Since the 1970s, the gay and lesbian rights movement has sought measures to protect homosexuals from discrimination. In 1982, Wisconsin became the first state to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, following several cities that passed gay rights ordinances in the 1970s. By 2013, twenty-one states and the District of Columbia outlawed employment discrimination against gays, and dozens of cities did so.

DOCUMENT 1

Ordinance of the City of Minneapolis, 1974

In 1974, the city council of Minneapolis amended its civil rights ordinance to include discrimination based on sexual orientation. The law provided a rationale for banning discrimination and covered a broad range of activities.

It is determined that discriminatory practices based on race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, or affectional or sexual preference, with respect to employment, labor union membership, housing accommodations, property rights, education, public accommodations, and public services, or any of them, tend to create and intensify conditions of poverty, ill health, unrest, civil disobedience, lawlessness, and vice and adversely affect the public health, safety, order, convenience, and general welfare; such discriminatory practices threaten the rights, privileges, and opportunities of all inhabitants of the city and such rights, privileges, and opportunities are hereby to be declared civil rights.

Source: From The Rights of Gay People: The Basic ACLU Guide to a Gay Person’s Rights, ed. E. Carrington Boggan, et al (New York: Avon Books, 1975), 251.

DOCUMENT 2

Paul Moore, Letter to the Editor of the New York Times, November 23, 1981

Paul Moore, Episcopal bishop of New York, made a religious argument for gay rights.

I quote our diocesan resolution: “Whereas this Convention, without making any judgment on the morality of homosexuality, agrees that homosexuals are entitled to full civil rights. Now therefore be it resolved this Convention supports laws guaranteeing homosexuals all civil rights guaranteed to other citizens.” The Bible stands for justice and compassion for all of God’s children. To deny civil rights to anyone for something he or she cannot help is against the clear commandment of justice and love, which is the message of the word of God. As a New Yorker I find it incredible that this great city, populated by more gay persons than any other city in the world, still denies them basic human rights. They make an enormous contribution to the commercial, artistic, and religious life of our city.

Source: Paul Moore, reprinted with permission.

DOCUMENT 3

Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 6, 1992

The following statement from the Roman Catholic Church reflects the views of many religious groups that deem homosexuality immoral.

“Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc., in respect to nondiscrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern.

There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

Source: From Vatican Doctrine of the Faith, Origins, August 6, 1992. Used by permission of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

DOCUMENT 4

Charles Cochrane Jr., Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Employment Opportunities of the Committee on Education and Labor, January 27, 1982

Congress has considered, but never enacted, legislation banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Charles Cochrane Jr., an army veteran and police sergeant, testified on behalf of such a bill.

I am very proud of being a New York City policeman. And I am equally proud of being gay. I have always been gay.

I have been out of the closet for 4 years. November 6 was my anniversary. It took me 34 years to muster enough courage to declare myself openly.

We gays are loathed by some, pitied by others, and misunderstood by most. We are not cruel, wicked, cursed, sick, or possessed by demons. We are artists, business people, police officers, and clergymen. We are scientists, truck drivers, politicians; we work in every field. We are loving human beings who are in some ways different. . . .

During the early years of my association with the New York City Police Department a great deal of energy did go into guarding and concealing my innermost feelings. I believed that I would be subjected to ridicule and harassment were my colleagues to learn of my sexual orientation. Happily, when I actually began to integrate the various aspects of my total self, those who knew me did not reject me.

Then what need is there for such legislation as H.R. 1454? The crying need of others, still trapped in their closets, who must be protected, who must be reassured that honesty about themselves and their lives will not cost them their homes or their jobs. . . .

The bill before you will not act as a proselytizing agent in matters of sexual orientation or preference. It will not include affirmative action provisions. Passage of this bill will protect the inherent human rights of all people of the United States, while in no way diminishing the rights of those who do not see the need for such legislation.

Source: Hearing on H.R. 1454 Before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Employment Opportunities of the Committee on Education and Labor, 97th Cong. 54–56 (1982).

DOCUMENT 5

Carl F. Horowitz, “Homosexuality’s Legal Revolution,” May 1991

Carl Horowitz, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, argues against gay rights.

Homosexual activists have all but completed their campaign to persuade the nation’s educational establishment that homosexuality is normal “alternative” behavior, and thus any adverse reaction to it is akin to a phobia, such as fear of heights, or an ethnic prejudice, such as anti-Semitism.

The movement now stands on the verge of fully realizing its use of law to . . . intimidate heterosexuals uncomfortable about coming into contact with it. . . . The movement seeks to win sinecures through the state, and over any objections by “homophobic” opposition. With a cloud of a heavy fine or even a jail sentence hanging over a mortgage lender, a rental agent, or a job interviewer who might be discomforted by them, homosexuals under these laws can win employment, credit, housing, and other economic entitlements. Heterosexuals would have no right to discriminate against homosexuals, but apparently, not vice versa. . . .

Heterosexuals and even “closeted” homosexuals will be at a competitive disadvantage for jobs and housing. . . .

The new legalism will increase heterosexual anger—and even violence—toward homosexuals.

Source: Carl F. Horowitz, “Homosexuality’s Legal Revolution,” Freeman, May 1991.

Questions for Analysis and Debate

Connect to the Big Idea

What advances did gay rights activists make in the 1980s, and what helped them secure those gains?