 1996 Congress adopted the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) with votes of 342 to 67 in the House and 85 to 14 in the Senate. DOMA was signed by President Clinton on Sept. 21, 1996. DOMA refined marriage for purposes of federal law. The "word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." 3.

In 1998, the Hawaiian movement toward same-sex marriage was rescinded when Hawaii and Alaska passed constitutional amendments supported by approximately 70% of the voters in each state to ensure that marriage could not be redefined by judges in the court system. 4.

In July of 2000 Vermont became the first U.S. state to recognize homosexual 'unions', marriages in virtually every legal sense. By May of 2001 80% of gay-union licenses had gone to nonresidents. Other states were concerned that gay activists would travel to Vermont, get 'married', return home and sue for legal recognition of their status. Many states made efforts to protect marriage from legal assault by passing a state Defense of Marriage Act. 5.

Promoting a Constitutional Amendment

Following a decision in June of 2003 by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the nation's sodomy laws, the highest court in Massachusetts ruled, 4 to 3, in November of 2003 that same-sex marriage was permissible under the State's Constitution.

A growing concern developed about having courts set social agendas that hadn't been approved by the legislatures. Because of a concern that same-sex marriage activists would encourage federal courts to intervene in the debate over marriage to remove state law barriers to same-sex marriage, a movement developed in support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriages. A New York Times/CBS News poll in 2003 found that 55 % of Americans favored an amendment to the Constitution that would allow marriage only between a man and a woman.

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., with 106 co-sponsors, introduced a constitutional amendment in the House in May of 2003, although the measure in the Senate had only a few supporters. Musgrave said,"...if the definition of marriage is to be changed, it should be done by the American people, not four judges in Massachusetts." President Bush voiced support saying, "I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman." 6.

State Scorecard on Same-Sex Marriage

By November of 2008, 37 states had established their own Defense of Marriage Acts, and 30 states had constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage. The constitutional amendments to protect marriage as a union between one man and one woman were passed by typically large margins, crossing party lines. The vote passed in fifteen states by majorities between 70 and 86%. The vote passed in twenty-eight states by majorities of 55% or above.

By January of 2010, forty-one states prohibited same-sex marriage. 7.

However, same-sex marriage was gaining acceptance. As of early 2010, 6 states and the District of Columbia allowed same-sex marriage, although no state had legalized gay marriage by referendum of the people. Decisions by the State Supreme Court of Massachusetts (2003), Connecticut (2008) and Iowa (2009) ruled affirmatively on the legality of same-sex marriage.

In 2009, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire passed same-sex marriage bills through legislative action. In November of 2009 the District of Columbia approved a same-sex marriage bill. 8.

Arguing for Gay Marriage

Jonathan Rauch's book Gay Marriage argues in favor of gay marriage. He writes, "I would say that marriage is two people's lifelong commitment, recognized by law and society to care for each other."..."They promise to look after each other and their children so society won't have to; in exchange, society deems them a family and provides an assortment of privileges, obligations, and caregiving tools...The example gay couples set by marrying instead of shacking up might even strengthen marriage itself." 9.

Other proponents of gay marriage fail to agree with Rauch about the importance of marriage as a social institution. Sociologist Judith Stacey views marriage as a flawed and dangerous institution. Her strategy is to deconstruct marriage's 'customary forms': marriage as between a man and a woman; marriage as between two people; and marriage as connected to sexuality and procreation. Many activists seek to deinstitutionalize marriage and weaken its public influence as an important step to larger goals. Ellen Willis, a professor at New York University, foresees other changes. "For starters, if homosexual marriage is OK, why not group marriage." 10.

BACKLASH to Same-Sex Marriage

David Blankenhorn, a family scholar and researcher, is the founder and president of the Institute for American Values, an academic think tank dealing with the importance of families. In his book, The Future of Marriage he challenges the movement toward gay marriages. He writes, "Marriage is fundamentally about the needs of children...What children need most are mothers and fathers. Not caregivers, Not parent-like adults...the mother and the father who together made the child, who love the child, and who love each other... Redefining marriage to include gay and lesbian couples would eliminate entirely in law, and weaken still further in culture, the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child... Once this proposed reform becomes law, even to say the words out loud in public ...would probably be viewed as explicitly divisive and discriminatory, possibly even as hate speech." 11.

In November of 2009 the National Organization for Marriage under the leadership of Rick Santorum and Maggie Gallagher invited the American people to join the Two Million for Marriage Campaign to tell Congress: "Enough, Don't Mess with Marriage!" The concern focused on a bill introduced by Congressman Jerrold Nadler to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Santorum notes, "If we don't act today, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and others in Congress will succeed in their efforts to repeal DOMA, an effort which the White House has already noted is one of its highest 'civil rights' priorities."

Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on The Family, donated $25,000 to the National Organization for Marriage. He said, "It's not just marriage that is at stake; it's absolutely everything." 12.

REFERENCES

1. The Gay Almanac. Compiled by the National Museum & Archive of Lesbian and Gay History. New York: Berkley Books. 1996:231,235.

2. Ibid:258.

3. Advocate.com. "Hawaii Gay Marriage, 10 years later." http://www.advocate.com/printArticle.aspx?id=102704. Nov. 20, 2009.

Goldberg, Carey. "Hawaii Judge Ends Gay-Marriage Ban." New York Times (NYTime.com)

December 4,1996.

DOMA Watch. "Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)" Alliance Defense Fund. 2008.

http://www.domawatch.org/about/federaldoma.html. 2/17/1020.

4. Daniels, Matt. "United, We Fall". World magazine. Vol. 15, No. 24, June 17, 2000:65-67.

5. Daniels, Matt. Ibid.

Drummond, Tammerlin. "The Marrying Kind". Time. Vol. 157, No. 19. May 14, 2001:52.

6. Seelye, Katharine Q. and Janet Elder. "Discomfort over gays seen on rise. San Antonio

Express News. Sunday, December 21, 2003:15A.

7. Buss, Dale. "Gay activists seek to repeal state marriage amendments in U.S." Citizen. Vol. 23, No. 10. Dec. 2009:8.

8. Fitzpatrick, Laura. "Spotlight - Same-Sex Marriage." Time. Vol. 175, No. 3. Jan.25, 2010:20.

9. Blankenhorn, David. The Future of Marriage. New York: Encounter Books. 2007:xii.

10. Ibid:130-137.

11. Ibid:2-3.

12. Santorum, Rick. National Organization for Marriage. www.TwoMillionForMarriage.com. Nov. 2009.

(11)Gay Adoption: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America

A study done in 1993 indicated that there were 3-8 million lesbian or gay parents raising 6-14 million children in the United States. While most were children from a former heterosexual relationship or marriage, a growing number were opting to become parents through commercial reproductive services or adoption. 1.

Adoption becomes controversial

A March 2007 study reported that 65,000 adopted children were being raised in the U.S. by same-sex parents and an estimated 14,100 foster children were living with one or more gay or lesbian foster parents. States differ in their laws for single gays and lesbians and same-sex couples who seek to adopt.

*Florida is the only state that bans gay adoption by both singles and couples but it does allow gays to become foster parents.

* Arkansas, Utah and Virginia prohibit all singles or unmarried couples from adopting a child.

* California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and the District of Columbia have laws permitting gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered (GLBT) single, joint or second parent adoptions.

* Colorado permits same-sex couple adoptions while also allowing grandparents and other people who are raising a child to adopt.

Many states do not have specific laws covering gay adoptions or foster parenting. Gay singles have an easier time adopting than do gay couples. Twenty states permit single GLBT adoptions but are unclear in regard to joint adoptions. In these states gay couples wishing to adopt or foster a child are at the mercy of judges and adoption agencies. The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a non-profit organization that studies adoption and foster care claims that about 60 percent of adoption agencies accept applications from gays and lesbians, but they often are confronted with prejudice during the process 2.

Rob Calhoun and his partner, Clay Calhoun, have two adopted children, a 4 year-old daughter and an 18 month old son. Calhoun said, "We're not moms, we're not heterosexual, we're not biological parents... But we're totally equal and just as loving as female parents, as straight parents, and biological parents. Love makes a family, not biology or gender." 3.

BACKLASH/ Americans divided

A 2006 Pew Research Center poll reported that 46 percent of Americans support gay and lesbian adoptions. Opponents argue that children raised in gay or lesbian households suffer from not having both a mother and a father. Others argue that there are millions of single heterosexual mothers and fathers raising children across the country. They question why children of single or same-sex couples would be worse off.

Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, wrote in a commentary for Time magazine.

"Love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development...The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy, any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl." 4,

The Catholic Church opposes gay adoption. On the Catechism on Call website, Robert Fry speaks for the church in saying, "A child who grows up with a mother and a father is exposed to both the masculine and the feminine, which according to God's plan, allows that child to grow up with an intimate and connected experience to both sexes. A boy, for example, raised by two women is deprived of the right to learn what society expects of men, and how men are expected to handle the challenges they will face in that society. A woman cannot transmit this knowledge to a child! You can't pass on what you don't know! Every child has a right to a mother and a father...Two men, for example, who choose to adopt a little boy, make a conscious decision that this boy will never have a mother. The situation is much worse when artificial insemination is involved, and the father's role is reduced simply to that of being a 'sperm donor'...To think that we've now decided to tamper with this foundation of our civilization, just so that a minority of adults can have their lifestyle sanctioned and codified as both normal and even 'healthy' should concern us all." 5.

The Catholic Church has been highly involved in adoption services. Changes in legislation which prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation places in jeopardy the ability of the church to continue offering this family service. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, is deeply concerned about how same-sex legislation will effect religious liberty in the country. He reports, "When Catholic Charities in Boston insisted that they would stay true to principle and refuse to place children for adoption with same-sex couples, they were told by the Commonwealth that they could no longer do adoptions at all." 6.

REFERENCES

1.The Gay Almanac. Compiled by the National Museum & Archive of Lesbian and Gay History. New York:Berkley Books, 1996:232.

2. Gandossy, Taylor. "Gay adoption: A new take on the American Family". http://www. cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption.

Johnson, Ramon. "Where is Gay Adoption Legal?" http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gaycoupleadopt.htm?p=1. 2/11/2010.

3. Gandossy.

4. Ibid.

5. Fry, Robert. "Learn What the Catholic Church Really Teaches: Catholic Church and Adoption." http://wwwcatechismoncall.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/catholic-church-gay-adoption/. 2/11/2010/

6. Perkins, Tony. "Same-Sex 'Marriage' vs. Religious Liberty." Truth & Triumph. Alliance Defense Fund. Vol. 11, Issue 3. 2009:14-15.

(10)Gay Reproduction: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America

Reshaping the Superstructure

Marxism became politically correct in American universities in the 1960's. The universities became radicalized. Religious faith and traditions were questioned and dismissed as authority for modern society. Marx contended that the framework of society was not determined by spiritual absolutes, but was rather determined by material conditions. The material conditions available through technology, identified by Marx as the infrastructure, were the determining factors responsible for shaping social relationships, identified by Marx as the superstructure. The superstructure of politics, family, religion, and education, were to be reshaped progressively to change in support of the prevailing conditions of technology and material means of production.

Marx summarized his theory of historical materialism. "The mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social, political and spiritual processes of life...At a certain stage of their development, the material forces of production in society come into conflict with the existing relations of production...Then comes the period of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation, the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed." 1.

Reproductive Technologies Challenge the Traditional Family

The developing science of reproductive technology presented many questions about the future of social, ethical, and family practices that drastically and dramatically changed the moral and relationship variables of human life. At the beginning of the 20th Century a small band of doctors began to experiment with artificial insemination. In the 1920's Margaret Sanger, concerned about eugenics and planned reproduction, organized what was to become the Planned Parenthood Federation. The Great Depression and the World Wars slowed down movements for social change.

When the pill was introduced in 1960, times had changed. Universities increased their advancement into the science of reproduction. Medical students were able to make cash by donating sperm for $50 a pop. The commercialization of reproduction developed when the first for-profit sperm bank opened its doors in Minnesota in 1970.

In 1979 fewer than 10% of infertility doctors would provide sperm to single women. In 1982 the Sperm Bank of California was created to provide sperm to unmarried and heterosexual singles and lesbian women. The sperm, delivered to their door in a liquid nitrogen tank, could be taken to their doctor for insertion, or they could do it themselves with a turkey baster. 2.

Egg donation became commercialized in 1984. Egg donation and surrogacy offered the possibility for a man to create a family. In the 1990's homosexual couples began to use surrogacy in what was labeled a "gayby" boom when a West Los Angeles company, Growing Generations began helping gay men become fathers. 3

The bottom line of business is "Expand the market." In the summer of 2004, R Family Vacations became the first travel company dedicated to the gay family market. They organized a family-friendly cruise which included seminars on surrogacy, adoption and artificial insemination for would be parents.4.

Buying egg and sperm became a spectator sport. Catalogs and Web sites became baby brokerage firms with donors' self descriptions of their interests and abilities, their IQ's, and pictures. Buyers could design a baby by selecting an egg and sperm and have it created by in vitro fertilization. The process was not inexpensive. A surrogacy may run from $10,000 to $30,000.5. Fertility doctors charge between $6,000 to $14,000 a cycle for in vitro fertilization and it takes an average of three cycles before conceiving. 6.

Gay couples stepped up to the opportunity to create a child. In 1988 a newspaper article reported 1,000 surrogacy births in the ten years prior, although 2,000 was considered more accurate a number by some experts. 7.

Rights in Conflict 8.

Gay activists want society to adopt a flexible definition of the right to marry and form a family. They embrace the idea that "Adults have the right to marry the person they choose and form the families they choose." Michael Ignatieff, a human rights scholar, endorses the "rights revolution in private life" as simply an outgrowth of the idea of equality and freedom.

David Blankenhorn, a family scholar and founder of the Institute of American Values contends that changing marriage radically changes parenthood. He argues that in community the rights of one group often exist in tension with the rights of others. and the 'right to form the family I choose' bumps up against the rights of children. In 1989 the U.N. Convention on The Rights of the Child , stated, "The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the rights to acquire a nationality, and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents."

The U.N. declaration supports the rights of a child to know the mother and father who created him or her. Divorce and unwed childbearing revolutions have created a situation where more and more children are not cared for by their own two natural parents. Because same-sex bonding cannot produce children naturally, reliance on reproductive technologies will increasingly create a situation where children do not even know who their natural parents are. The child's right to a natural biological heritage is denied to him or her.

Blankenhorn argues, "For those who ask 'Where's the harm?' regarding same-sex marriage, here is the inescapable fact:Changing marriage changes parenthood, and changing parenthood in ways that permit and even encourage adults to wipe out the double origin of some children is a threat to all children...When Canada, by way of implementing same-sex marriage, erased the concept of natural parent from basic Canadian law, there was no asterisk saying 'for gay and lesbian couples only'. The idea of the natural parent got wiped out in law for every child and every couple in Canada." The tern 'natural parent' was removed from Canadian law and replaced with the term 'legal parent'.




REFERENCES
1. Aron, Raymond. Main Currents in Sociological Thought. Garden City, NY:Anchor Books.1968:155.
2. Andrews, Lori. The Clone Age: Adventures in the New World of Reproductive Technology. NY:An Owl Bookl/Henry Holt & Co. 1999:87.
3. Ibid:95,120-121.
4. Bly,Laura. "A gay new time:Family cruises, vacations." USA Today. Friday, July 9, 2004:D1.
5. Andrews: 1996:103.
6. Spar, Debora L. The Baby Business: How Money, Science, and Politics DRive the Commerce of Conception. Boston,MA:Harvard Business School Press. 2006:53.
7. The Gay Almanac. Compiled by the National Museum & Archive of Lesbian and Gay History. New York: Berkley Books. 1996:233.
8. Blankenhorn, David. The Future of Marriage. New York: Encounter Books. 2007:183-199.

(9)The Gay Agenda Battles the Military: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America

The largest employer in the United States is the military, providing people, particularly individuals from poor communities, with jobs, education and other benefits. This avenue for employment has been challenged or denied to gays and lesbians in the United States. Although the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy does not allow them to serve openly, more than 36,000 gays and lesbians serve actively in the military. Gay men and lesbians are estimated to represent 2.5 percent of active duty personnel.1.

'Unsuitable for military service'

American military law outlining punishment for homosexual soldiers took effect in 1917 when the Articles of War included "assault with the intent to commit sodomy" as a capital crime. In 1942, the Armed Forces instructed military psychiatrists that "Those who 'habitually or occasionally engaged in homosexual or other perverse sexual practices' are 'unsuitable for military service'." Between 1941 and 1945 nearly ten thousand homosexuals received dishonorable discharges from military service. Since 1945 over 100,000 gay and lesbians have been dishonably discharged.

In 1957 a Navy report, callen the Crittendon Report for the man who headed the committee, concluded that there was "no sound reason for the charge that homosexuals in the military pose a security risk". However, the Pentagon ignored the report for 20 years. During the 60's, gays and lesbians staged demonstrations challenging their treatment by the military. The Vietnam War era saw draft resistors feigning homosexuality to avoid being drafted.

During the Carter administration, gay discharges increased dramatically. In 1981, during the last week of Carter's administration, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Graham Claytor issued a policy stating that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service...The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to maintain discipline;...to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the armed forces; to maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security". This policy was implemented by the Reagan administration. 2.

"Don't ask, don't tell"

When Bill Clinton took office as President, he sought to overturn the 1981 ban. However, Congress strongly opposed. In September of 1993 the vote to continue the ban against gays in the military passed in the Senate by votes of 63 to 33, and in the House by 301 to 135. Clinton was forced to accept "Don't ask, don't tell" as a compromise. This represented a continuation of the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military, with two stipulations. Subordinates and recruits could not be questioned about their sexual orientation by commanding officers, and gays and lesbians serving should not come out of the closet. 3.

Arguing Against

Those who argue against the normalization of homosexuality in the military contend that:
* discrimination based on sexual orientation cannot be equated to race because sexual orientation outlines changeable and chosen behaviors rather than innate characteristics;
* the presence of gays in the close environment of the military in foxholes, showers, and sleeping quarters invades the privacy rights of heterosexuals;
* the military is not the appropriate place for a 'social experiment';
* straight service members would fear sexual harassment and sexual overtures by openly gay and lesbian service members;
* AIDS will increase with the presence of gay service members and blood transfusions in combat will be made risky; and
* sexual behaviors between gays and lesbians would undermine morale. 4.

Arguing in Support

Gay activists argued against these concerns contending that several scientific studies indicate that there may be a biological link to sexual orientation, and that gay and lesbian inclusion is not a social experiment, as they already work and live with heterosexuals throughout society. Gays and lesbians also serve in the military and discrimination against them is wrong. Gay advocates argue that military regulations already prohibit individual sexual activities and open displays of affection while on duty, and that penalties for inappropriate sexual behaviors are already in effect.5.

The Military in the new Millennium

In 2007, retired Army General, John M. Shalikashvili, spoke out for reconsideration of the ban against openly gay men and women in the military. In noting that President Bush had called for a long-term plan to increase the size of the armed forces, Shalikashvili suggested that the time had come to give the policy serious reconsideration. He noted that in a Zogby poll, three quarters of 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq said "they were comfortable interacting with gay people." He commented, "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job." 6.

In October of 2009, President Barack Obama spoke at the annual national dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, the US's largest gay rights advocacy group, reaffirming his commitment to end the ban against gays openly serving in the military. Obama had run a campaign strongly supportive of gay rights in society, however gay activists were frustrated at his failure to take up gay rights issues. Obama assured them of his continued support, saying, "My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians, whether in the office or on the battlefield." 7.

By 2009 the military had expelled 12,500 gay service members since 1993 as a result of violations of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. With two wars in progress this was a hard-to-abide consequence. A 2009 Gallup poll based on telephone interviews with 1,015 adults found that 69% of Americans were in favor of allowing openly gay men and lesbians to serve in the military. 8.

BACKLASH to Gays in the Military

The military population is more conservative than the broader population. A Military Times poll of active-duty service members in 2009 showed that 58% opposed any change in the policy toward gays, and 23% might not re-enlist if the "don't ask, don't tell" law is revised.
Decisions to enlist are made around the dinner table. Opponents to such a change contended that allowing gays to serve openly could harm unit cohesion and discourage conservative parents from supporting and encouraging their children to enter a 'gay military'. 9

In response to President Obama's request to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law Senator Carl Levin called a meeting to discuss the issue. Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women For America, sent an urgent request to members to "Call your Senators and Representatives and tell them to keep the current law that prohibits homosexuals from openly serving in the military. If the policy is overturned, it would distract from the critical mission of the military simply to impose a sexual agenda onto society." She contended that, "This is not the time to begin social experimentation in our military. Our armed forces are stretched fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Repealing the 1993 law now will create an undue hardship on our military and their families." 10.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and highest-ranking officer in the armed forces, likes to talk to the enlisted troops and listen to their concerns. In Feb. of 2010, Mullen called for a repeal of the ban as the "right thing to do". Mullen is faced with the possibility of having to ask troops to openly welcome gay men and women. If this becomes a reality, he will be required to act as a mediator between President Obama and the wider cultural scene, advising Obama on what the military and their troops can or cannot accept. 11.



REFERENCES:
1.Urban Institute. "Gay and Lesbian Demographics." 2009. http://www.urban.org/toolkit/issues/gayresearchfocus.cfm. 1/25/10.
2. The Gay Almanac. Compiled by the National Museum & Archive of Lesbian and Gay History. New York: Berkley Books. 1996.:298-311.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Shalikashvili, John M. "Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military." NYTimes.com. January 2,2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/opinion/02shalikashvili.html.
7. McGreal. Chris "Obama renews vow to end ban on gay people openly serving in the military." http://www.guardian.com/uk/world/2009/oct/11/obama-gay-rights-in-the-military. 1/29/10.
8. Ephron, Dan. "Don't Ask Too Fast." Newsweek. Jan 12, 2009. http://www.newsweek.com/id/177723/output/print. 1/29/10.
Jones, Jeffrey M. "Majority of Americans Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage." May 27, 2009. http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majority-americans-continue-oppose-gay-marriage. 1/29/10
9. Jones, Ibid.
10. Wright, Wendy. "Support Out Troops-Oppose Weakening Our Military." Concerned Women for America. Feb. 1. 2010.
11.Ephron, Dan. Ibid.

(8) Gays in the Corporations: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America

In the 1970's and 80's, with the encouragement of the women's movement, universities focused on career development over family formation, even for women. Women were being told to be independent, prepare for a profession or go into business so they could take charge of their own lives.

Corporations and businesses recognized that singles without family ties were able to dedicate time and energy to their jobs and were free to travel around the country. The Advocate,which had covered the gay market since 1967, featured a 'how to' guide for the gay traveler in the 1990's. Noting that an estimated $17 billion annually was spent by gay men and lesbians in business related travel, they published a list of travel companies that were 'exceptional' or 'gay friendly'. Included were American, Northwest, Continental and Lufthsa Airlines; Avis, National and Alamo Car Rentals; and Hyatt Hotels. 1.

Out of the Corporate Closet

While some gay men and lesbians were fortunate to be in business for themselves or to work in gay organizations, those working in the business world often found it difficult, having to avoid conversations about their private lives when others talked about their families. Having to hide in the closet during working hours sapped energy and creativity. Kirk Synder, author of Lavender Road to Success: The Career Guide for the Gay Community, contended that "an open work environment leads to happier employees and therefore higher productivity." He found that workers who hide their sexuality at work make less money and are less productive than openly gay people." 2.

Corporate Non-discrimination Policies

Employee associations and unions developed in corporate America to lobby for gay employee's rights and domestic partner benefits. In the 1980's corporations began to include sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination policies. 3.
By 1995, more than 60 American companies had lesbian, gay and bisexual employee groups; half of the Fortune 1000 companies had nondiscrimination policies that included sexual orientation; and over 45% of lesbian and gay men had been promoted at work. 4.

'Best' and 'Worst' companies

Cracking the Corporate Closet is a gay and lesbian guidebook that publishes "the 'best' and 'worst' companies to work for, buy from, and invest in". They use three criteria to make assessments on how 'gay friendly' a company in:
1. sexual orientation included in the company's anti-discrimination policy,
2. domestic partnership benefits offered to its employees, and
3. 'corporate behavior' determined through press reports and interviews conducted with present and former employees.

Their research showed that the key factor in effecting change within a corporation was found to be an active and vocal gay and lesbian employeee group within the corporation. These pressure groups began as informal social networks and then announced their existence publicly, soliciting members and advocating for improved work environments. 5.

In 1995, Cracking the Corporate Closet's list of 'best' companies for gay and lesbian employees included: Apple Computer, Ben & Jerry's, Boston Globe, Charles Schwab, Fannie Mae, Levi Strauss & Co., Lotus, Pacific Gas and Electric and Quark. Quark was founded and developed by Tim Gill, who formed the Gill Foundation and invested millions of dollars to seed gay-rights organizations in all 50 states and provide financial support for gay political campaigns.
Companies that did not include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies in 1995 included Hilton, Corning, Home Depot, Marriott, Motorola, Burger King, The Gap and Pepsico. 6.

Pepsico and McDonald's Support the Gay Agenda

By September of 2008, Pepsico had reversed its position on gay rights by donating $500,000 to Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).
PFLAG actively supports the legalization of same-sex marriage and worked to defeat Proposition 8, the ballot initiative which restored traditional marriage in California. The homosexual website, Advocate.com , said that the Pepsico gift was earmarked to help straight allies to "transform people's attitudes and perceptions of gay individuals and the gay community...and effect real and lasting change" in society. Pepsico also gave $500,000 to the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest homosexual activist organization and was a prominent supporter of the 35th Annual Lesbian and Gay Pride Parade in New York City with it's own corporate float. 7.

The family friendly fast food chain, McDonald's, also took a public stand to support the homosexual agenda. In early 2008, Richard Ellis, McDonald's vice president of communications, accepted a seat on the board of directors of the National Gay and Lesian Chamber of Commerce. In September of 2008, McDonald's helped to sponsor the annual Out and Equal Workplace Summit which trains employees on how to aggressively promote homosexuality within the company. The 2007 Out and Equal conference had included an organized march into Congressional offices demanding the legalization of same-sex marriage.8.

BACKLASH BY OPPOSING INTERESTS

The American Family Association (AFA) responded with boycotts when Pepsico and McDonald's became publicly and actively involved in pro-gay policies. When corporate decisions at McDonald's promoted the gay agenda, AFA Chairman Don Wildmon said, "This boycott isn't about hiring homosexuals, or homosexuals eating at McDonald's, or how homosexual employees are treated. It is about McDonald's, as a corporation, refusing to remain neutral in the culture war. The company has chosen not to remain neutral but to give the full weight of its corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage." Wildmon urged AFA supporters to "sign, print and distribute a 'Boycott McDonald's' petition at www.boycottmcdonalds.com; and to call the local McDonald's to politely tell the manager they are boycotting the chain until it stops promoting the gay agenda." Wildmon said "The homosexual movement is controversial, and we're simply asking that McDonald's remain neutral." 9.
In October of 2008 AFA announced that the boycott of McDonald's had ended because McDonald's had told them they would remain neutral in the culture war regarding homosexual marriage.

When AFA asked PepsiCo to remain neutral in the culture war, the company refused - choosing to support the homosexual activists and making no effort to hide their support. In the fall of 2008, AFA called for a boycott of all PepsiCo's products, including Pepsi, Gatorade, Mountain Dew, Frito Lay Chips, and Quaker Oats. On it's website, www.boycottpepsico.com, AFA listed the following reasons for calling a boycott. PepsiCo: made large donations to PFLAG and the Human Rights Campaign; requires employees to attend diversity training where they are taught to accept homosexuality; sponsored the TV show Family Guy which pushes the homosexual agenda and denigrates Jesus; supports homosexual publications which feature page after page of nude and semi-nude men in suggestive positions; sponsors 'gay pride' parades across America; and refuses to help those trapped in this destructive lifestyle. In early 2010 the boycott against PepsiCo continued. 10.




REFERENCES
1.The Gay Almanac.Compiled by the National Museum & Archieve of Lesbian and Gay History. NY: Philip Lief Group, Inc.1996:15,156.
2. Johansson, Catrine. "Respect for gays found productive." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution . Sunday, June 27, 2004:1R.
3. Ibid.
4. The Gay Almanac. 1996:101,153.
5. Ibid: 157-159.
6. Ibid:
7. American Family Association Journal. "AFA calls for boycott of McDonald's" Vol.32, No. 8. August 2008:3.
8. American Family Association Journal. "McDonald's sponsors summit promoting the gay agenda." Vol. 32, No. 10. Oct. 2008:3.
9. Ibid.
10. American Family Association Journal. "AFA, 2009, launches boycott of PepsiCo." Vol. 33, No. 1, Jan. 2009:3
AFA boycott. "Reasons for the boycott". http://www.boycottpepsico.com. 2/8/2010.

(7) Gay Demographics: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America

Mainstream surveys and polls generally neglected to include a separate category for gay people. In 1989 Overlooked Opinions, Inc., a market research and opinion polling firm concerned with the gay, lesbian and bisexual market, was formed in Chicago. A survey done in 1992 with a sample size of 7,500 gay men and lesbians reported on education, income, occupation, and living conditions.

This survey documented that: 1.
* Over 50% had a college degree, with 25% a graduate degree.
* 70% of the occupations were found in the categories of management, health care, education, marketing, technical, clerical, financial, literary, law or science.
* The median income for lesbians was $36,000 and for gay men, over $42,000.
* 45% were home owners, and over 45% lived in the city, with an additional 33% suburban dwellers.
* 71% of lesbians were in a relationship, 52% lived with a partner and 10% of lesbian households included children under 18.
* 55% of gay men were in a relationship, 37% lived with a partner and 4.8% of gay households included children under 18.
* Other facts revealed that in 1991 lesbians and gay men took more than 162 million trips, 78% of which were for business.
* 89% ate out on a regular basis.
* 6 million home computers were purchased between 1988 and 1991.
* Gay men and lesbians were estimated to spend as much as $500 billion annually in the United States.

Gays are not randomly distributed throughout the country. The 2000 Census reported that more than one-quarter of same-sex households were located in five urban areas: New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington D.C., and Chicago. This same Census reported that the highest concentration of same-sex households were in 7 urban areas: San Francisco, CA; Santa Fe, NM; Portland, ME; Burlington, VT; Seattle, WA: Miami, FL; and Austin, TX. 2.

THE LUCRATIVE GAY MARKET

Marketing to the gay community developed into a lucrative endeavor. Gay guesthouses and nightlife resorts and cruises became popular. A study by Witech-Combs Communications reported that more than 2.6 million households in the U.S. included children. The International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association defined the growing ranks of gay families as 'a niche within a niche'. In the summer of 2004, Kelli O'Donnell, mother of four, married partner of Rosie O'Donnell, and co-owner of R Family Vacations chartered a cruise dedicated to the gay family market. Rosie was to host a variety hour for the 1,600 gays, children and family members on board. 3.

The Gay and lesbian community in the U.S. is estimated by national surveys to exceed 18 million people with a large majority having disposable incomes above the national average. Households with dual incomes without children have significant buying power. MYgayweb.com(2010) reported that "The Gay and lesbian community is three times more likely to be online than many average Americans" and that "Over 29% of gay internet surfers have yearly household incomes of at least $90,000" with 62% making over $40,000 a year. Many are highly educated, with 73% of gay internet surfers having a college degree, 19% with a Master's Degree or higher. 4.

Businesses recognized that singles without family ties were free to travel around the country. The Advocate, which had covered the gay market since 1967, featured a 'how to' guide for the gay traveler in the 1990's. Noting that an estimated $17 billion annually is spent by gay men and lesbians in business related travel, they published a list of travel companies that were 'exceptional' or 'gay friendly'. Included were American, Northwest, Continental and Lufthsa Airlines; Avis, National and Alamo Car Rentals; and Hyatt Hotels. 5.



REFERENCES
1. The Gay Almanac. Compiled by the National Museum & Archive of Lesbian and Gay History. New York: Berkley Books. 1996:100-102,153.
2.Sears, Alan & Craig Osten. The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.(Revised and updated) Nashville, TN:B&H Pub. 2003:25.
3. Bly, Laura. "A Gay New Time: Family Cruises, Vacations." USA Today. Friday, July 9, 2004:D1.
4. MYgayweb. "Gay Demographics". http://www.mygayweb.com/info/advertising/demographiscs. 1/25/2010.
5. The Gay Almanac. 1996:15,156.

(6) Gays Confront the Media: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America

When the Comstock Act was passed in 1873, the dissemination of any "article of an immoral nature" through the U.S. mail or across state lines became legally prohibited. It remains on the books today forbidding the use of the mails to distribute obscene material. 1.

In the 1950's, the Mattachine Society, the Daughters of Bilitis, and ONE,Inc. developed into national organizations supporting gay liberation by defying the Comstock laws. In 1958, One Magazine, the first gay magazine to reach a wide audience, won a decision from the U.S.Supreme Court to allow it's mailings. Feminist publications addressed lesbian concerns in the 1970's and 1980's, and during the 1980's and 1990's, gay and lesbian publications boldly promoted safer sex practices, countering mainstream admonitions for celibacy. 2.

When homosexuals were discussed in the news prior to the 1960's it was generally in a negative light. In 1964, Life published an article "Homosexuality in America." Although mostly negative, it attempted to explain homosexuality to the mainstream society.

Following the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973, media became more positive in its willingness to discuss issues related to gays and lesbians. In 1979, Time magazine reported "Homosexual publishing is booming, and gays now receive far more sympathetic coverage in the media...At the same time, there is strong reaction against the homosexual rights movement." 3.

SIX POINT STRATEGY

In 1987 homosexual activists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, published an article titled "The Overhauling of Straight America", followed in 1989 by a book titled After the Ball. In these writings Kirk and Madsen laid out a six-point strategy to radically change the way Americans perceived homosexual behavior. 4.
1. Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible. "almost all behaviors begin to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances."
2. Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers.Tragedies were turned into opportunities to promote the homosexual agenda by portraying anyone who opposed it as a murderer or sympathetic to murder.
3. Give homosexual protectors a 'just cause'. "A media campaign that casts gays as society's victims and encourages straights to be their protectors must make it easier for those who respond to assert and explain their perspectives."
4.Make gays look good. Portray homosexuals sympathetically in the media.
5. Make the victimizers look bad. "We intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dis-associate themselves from such types."
6. Solicit funds.Get corporate America and major foundations to financially support the homosexual cause.

Kirk and Madsen knew that they would be required to wage a war of propaganda. Opponents were portrayed and denounced as ugly caricatures. Even thoughtful and heartfelt concerns for family well-being were vilified as hate-mongering, bigotry or homophobia.

In 1989, The San Francisco Examiner ran a report entitled "Gay in America" that ran for 16 days. Subsequently, newspapers across the country ran articles, often 2 or 3 pages in length, explaining gay issues to the local public. 5.

TARGETING TELEVISION 6.

Three years after the Stonewall Riots representation on prime time TV became a critical symbolic target. Homosexual activists sought to influence the way they were portrayed. They had an important advantage. They had 'agents in place'. A substantial number of gay people, some in high positions, worked in the TV industry who were not open about their lifestyle. These 'agents' were able to leak information to activists about upcoming episodes in which gays were depicted negatively.

Ron Gold, the media director of the Gay Activist Alliance, wrote to all three networks requesting meetings. Before the meeting with ABC, an agent had supplied information about an upcoming episode of Marcus Welby, MD where Welby advised a homosexual who was both a husband and a father to suppress his homosexual desires. The meeting with ABC was confrontational and hostile. A meeting with 25 angry activists was not the kind of meeting that network executives preferred to have. Although the objectionable episode aired a few days later, the meeting did impact later decisions. Gay activists were invited by ABC executives to comment on any scripts dealing with homosexuality.

CHILD MOLESTATION EPISODE 7.

A story line that was unacceptable to gays was an episode that linked homosexuality to child molestation, a relationship that activists wanted to eliminate in the media. When Ron Gold lost his temper with ABC executives, communications broke down. When the Gay Activist Alliance experienced disagreements, Gold split from the group to form the National Gay Task Force(NGTF), which developed as a gay rights umbrella organization around the country.

NGTF turned the episode related to child molestation to a gay media activist in Boston, Loretta Lotman, who launched a national campaign against the Welby show, galvanizing the gay community. Grassroots groups applied pressure on local ABC affiliates. Threats were included as strategies for success. When Lotman called the Boston ABC affiliate, WCVB, she warned that "if something were not done about the program, the station would be 'hit with a protest the likes of which you've never seen before'". Advertisers were pressured to withdraw support.

NGTF pressured the American Psychiatric Association to publicly condemn the offensive Welby episode. They also succeeded in having the National Education Association release a report objecting to the show's portrayal of homosexuals as sterotypes.

In response to this aggressive campaign, ABC issued a statement defending the episode. However, the producers made changes to minmize offenses.

COAST TO COAST SURVEILLANCE 8.

NGTF leaders presented themselves as a 'resource' for information about homosexuality rather than a pressure group. However the possibility of a protest was never out of the question. Between 1974 and 1977, seven 'zaps' - as the activists called their protests - occurred. Gays working in TV continued their surveillance of the industry. The NGTF agenda for network programming included: "increased visibility, elimination of stereotypes, continuing gay and lesbian characters, and gay couples. Gays also insisted on a 'moratorium on negative portrayals'...Gays thus became an ongoing political presence in network television." 8.

The Gay Media Task Force, run by Dr. Newton Deiter, was formed in Los Angeles at the encouragement of NGTF to hold the media accountable on both sides of the country. In the 70's, more and more gay characters appeared on prime-time TV. One critic labeled 1976 as "the year of the gay" because gay characters appeared in "at least seven situation comedies and in several television movies." These shows were aimed at public education. "In virtually every one the heterosexual characters learn to accept gay people and their lifestyles."

MOVING TOWARD THE NEW MILLENIUM

Beginning in the mid 1990's, Ellen, Friends, The Drew Carey Show, Will and Grace, and Sex and the City introduced characters with implied or actural gay behaviors and issues. In the new millenium, Oprah Winfrey embraced gay and lesbian concerns on her popular daily show. Lesbians who had left their husbands to marry their lovers were interviewed, gay men were guests invited to share their life stories, and a week was devoted to the life changes of trans-gendered people. At one point Oprah turned to the television audience and said, "I think this is soooo interesting. Don't you think this is interesting?" Soon Ellen Degeneres, a popular lesbian, became host to a late afternoon talk show. Gay activists had become institutionalized in network TV.



REFERENCES
1. Rierson, Sandra. "Comstock Act(1873). http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congrsss/comstock-act. 2/1/2010.
2.The Gay Almanac. Compiled by the National Museum & Archive of Lesbian and Gay History. New York: Berkley Books. 1996:281.
3. Leo,
4. Sears, Alan & Craig Osten. The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today. Nashville, TN:B&H Publishing. 2003:17-28.
5. The Gay Almanac: 286-287.
6. Montgomery, Kathryn C. Target:Prime Time -Advocacy Groups and the Struggle Over Entertainment Television. New York: Oxford University Press. 1989:Chap. 5.
7. Ibid.:81-83
8. Ibid:87-94.