25. Women and the LGBTQ+ Movement
|
Since the Stonewall riot, the LGBTQ+ movement has fought to dismantle gender and sexual norms. Although not always embraced by feminists, the LGBTQ+ movement gradually worked to dismantle the patriarchy through modern US history. In 2013, Edith Windsor sued the US because she was taxed upon inheriting her deceased wife’s estate. Although legal, LGBTQ+ rights and humanity remain threatened by the far right.
|
Lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender, queer and other individuals in history have had a long and continuing journey to social and legal equality, most of those battles are not yet finished. For most of LGBTQ+ (the plus includes other categories of sexuality like asexual, etc) history, the terms for how these individuals would have been identified are unknown. Queer often serves as a substitute in the absence of the correct identity. Historically, this term was derogatory but has been reclaimed by members of the LGBTQ+ community and is a useful descriptor for historians when examining the lives of people in the past. Historians have uncovered stories about people with female genitalia who dressed as men, and vice versa. They have found examples of women, even well known historic figures like Susan B. Anthony, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Carrie Chapman Catt who cohabited with women and had powerful, loving, intimate relationships. Their letters reveal deep emotional connections, beyond that of typical friends. Although terms like “Boston Marriages” were used to describe two women who lived together in the late 1800s, this term is insufficient. Women who engaged in Boston Marriages were unmarried, self-supporting, and often engaged in professional and educated careers or lived off inherited wealth. These could be queer women, they also could be heterosexual, yet independent women.
This is complicated by the reality that many heterosexual marriages were contracts, consented to by people who didn’t necessarily love one another. Therefore, many LGBTQ+ people may have engaged in these marriages and done their “duty” to the marriage as society saw it. Uncovering the lives of LGBTQ+ people is further complicated by the contemporary desire to label them as L, G, B, T, Q, or otherwise. But in the absence of those terms in their time, requires caution.
Despite the stigma associated with non-heterosexual sexual orientation, and gender identity, LGBTQ+ persons could live fulfilling and successful lives in the past. Carrie Chapman Catt, an early graduate of Iowa State University, had two marriages, first to newspaper editor Leo Chapman, who passed away after just a year of marriage, and then to wealthy engineer George Catt. Despite her second marriage, Carrie and Mary (Mollie) Garrett Hay, a fellow suffrage activist, formed a close bond and campaigned together, eventually living together as a power couple in New York State suffrage circles. They traveled extensively, giving speeches and advocating for women's rights. After George's death, Carrie chose to be buried beside Mollie Hay, highlighting the importance of their relationship. Historians view their partnership as an example of the suffrage movement providing a safe and accepting space for unconventional lifestyles. Yet Chapman used the word “friendship” to describe the relationship she had with a woman whom she decided to be buried next to for eternity.
Eleanor Roosevelt's marriage was well known to be a political one. Franklin’s affairs with other women are well documented, especially Lucy Mercer Rutherford. Eleanor also sought emotional fulfillment outside the marriage with both men and women. Eleanor connected with a variety of men including Lou Howe, John Boettinger, and Earl Miller. She also had a series of Boston Marriages with women like Esther Lape, Elizabeth Read, Nancy Coo, Marion Dickerman, Marie Souvestre, Rose Schneiderman, Molly Dewson, and most notably, a journalist, Lorena Hickock. Scholars have debated whether these were sexual in nature, some of the letters exchanged with Hickock seem to suggest sexual intimacy, but other historians dismiss Eleanor’s bisexuality entirely. While it seems obvious that many of those women were lesbians, they consider Eleanor almost asexual claiming such intimacy was beyond her capacity as a single-minded advocate. Again, with figures in the closet during the early 20th century, challenges about defining them through 21st century terms remain. For many the possibility that she could be bisexual like them is important to find connections in the past.
This is complicated by the reality that many heterosexual marriages were contracts, consented to by people who didn’t necessarily love one another. Therefore, many LGBTQ+ people may have engaged in these marriages and done their “duty” to the marriage as society saw it. Uncovering the lives of LGBTQ+ people is further complicated by the contemporary desire to label them as L, G, B, T, Q, or otherwise. But in the absence of those terms in their time, requires caution.
Despite the stigma associated with non-heterosexual sexual orientation, and gender identity, LGBTQ+ persons could live fulfilling and successful lives in the past. Carrie Chapman Catt, an early graduate of Iowa State University, had two marriages, first to newspaper editor Leo Chapman, who passed away after just a year of marriage, and then to wealthy engineer George Catt. Despite her second marriage, Carrie and Mary (Mollie) Garrett Hay, a fellow suffrage activist, formed a close bond and campaigned together, eventually living together as a power couple in New York State suffrage circles. They traveled extensively, giving speeches and advocating for women's rights. After George's death, Carrie chose to be buried beside Mollie Hay, highlighting the importance of their relationship. Historians view their partnership as an example of the suffrage movement providing a safe and accepting space for unconventional lifestyles. Yet Chapman used the word “friendship” to describe the relationship she had with a woman whom she decided to be buried next to for eternity.
Eleanor Roosevelt's marriage was well known to be a political one. Franklin’s affairs with other women are well documented, especially Lucy Mercer Rutherford. Eleanor also sought emotional fulfillment outside the marriage with both men and women. Eleanor connected with a variety of men including Lou Howe, John Boettinger, and Earl Miller. She also had a series of Boston Marriages with women like Esther Lape, Elizabeth Read, Nancy Coo, Marion Dickerman, Marie Souvestre, Rose Schneiderman, Molly Dewson, and most notably, a journalist, Lorena Hickock. Scholars have debated whether these were sexual in nature, some of the letters exchanged with Hickock seem to suggest sexual intimacy, but other historians dismiss Eleanor’s bisexuality entirely. While it seems obvious that many of those women were lesbians, they consider Eleanor almost asexual claiming such intimacy was beyond her capacity as a single-minded advocate. Again, with figures in the closet during the early 20th century, challenges about defining them through 21st century terms remain. For many the possibility that she could be bisexual like them is important to find connections in the past.
Before Stonewall:
World War II and the rise in women’s sports changed things a bit. Queer women were able to find one another in uniform. Female baseball players like Josephine "JoJo" D'Angelo faced challenges in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League (A.A.G.P.B.L.). The league was formed during World War II when most male players were deployed. However, female players had to adhere to strict rules, including looking feminine and attending charm school, which proved challenging for women who rejected feminine presentations. The unspoken reason for these rules was to prevent them from being perceived as lesbians, even though many of the players were gay. Same-sex relationships were often kept secret. Obituaries sometimes hint at these relationships, but the players remained closeted during their lives.
Discrimination was rampant. People were more likely to lose their jobs due to accusations of being homosexual than being communist. Many states had anti-sodomy laws, which banned certain types of sexual activity. And if that wasn’t enough society, as well as the medical community, considered them mentally ill. Established religions labeled them as sinners.
In this hostile environment, one of the only public spaces available for queer individuals to find community was the gay bar. For many people before Stonewall, these bars served as alternative to religious spaces where they could connect and escape with friends. One lesbian of the period explained, “I came out as gay in 1945, the year that the war ended[…]I was dating a softball player that I met at the gay bar. I met her at Mona's, or as it was the Paper Pony. My first night in a gay bar was freedom” (Cartier, Baby You Are My Religion). Bars provided a sense of freedom, camaraderie, and acceptance. The bars became the primary social spaces for queer women and men, offering them connections, companionship, and an escape from the confines of societal expectations.
World War II and the rise in women’s sports changed things a bit. Queer women were able to find one another in uniform. Female baseball players like Josephine "JoJo" D'Angelo faced challenges in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League (A.A.G.P.B.L.). The league was formed during World War II when most male players were deployed. However, female players had to adhere to strict rules, including looking feminine and attending charm school, which proved challenging for women who rejected feminine presentations. The unspoken reason for these rules was to prevent them from being perceived as lesbians, even though many of the players were gay. Same-sex relationships were often kept secret. Obituaries sometimes hint at these relationships, but the players remained closeted during their lives.
Discrimination was rampant. People were more likely to lose their jobs due to accusations of being homosexual than being communist. Many states had anti-sodomy laws, which banned certain types of sexual activity. And if that wasn’t enough society, as well as the medical community, considered them mentally ill. Established religions labeled them as sinners.
In this hostile environment, one of the only public spaces available for queer individuals to find community was the gay bar. For many people before Stonewall, these bars served as alternative to religious spaces where they could connect and escape with friends. One lesbian of the period explained, “I came out as gay in 1945, the year that the war ended[…]I was dating a softball player that I met at the gay bar. I met her at Mona's, or as it was the Paper Pony. My first night in a gay bar was freedom” (Cartier, Baby You Are My Religion). Bars provided a sense of freedom, camaraderie, and acceptance. The bars became the primary social spaces for queer women and men, offering them connections, companionship, and an escape from the confines of societal expectations.
The Stonewall Riots:
The Stonewall Inn riots in New York City marked a turning point in LGBTQ activism. Stormé DeLarverie, a butch lesbian who sometimes performed in drag, was at the bar that night. When the police raided the facility under the guise of protecting decency, they beat and abused patrons. DeLaverie’s altercation with police became the catalyst for the riot. She was arrested, handcuffed, and beaten with a baton by police. Bloodied and fighting with police she yelled, “Why don’t you guys do something!?” The crowd reacted with decades of pent up injustices and resentment. Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, two trans women of color, were in the bar that night as well and fought back against police in what became the larger Stonewall Riots.
LGBTQ+ leaders organized the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) immediately following the Stonewall riots. Women were among the primary advocates in GLF marches, held fundraising dances, conducted consciousness-raising groups, and formed radical study circles. They also established their own publication called "Come Out!" operating from the Alternate U on Sixth Avenue and 14th Street. Over time, GLF transformed into a network of semi-independent cells. But the focus of these cells often revolved around integrating gays and lesbians into the mainstream culture, often at the expense of the others like bi and transgender people.
After the riots, Johnson, a trans woman, co-founded the Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (STAR) organization alongside Sylvia Rivera. They felt the work of the mostly white, middle class gays and lesbians was excluding trans people. STAR aimed to provide support, advocacy, and housing for homeless transgender youth in New York City. Marsha and Sylvia's work with STAR and presence did not fit within the assimilationist goals of lesbians. Johnson was known for her vibrant personality, advocacy work, and dedication to helping those in need. Rivera considered her to be like a mother figure. Rivera struggled with homelessness her entire life and attempted suicide. Johnson mentored her and got her well again. Rivera left activism for a bit to recover.
Sadly, Johnson's life was cut short when she was found dead in the Hudson River in 1992. While her death was initially ruled a suicide, there have been ongoing efforts to reexamine the case and seek justice for her untimely passing. Hundreds of people attended her funeral, more than expected. It was standing room only. The police reopened her case in 2012.
The Stonewall Inn riots in New York City marked a turning point in LGBTQ activism. Stormé DeLarverie, a butch lesbian who sometimes performed in drag, was at the bar that night. When the police raided the facility under the guise of protecting decency, they beat and abused patrons. DeLaverie’s altercation with police became the catalyst for the riot. She was arrested, handcuffed, and beaten with a baton by police. Bloodied and fighting with police she yelled, “Why don’t you guys do something!?” The crowd reacted with decades of pent up injustices and resentment. Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, two trans women of color, were in the bar that night as well and fought back against police in what became the larger Stonewall Riots.
LGBTQ+ leaders organized the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) immediately following the Stonewall riots. Women were among the primary advocates in GLF marches, held fundraising dances, conducted consciousness-raising groups, and formed radical study circles. They also established their own publication called "Come Out!" operating from the Alternate U on Sixth Avenue and 14th Street. Over time, GLF transformed into a network of semi-independent cells. But the focus of these cells often revolved around integrating gays and lesbians into the mainstream culture, often at the expense of the others like bi and transgender people.
After the riots, Johnson, a trans woman, co-founded the Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (STAR) organization alongside Sylvia Rivera. They felt the work of the mostly white, middle class gays and lesbians was excluding trans people. STAR aimed to provide support, advocacy, and housing for homeless transgender youth in New York City. Marsha and Sylvia's work with STAR and presence did not fit within the assimilationist goals of lesbians. Johnson was known for her vibrant personality, advocacy work, and dedication to helping those in need. Rivera considered her to be like a mother figure. Rivera struggled with homelessness her entire life and attempted suicide. Johnson mentored her and got her well again. Rivera left activism for a bit to recover.
Sadly, Johnson's life was cut short when she was found dead in the Hudson River in 1992. While her death was initially ruled a suicide, there have been ongoing efforts to reexamine the case and seek justice for her untimely passing. Hundreds of people attended her funeral, more than expected. It was standing room only. The police reopened her case in 2012.
American Psychological Association:
Evelyn Hooker was an American psychologist who published a paper in 1956 titled "The Psychological Adjustment of Homosexual Males." In this groundbreaking study, Hooker subjected self-identified homosexual and heterosexual men to an array of psychological tests. She then enlisted the expertise of professionals to discern the homosexual individuals and evaluate their mental well-being. The findings of this experiment, which subsequent researchers corroborated, challenge the notion of homosexuality as a psychological disorder. This stems from the absence of discernible disparities in mental adaptation between homosexual and heterosexual men.
Showing that homosexuals were not mentally ill was hugely important to the social movement, however it took a long time for the American Psychological Association to come on board. Finally, in 1973, the APA concluded that homosexuality was not a mental disorder. The APA struck it from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, also known as the DSM.
Evelyn Hooker was an American psychologist who published a paper in 1956 titled "The Psychological Adjustment of Homosexual Males." In this groundbreaking study, Hooker subjected self-identified homosexual and heterosexual men to an array of psychological tests. She then enlisted the expertise of professionals to discern the homosexual individuals and evaluate their mental well-being. The findings of this experiment, which subsequent researchers corroborated, challenge the notion of homosexuality as a psychological disorder. This stems from the absence of discernible disparities in mental adaptation between homosexual and heterosexual men.
Showing that homosexuals were not mentally ill was hugely important to the social movement, however it took a long time for the American Psychological Association to come on board. Finally, in 1973, the APA concluded that homosexuality was not a mental disorder. The APA struck it from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, also known as the DSM.
Feminism:
While revolutionary, feminists were not always inclusive of their LGBTQ+ sisters and often saw the gay rights movement as separate from feminist struggles. The most notable example of this was Betty Friedan the president of the National Organization of Women (NOW), author of The Feminine Mystique, who also promoted anti-gay propaganda. Freidan coined the term “lavender menace” in reference to the increasing number of “out” lesbians. Other women in the movement were more inclusive and intersectional in their approaches to feminism, but prominent women like Friedan undercut them.
The LGBTQ+ movement had a way of turning hate into a rallying cry. At a 1970 GLF meeting Michela Griffo turned hurtful words into power. She wore “I am a Lavender Herring” on a custom t-shirt, quoting NOW leader Susan Brownmiller’s New York Times article where she claimed lesbians were less important to the feminist movement. Then, at a NOW meeting in 1970, lesbians from Radicalesbians, the GLF, and other feminist groups staged a theatrical demonstration to rally feminists behind the cause of lesbians. In the middle of the programing, they shut off the lights. There was some shuffling and when the lights came back up the isles were lined by lesbians wearing shirts with Betty Friedan’s words: “Lavender Menace.” They all held signs that read, “We are all lesbians,” “Lesbianism is a women’s liberation plot,” or “We are your worst nightmare, your best fantasy.” The Menaces seized the microphone and held it for two hours, demanding that NOW take up the cause of the lesbian. This uprising by the Lavender Menace gave lesbians a voice and visibility in the mainstream feminist movement. NOW acknowledged the challenges and oppression facing lesbians by passing a resolution acknowledging the double-oppression of lesbians as women and homosexuals and recognizing the “oppression of lesbians as a legitimate concern of feminism” in 1971. Friedan maintained her homophobia for sometime afterward.
Feminists were successful in passing Title IX in 1973, which states “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” The term sex was used to include both gender and sexuality, protecting students from discrimination based on their gender and sexual orientation in schools.
Then, in 1974, Kathy Kozachenko, a lesbian was elected to the Ann Arbor City Council in Michigan and became the first openly gay person elected to political office. Then, Elaine Noble was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives. They both predate Harvey Milk, who is often misattributed as the first openly gay official.
While revolutionary, feminists were not always inclusive of their LGBTQ+ sisters and often saw the gay rights movement as separate from feminist struggles. The most notable example of this was Betty Friedan the president of the National Organization of Women (NOW), author of The Feminine Mystique, who also promoted anti-gay propaganda. Freidan coined the term “lavender menace” in reference to the increasing number of “out” lesbians. Other women in the movement were more inclusive and intersectional in their approaches to feminism, but prominent women like Friedan undercut them.
The LGBTQ+ movement had a way of turning hate into a rallying cry. At a 1970 GLF meeting Michela Griffo turned hurtful words into power. She wore “I am a Lavender Herring” on a custom t-shirt, quoting NOW leader Susan Brownmiller’s New York Times article where she claimed lesbians were less important to the feminist movement. Then, at a NOW meeting in 1970, lesbians from Radicalesbians, the GLF, and other feminist groups staged a theatrical demonstration to rally feminists behind the cause of lesbians. In the middle of the programing, they shut off the lights. There was some shuffling and when the lights came back up the isles were lined by lesbians wearing shirts with Betty Friedan’s words: “Lavender Menace.” They all held signs that read, “We are all lesbians,” “Lesbianism is a women’s liberation plot,” or “We are your worst nightmare, your best fantasy.” The Menaces seized the microphone and held it for two hours, demanding that NOW take up the cause of the lesbian. This uprising by the Lavender Menace gave lesbians a voice and visibility in the mainstream feminist movement. NOW acknowledged the challenges and oppression facing lesbians by passing a resolution acknowledging the double-oppression of lesbians as women and homosexuals and recognizing the “oppression of lesbians as a legitimate concern of feminism” in 1971. Friedan maintained her homophobia for sometime afterward.
Feminists were successful in passing Title IX in 1973, which states “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” The term sex was used to include both gender and sexuality, protecting students from discrimination based on their gender and sexual orientation in schools.
Then, in 1974, Kathy Kozachenko, a lesbian was elected to the Ann Arbor City Council in Michigan and became the first openly gay person elected to political office. Then, Elaine Noble was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives. They both predate Harvey Milk, who is often misattributed as the first openly gay official.
AIDS Epidemic:
The AIDS epidemic peaked in the 1980s and heavily impacted the LGBTQ+ community. AIDS is an immune disease that, in its late stages, was deadly. It spread primarily through sexual activity–though many early cases were also spread through blood transfusions, not sex–and served to further stigmatize the queer community. AIDS became visible in the mainstream media around 1981 when there was a subtle report in the New York Times about a "Rare Cancer seen in 41 Homosexuals.” At that time, AIDS was largely portrayed as a disease affecting only gay men, with a focus on perceived differences in lifestyles between homosexual men and women. Even today, lesbians are often remembered solely for their role as nurses during the AIDS crisis, neglecting the direct impact of AIDS on lesbian communities.
However, women were not just caretakers but also activists, lawyers, protesters, artists, and historians, actively present in various aspects of the fight against AIDS. Women from both heterosexual and lesbian sexualities also suffered and died from AIDS, with statistics showing that around 40% of HIV-positive individuals and 12% of AIDS patients in 1991 were women. The definition of AIDS used by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was, as history has repeatedly shown us in the medical field, skewed towards men's experiences, overlooking opportunistic infections that affected women with AIDS, such as Pelvic Inflammatory Disease and cervical cancer. Consequently, many HIV-positive women died without an AIDS diagnosis. Women were therefore ineligible for essential healthcare services provided through government initiatives. This is a form of medical misogyny driven by homophobia. Clinical trials for HIV/AIDS treatments excluded women, and since possible cures and treatments for AIDS would affect women differently as a result of biological differences between men and women, cures for women were not prioritized.
The AIDS epidemic peaked in the 1980s and heavily impacted the LGBTQ+ community. AIDS is an immune disease that, in its late stages, was deadly. It spread primarily through sexual activity–though many early cases were also spread through blood transfusions, not sex–and served to further stigmatize the queer community. AIDS became visible in the mainstream media around 1981 when there was a subtle report in the New York Times about a "Rare Cancer seen in 41 Homosexuals.” At that time, AIDS was largely portrayed as a disease affecting only gay men, with a focus on perceived differences in lifestyles between homosexual men and women. Even today, lesbians are often remembered solely for their role as nurses during the AIDS crisis, neglecting the direct impact of AIDS on lesbian communities.
However, women were not just caretakers but also activists, lawyers, protesters, artists, and historians, actively present in various aspects of the fight against AIDS. Women from both heterosexual and lesbian sexualities also suffered and died from AIDS, with statistics showing that around 40% of HIV-positive individuals and 12% of AIDS patients in 1991 were women. The definition of AIDS used by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was, as history has repeatedly shown us in the medical field, skewed towards men's experiences, overlooking opportunistic infections that affected women with AIDS, such as Pelvic Inflammatory Disease and cervical cancer. Consequently, many HIV-positive women died without an AIDS diagnosis. Women were therefore ineligible for essential healthcare services provided through government initiatives. This is a form of medical misogyny driven by homophobia. Clinical trials for HIV/AIDS treatments excluded women, and since possible cures and treatments for AIDS would affect women differently as a result of biological differences between men and women, cures for women were not prioritized.
Elizabeth Taylor was a passionate advocate for various social and humanitarian causes, most notably her work in the fight against HIV/AIDS. She co-founded the American Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR) and the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation, raising awareness and funds for HIV/AIDS research and support.
Unfortunately, women had to repeatedly sue the federal government for discrimination in order to effect change. In 1989, a lawyer, Terry McGovern established the HIV Law Project and served as its executive director. McGovern successfully litigated numerous cases against various levels of government, including the landmark case S.P. v. Sullivan. This lawsuit forced the Social Security Administration to expand HIV-related disability criteria, so that women could qualify for Medicaid and social security benefits that got them treatment. In T.N. v. FDA, she stripped the 1977 FDA guideline that excluded women from clinical trials of treatments.
LGBTQ+ women were frustrated with their male allies who frequently and actively excluded women, especially women of color from their advocacy, especially in ACT UP, an organization that worked to advocate for victims of AIDS. Women, however, found ways to air their frustrations. Maxine Wolfe hosted “Dyke Dinners” in the 1990s to connect lesbians in New York City. There, lesbians created the ACT UP Women’s Caucus in order to change the CDC AIDS definition and improve safe sex practices within the lesbian community.
In 1991, women appeared before Congress to testify about how the gendered discrimination and the terms were killing women. Wolfe, a doctor, said her female patients “died before getting any benefits,” because of the definition. In 1993, the CDC changed the definition and in an instant the number of women eligible for health benefits went from 10 to 50 percent.
The AIDS epidemic posed a significant challenge for lesbians, as their presence and experiences were often overlooked or erased. This led to a sense of losing the present and the fear of being forgotten.
Unfortunately, women had to repeatedly sue the federal government for discrimination in order to effect change. In 1989, a lawyer, Terry McGovern established the HIV Law Project and served as its executive director. McGovern successfully litigated numerous cases against various levels of government, including the landmark case S.P. v. Sullivan. This lawsuit forced the Social Security Administration to expand HIV-related disability criteria, so that women could qualify for Medicaid and social security benefits that got them treatment. In T.N. v. FDA, she stripped the 1977 FDA guideline that excluded women from clinical trials of treatments.
LGBTQ+ women were frustrated with their male allies who frequently and actively excluded women, especially women of color from their advocacy, especially in ACT UP, an organization that worked to advocate for victims of AIDS. Women, however, found ways to air their frustrations. Maxine Wolfe hosted “Dyke Dinners” in the 1990s to connect lesbians in New York City. There, lesbians created the ACT UP Women’s Caucus in order to change the CDC AIDS definition and improve safe sex practices within the lesbian community.
In 1991, women appeared before Congress to testify about how the gendered discrimination and the terms were killing women. Wolfe, a doctor, said her female patients “died before getting any benefits,” because of the definition. In 1993, the CDC changed the definition and in an instant the number of women eligible for health benefits went from 10 to 50 percent.
The AIDS epidemic posed a significant challenge for lesbians, as their presence and experiences were often overlooked or erased. This led to a sense of losing the present and the fear of being forgotten.
Defense of Marriage Act:
In the 1990s President Bill Clinton’s positions on gay rights perhaps revealed his political savvy, but not his championing of human rights. At this time, gay people were barred from service in the military. So, in 1993, Clinton unveiled a “neutral” position on LGBTQ+ service: “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT). The new policy allowed gay individuals who wished to enlist in the armed forces to be honest about their sexual orientation but still prohibited them from openly disclosing it. Some applauded this step toward progress, but DADT also sparked outrage among many gay rights advocates who viewed it as merely a repackaged version of the previous ban.
Things got worse. In the 1990s, Republicans controlled the House and the Senate and enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which Democratic President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996. The law defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman and prevented gay marriages, which were being legalized in some states, from being recognized at the federal level. This was a significant setback for LGBTQ+ rights. Under DOMA, numerous older same-sex surviving spouses faced the burden of paying estate taxes upon the death of their partners, a tax exemption granted to heterosexual couples. Additionally, married same-sex couples often encountered complex and costly legal procedures to ensure that their inheritance passed on to their spouse, something heterosexuals did not have to endure.
In the 1990s President Bill Clinton’s positions on gay rights perhaps revealed his political savvy, but not his championing of human rights. At this time, gay people were barred from service in the military. So, in 1993, Clinton unveiled a “neutral” position on LGBTQ+ service: “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT). The new policy allowed gay individuals who wished to enlist in the armed forces to be honest about their sexual orientation but still prohibited them from openly disclosing it. Some applauded this step toward progress, but DADT also sparked outrage among many gay rights advocates who viewed it as merely a repackaged version of the previous ban.
Things got worse. In the 1990s, Republicans controlled the House and the Senate and enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which Democratic President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996. The law defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman and prevented gay marriages, which were being legalized in some states, from being recognized at the federal level. This was a significant setback for LGBTQ+ rights. Under DOMA, numerous older same-sex surviving spouses faced the burden of paying estate taxes upon the death of their partners, a tax exemption granted to heterosexual couples. Additionally, married same-sex couples often encountered complex and costly legal procedures to ensure that their inheritance passed on to their spouse, something heterosexuals did not have to endure.
Changing Perspectives on LGBTQ Rights:
At the turn of the millennium, however, things began to change. In April of 1997, Ellen DeGeneres came out publicly as a lesbian on her TV sitcom Ellen. She followed up the episode with interviews that confirmed that not only was her character on the show gay, but she herself was gay, too. This moment was huge for young people who related and identified with her. The episode was seen by around 42 million people and changed the landscape for LGBTQ+ people. It was not well received by everyone. Some viewers and affiliates refused to air the episode, while some advertisers pulled funding.
Still, a 2015 study found that DeGeneres influenced American beliefs about LGBTQ+ rights more than any other figure. She was awarded the Medal of Freedom by Barack Obama for her bravery and willingness to subject herself to so much pushback in order to raise awareness and give a face to being a lesbian. The show, Ellen, created space for other shows to feature gay characters. Following her breakthrough coming out on air, shows like Will & Grace and Modern Family helped to tell more LGBTQ+ stories.
In 1999, Tammy Baldwin followed a string of gay men to become the first openly lesbian woman elected to the national House of Representatives State after states legalized gay marriage, starting with Vermont. This presented legal complications that became the foundation of battles in court. Gay couples traveled from their home states to places where marriage was legal and more and more people came out. The normalizing of queer relationships and identities shifted politics. In 2003, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law. The case, Lawrence v. Texas, also invalidated anti-sodomy laws in 13 other states. This was based on the same right to privacy in the 14th Amendment that the court used to justify Roe v, Wade. The 2003 case made sexual activity between consenting adults legal. Politicians like Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary, then a Senator, shifted their perspectives along with public opinion. Bill regretted signing DOMA and Hilary did some political maneuvering to cover up her previous positions. Then, President Obama struck down Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and allowed service members to serve openly. He also appointed Deborah Batts to be the nation's first openly LGBTQ+ federal judge.
At the turn of the millennium, however, things began to change. In April of 1997, Ellen DeGeneres came out publicly as a lesbian on her TV sitcom Ellen. She followed up the episode with interviews that confirmed that not only was her character on the show gay, but she herself was gay, too. This moment was huge for young people who related and identified with her. The episode was seen by around 42 million people and changed the landscape for LGBTQ+ people. It was not well received by everyone. Some viewers and affiliates refused to air the episode, while some advertisers pulled funding.
Still, a 2015 study found that DeGeneres influenced American beliefs about LGBTQ+ rights more than any other figure. She was awarded the Medal of Freedom by Barack Obama for her bravery and willingness to subject herself to so much pushback in order to raise awareness and give a face to being a lesbian. The show, Ellen, created space for other shows to feature gay characters. Following her breakthrough coming out on air, shows like Will & Grace and Modern Family helped to tell more LGBTQ+ stories.
In 1999, Tammy Baldwin followed a string of gay men to become the first openly lesbian woman elected to the national House of Representatives State after states legalized gay marriage, starting with Vermont. This presented legal complications that became the foundation of battles in court. Gay couples traveled from their home states to places where marriage was legal and more and more people came out. The normalizing of queer relationships and identities shifted politics. In 2003, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law. The case, Lawrence v. Texas, also invalidated anti-sodomy laws in 13 other states. This was based on the same right to privacy in the 14th Amendment that the court used to justify Roe v, Wade. The 2003 case made sexual activity between consenting adults legal. Politicians like Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary, then a Senator, shifted their perspectives along with public opinion. Bill regretted signing DOMA and Hilary did some political maneuvering to cover up her previous positions. Then, President Obama struck down Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and allowed service members to serve openly. He also appointed Deborah Batts to be the nation's first openly LGBTQ+ federal judge.
Windsor v United States:
Real change happened with the landmark Supreme Court case, Windsor v United States. After more than 40 years together, Thea Spyer died leaving her wife, Edith Windsor, to inherit her entire estate. Of course, as a result of DOMA, Windsor’s marriage was not recognized by the federal government and she was taxed. Their marriage was officially recognized in New York. Windsor was charged a $363,000 estate tax bill, something heterosexuals would not have faced. Robbie Kaplan successfully argued her case in the Supreme Court, and the court struck down DOMA.
Windsor’s case lay the groundwork to legalize same sex marriage nationwide. In 2013, the court legalized gay marriage in California, and in 2015 the court extended that to the whole nation. In Obergefell v. Hodges, many plaintiff couples came forward. The sweeping ruling declared all bans on marriage equality to be unconstitutional and that the right to marriage was fundamental.
The right to marry was huge progress, but it largely benefited middle-class gay and lesbians in long term relationships, and did not accomplish some of the things that the first leaders at Stonewall wanted, especially STAR. These issues remain unresolved.
Real change happened with the landmark Supreme Court case, Windsor v United States. After more than 40 years together, Thea Spyer died leaving her wife, Edith Windsor, to inherit her entire estate. Of course, as a result of DOMA, Windsor’s marriage was not recognized by the federal government and she was taxed. Their marriage was officially recognized in New York. Windsor was charged a $363,000 estate tax bill, something heterosexuals would not have faced. Robbie Kaplan successfully argued her case in the Supreme Court, and the court struck down DOMA.
Windsor’s case lay the groundwork to legalize same sex marriage nationwide. In 2013, the court legalized gay marriage in California, and in 2015 the court extended that to the whole nation. In Obergefell v. Hodges, many plaintiff couples came forward. The sweeping ruling declared all bans on marriage equality to be unconstitutional and that the right to marriage was fundamental.
The right to marry was huge progress, but it largely benefited middle-class gay and lesbians in long term relationships, and did not accomplish some of the things that the first leaders at Stonewall wanted, especially STAR. These issues remain unresolved.
Contemporary:
In the 2010s transgender issues came increasingly to the forefront of social activism. Although historically there have always been trans people, the shifting attitudes allowed trans youth to come out with greater frequency leading to questions of appropriate bathrooms and school literature that gave voice to LGBTQ+ voices. Many schools added single stall bathrooms for trans girls and boys to use, but that solution failed to honor their gender expression and allow them to use the restroom of the gender they felt best represented them, and sometimes restricted trans kids to using a single bathroom in a school. Trans women were elected to public office too, helping to fight for trans rights from the inside. Althea Garrison was elected to the Massachusetts state legislature in 1992 but was outed by the Boston Herald and lost re-election. She was also controversial for her conservative views on women and was adamantly anti-abortion. Danica Roem of Virginia became the next openly transgender person elected to a state legislature in 2018, over two decades later.
Trans women and girls also became controversial in sports, despite little compelling evidence that their involvement hindered female athletes. One of the confusing aspects of Title IX, is that it protects people on the basis of sex, but gender identity is more of a social construct. While in 99% of people gender expression aligns with their sex, for those it does not, the binary “girls sports” and “boys sports” pose challenges. Should they play with the sex they were assigned at birth, or with their gender identity? Some, mostly conservatives, have felt the need to “protect” women and girls sports from trans women and that the entire purpose of Title IX was to create a safe space for those who didn’t benefit from a male puberty from dominating the game. From 2011-2021, Under NCAA rules, transgender athletes are allowed to compete in women's sports after one year of hormone therapy that suppresses testosterone and this has been updated to be even more restrictive in recent years. Professional leagues have their own rules and levels of testosterone expected of women athletes, which poses challenges when women assigned female at birth also don’t meet those standards based on natural human variations. Primary and secondary schools often don’t have such rules and either follow a student’s gender expression or force them to go by the sex they were assigned at birth. Most advocates for trans youth think this is bad for mental health and stigmatizes trans youth who just want to play.
In the 2010s transgender issues came increasingly to the forefront of social activism. Although historically there have always been trans people, the shifting attitudes allowed trans youth to come out with greater frequency leading to questions of appropriate bathrooms and school literature that gave voice to LGBTQ+ voices. Many schools added single stall bathrooms for trans girls and boys to use, but that solution failed to honor their gender expression and allow them to use the restroom of the gender they felt best represented them, and sometimes restricted trans kids to using a single bathroom in a school. Trans women were elected to public office too, helping to fight for trans rights from the inside. Althea Garrison was elected to the Massachusetts state legislature in 1992 but was outed by the Boston Herald and lost re-election. She was also controversial for her conservative views on women and was adamantly anti-abortion. Danica Roem of Virginia became the next openly transgender person elected to a state legislature in 2018, over two decades later.
Trans women and girls also became controversial in sports, despite little compelling evidence that their involvement hindered female athletes. One of the confusing aspects of Title IX, is that it protects people on the basis of sex, but gender identity is more of a social construct. While in 99% of people gender expression aligns with their sex, for those it does not, the binary “girls sports” and “boys sports” pose challenges. Should they play with the sex they were assigned at birth, or with their gender identity? Some, mostly conservatives, have felt the need to “protect” women and girls sports from trans women and that the entire purpose of Title IX was to create a safe space for those who didn’t benefit from a male puberty from dominating the game. From 2011-2021, Under NCAA rules, transgender athletes are allowed to compete in women's sports after one year of hormone therapy that suppresses testosterone and this has been updated to be even more restrictive in recent years. Professional leagues have their own rules and levels of testosterone expected of women athletes, which poses challenges when women assigned female at birth also don’t meet those standards based on natural human variations. Primary and secondary schools often don’t have such rules and either follow a student’s gender expression or force them to go by the sex they were assigned at birth. Most advocates for trans youth think this is bad for mental health and stigmatizes trans youth who just want to play.
Transgender runner CeCe Telfer is a good example of how varying policies give transwomen whiplash. Telfer was assigned male at birth and competed on the men’s track team in college. After she transitioned, she competed on the women’s team and won the Division II NCAA hurdles title. She received significant public attention when President Trump referred to her publicly as a "biological male," criticizing her wins as unfair against young women. Telfer claimed her wins were fair because her testosterone levels were lower than the average woman and her over six foot height was not an advantage in her chosen event. Her coaches protected her physical and mental well-being during the competition by hiring security and keeping her off social media where transphobic comments were rampant. Telfer was banned from competing at the US Olympic trials because she didn’t meet their hormone requirements and recent regulations by the Track and Field governing body currently exclude her from elite-level competitions. To that Telfer said, “I want to live my life just like everybody else is living their life.”
Telfer is not alone. Trans women and youth around the world face these challenges everyday. Using testosterone in sports regulations raises the question, what makes someone a man or a woman? Socially or biologically the research shows this is blurry and more complicated than people think. And these challenges are not new, trans athletes have always competed in sports.
Some women assigned female at birth struggle to accept trans women into the fold of feminist advocacy and see these battles for trans women as battles for them as well. Trans exclusive feminism is not feminism, and is not endorsed by scholars, scientists, and mainstream feminist organizations despite some women calling themselves feminists. In 2023, many states began introducing the “Women’s Bill of Rights,” which sounds great, but the legislation seems eerily familiar to the way DOMA tried to “protect” marriage at the expense of gay women. The law would create a biological definition of womanhood based on the capacity to produce human eggs. Defining womanhood this way leaves out women born with ovaries who don’t produce eggs. This definition of “woman” also excludes trans women who are subjected to the same social challenges these women face, and more. This “trans exclusionary feminism” and advocacy reflects a very limited understanding of gender and sexuality, even on a biological level.
For most of history, women’s “biology” was what justified laws that prevented women’s inclusion in certain aspects of society, jobs, etc. Anti-trans rhetoric and laws do not help women, it actually un-does feminism by reinstating the stereotypes that oppressed women for millennia. In 2023, over 400 bills against trans people were introduced in state legislatures, driving back progress.
Telfer is not alone. Trans women and youth around the world face these challenges everyday. Using testosterone in sports regulations raises the question, what makes someone a man or a woman? Socially or biologically the research shows this is blurry and more complicated than people think. And these challenges are not new, trans athletes have always competed in sports.
Some women assigned female at birth struggle to accept trans women into the fold of feminist advocacy and see these battles for trans women as battles for them as well. Trans exclusive feminism is not feminism, and is not endorsed by scholars, scientists, and mainstream feminist organizations despite some women calling themselves feminists. In 2023, many states began introducing the “Women’s Bill of Rights,” which sounds great, but the legislation seems eerily familiar to the way DOMA tried to “protect” marriage at the expense of gay women. The law would create a biological definition of womanhood based on the capacity to produce human eggs. Defining womanhood this way leaves out women born with ovaries who don’t produce eggs. This definition of “woman” also excludes trans women who are subjected to the same social challenges these women face, and more. This “trans exclusionary feminism” and advocacy reflects a very limited understanding of gender and sexuality, even on a biological level.
For most of history, women’s “biology” was what justified laws that prevented women’s inclusion in certain aspects of society, jobs, etc. Anti-trans rhetoric and laws do not help women, it actually un-does feminism by reinstating the stereotypes that oppressed women for millennia. In 2023, over 400 bills against trans people were introduced in state legislatures, driving back progress.
Conclusion:
While significant strides have been made in the fight for LGBTQ rights, challenges persist in the present day. Legal equality has not translated to social equality, and there are active threats to LGBTQ+ rights. The Trump Administration attempted, but failed, to rollback open service for LGBTQ+ service members. When the court struck down Roe v. Wade in 2022, it challenged the legal foundation on which Windsor and subsequent cases stood: the right to privacy. Ongoing social struggles such as book banning, restrictions on drag shows, debates over hormone therapy, parental rights, and trans bathroom access, demonstrate that the work towards equality is far from complete. LGBTQ+ youth are far more likely to struggle with mental health and suicide as a result of the social stigmatization and delegitimizing of the society around them. Recognizing the past accomplishments and the present struggles is important. The remarkable resilience of women in the LGBTQ movement can inspire us to continue working towards a more inclusive and equitable future for all.
While significant strides have been made in the fight for LGBTQ rights, challenges persist in the present day. Legal equality has not translated to social equality, and there are active threats to LGBTQ+ rights. The Trump Administration attempted, but failed, to rollback open service for LGBTQ+ service members. When the court struck down Roe v. Wade in 2022, it challenged the legal foundation on which Windsor and subsequent cases stood: the right to privacy. Ongoing social struggles such as book banning, restrictions on drag shows, debates over hormone therapy, parental rights, and trans bathroom access, demonstrate that the work towards equality is far from complete. LGBTQ+ youth are far more likely to struggle with mental health and suicide as a result of the social stigmatization and delegitimizing of the society around them. Recognizing the past accomplishments and the present struggles is important. The remarkable resilience of women in the LGBTQ movement can inspire us to continue working towards a more inclusive and equitable future for all.
Draw your own conclusions
|
Learn how to teach with inquiry.
Many of these lesson plans were sponsored in part by the Library of Congress Teaching with Primary Sources Eastern Region Program, coordinated by Waynesburg University, the History and Social Studies Education Faculty at Plymouth State University, and the Patrons of the Remedial Herstory Project. |
|
Lesson Plans from Other Organizations
- The National Women's History Museum has lesson plans on women's history.
- The Guilder Lehrman Institute for American History has lesson plans on women's history.
- The NY Historical Society has articles and classroom activities for teaching women's history.
- Unladylike 2020, in partnership with PBS, has primary sources to explore with students and outstanding videos on women from the Progressive era.
- The Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media has produced recommendations for teaching women's history with primary sources and provided a collection of sources for world history. Check them out!
- The Stanford History Education Group has a number of lesson plans about women in US History.
Period Specific Lesson Plans from Other Organizations
- C3 Teachers: This inquiry leads students through an investigation of the LGBTQ+ movement, primarily driven by the history of the movement through various accounts and perspectives. The compelling question—What makes a movement successful?—does not address whether or not the movement was successful, but instead assesses the components of a movement and whether the movement is in a period of growth or has already peaked. Although the focus of this inquiry is on the LGBTQ+ movement, parallels can be drawn to other social movements in history with respect to organization, activism, and overall execution, including the Civil Rights Movement or the women’s suffrage and rights movements. Specifically, this inquiry looks at four different aspects that can potentially shape a movement in its foundation as well as its rise, namely public reaction, government leaders and policies, Supreme Court cases, and personal experiences. Throughout the inquiry, students will examine each individual aspect independently, evaluating the merits, strengths, and significance of each provided source in the “Movement Analysis Organization Chart,” but the summative task will require a compilation and synthesis of the sources in this investigation in order to form an argument to address the compelling question.
- Voices of Democracy: In the speech Clinton positioned the United States as the moral authority in monitoring and enforcing sanctions for global human trafficking, while at the same time reiterating the importance of international cooperation and partnerships.
- Clio: In 1972, feminists in Washington, D.C. founded the nation’s first rape crisis center. Other centers were soon established across the country. In 1994, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The act was created in response to the nation-wide, grassroots work of activists concerned with domestic violence, sexual assault, date rape, and stalking. This lesson introduces students to the history of efforts to stop violence against women.
- National Women’s History Museum: How has the Supreme Court shaped the lives of American women between 1908-2005? Students will analyze one of four Supreme Court cases that relate to the constitutional rights of women decided between 1908-2005. Students will become mini-experts on one Supreme Court cases and they will be exposed to the content, themes, and questions from the other three cases via peer to peer instruction of their classmates. The goal of this lesson is to introduce students to a broad range of Supreme Court cases that have impacted American women and to have them develop a working knowledge and expertise of at least one case by using primary sources such as the case ruling and secondary sources that will help students to understand the context.
- National History Day: Patsy Takemoto Mink (1927-2002) was born in Hawaii. She studied in Pennsylvania and Nebraska before moving back to Hawaii to earn her undergraduate degree and eventually received her J.D. from the University of Chicago in 1951. She moved back to Hawaii with her husband, John Francis Mink, and founded the Oahu Young Democrats in 1954. In the 1950s, Mink served as both a member of the territorial house of representatives and Hawaii Senate. After Hawaii achieved statehood in 1959, Mink unsuccessfully ran for the U.S. House of Representatives. Mink campaigned for the second representative seat in 1964 and won, making her the first woman of color and first Asian American woman to be elected to Congress. Mink is best known for her support of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society legislation, as well as her advocacy for women’s issues and equal rights. Mink worked tirelessly to earn support for the critical Title IX Amendment from her comprehensive education bill called Women’s Education Equity Act. Mink took a break from Congress after an unsuccessful bid for the Senate, but returned to Congress in 1990 and served until her death in September 2002.
- C3 Teachers: This twelfth grade annotated inquiry leads students through an investigation of a hotly debated issue in the United States: the gender wage gap. The compelling question “What should we do about the gender wage gap?” asks students to grapple not only with how to quantify and interpret the gap but also to consider ways of addressing the problem. Throughout the inquiry, students consider the degree to which economic inequality reflects social, political, or economic injustices or whether it simply reflects individual choices and the role the government should play in decreasing income inequality. Although this inquiry is rooted in a question about economics, no social issue is fully understood without examining a range of economic, historical, geographic, and political concepts in order to craft a full-bodied, evidence-based argument. This inquiry looks at the complexity of the gender wage gap issue through all four social studies disciplines. Students examine the structural factors that influence women’s choices as well as historical (e.g., Equal Pay Act of 1963) and pending (e.g., Paycheck Fairness Act) legislative efforts. Ultimately, students must find a way to measure the gender wage gap, determine if it is an issue worth addressing, and, if so, how to best address it, including private and public sector solutions.
FEMALE RELATIONSHIPS IN THE 19TH CENTURy
Elizabeth Cady Stanton: Letter to Susan B. Anthony
In the 19th century, women spoke and wrote to each other much differently than they do today. Letters were more intimate in many ways and expressed love openly– this does not mean they were “in-love”-- or does it? Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a heterosexual woman in a lasting marriage. This is a letter she wrote to her fellow suffrage leader, Susan B. Anthony:
Dear Susan,
I wish that I were as free as you and I would stump the state in a twinkling. But I am not, and what is more, I passed through a terrible scourging when last at my father’s. I cannot tell you how deep the iron entered my soul. I never felt more keenly the degradation of my sex. To think that all in me which my father would have felt a proper pride had I been a man, is deeply mortifying to him because I am a woman.
That thought has stung me to a fierce decision—to speak as soon as I can do myself credit. But the pressure on me just now is too great. Henry sides with my friends, who oppose me in all that is dearest to my heart. They are not willing that I should write even on the woman question. But I will both write and speak. I wish you to consider this letter strictly confidential.
Sometimes, Susan, I struggle in deep waters…
As ever your friend, sincere and steadfast.
Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. Letter to Susan B. Anthony. Peterboro. September 10, 1855. Retrieved from “Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton: Their Words,” http://www.rochester.edu/sba/suffrage-history/susan-b-anthony-and-elizabeth-cady-stanton-their-words/.
Dear Susan,
I wish that I were as free as you and I would stump the state in a twinkling. But I am not, and what is more, I passed through a terrible scourging when last at my father’s. I cannot tell you how deep the iron entered my soul. I never felt more keenly the degradation of my sex. To think that all in me which my father would have felt a proper pride had I been a man, is deeply mortifying to him because I am a woman.
That thought has stung me to a fierce decision—to speak as soon as I can do myself credit. But the pressure on me just now is too great. Henry sides with my friends, who oppose me in all that is dearest to my heart. They are not willing that I should write even on the woman question. But I will both write and speak. I wish you to consider this letter strictly confidential.
Sometimes, Susan, I struggle in deep waters…
As ever your friend, sincere and steadfast.
Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. Letter to Susan B. Anthony. Peterboro. September 10, 1855. Retrieved from “Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton: Their Words,” http://www.rochester.edu/sba/suffrage-history/susan-b-anthony-and-elizabeth-cady-stanton-their-words/.
Katharine Lee Bates: If you Could Come
Katharine Lee Bates, the honored poet of the anthem, "America the Beautiful," wrote the above poem after the death of her lover, colleague, and partner of twenty-five years: Katharine Coman. In her grief over the loss of her friend, Bates wrote one of the most anguished memorials to the love and comradeship between two women that has ever been written; it was published in a limited edition as Yellow Clover: A Book of Remembrance. It is obvious from the yearning desire that glows throughout the poems in Yellow Clover, however, that the two women were more than just friends.
IF YOU COULD COME
My love, my love, if you could come once more
From your high place,
I would not question you for heavenly lore,
But, silent, take the comfort of your face.
I would not ask you if those golden spheres
In love rejoice,
If only our stained star hath sin and tears,
But fill my famished hearing with your voice.
One touch of you were worth a thousand creeds.
My wound is numb
Through toil-pressed day, but all night long it bleeds
In aching dreams, and still you cannot come.
Schwarz, Judith. “‘Yellow Clover’: Katharine Lee Bates and Katharine Coman.” Frontiers: A Journal of
Women Studies 4, no. 1 (1979): 59–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/3346671.
Bathes, Katharine Lee. Yellow clover; a book of remembrance. New York: E.P. Dutton & Company, 1922.
IF YOU COULD COME
My love, my love, if you could come once more
From your high place,
I would not question you for heavenly lore,
But, silent, take the comfort of your face.
I would not ask you if those golden spheres
In love rejoice,
If only our stained star hath sin and tears,
But fill my famished hearing with your voice.
One touch of you were worth a thousand creeds.
My wound is numb
Through toil-pressed day, but all night long it bleeds
In aching dreams, and still you cannot come.
Schwarz, Judith. “‘Yellow Clover’: Katharine Lee Bates and Katharine Coman.” Frontiers: A Journal of
Women Studies 4, no. 1 (1979): 59–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/3346671.
Bathes, Katharine Lee. Yellow clover; a book of remembrance. New York: E.P. Dutton & Company, 1922.
Mathilde Franziska Anneke and Mary Booth: Letters
Mathilde Franziska Anneke and Mary were married to men, but from 1860 to 1864 they lived together in Zürich, Switzerland with three of their children. They shared their money and the work of raising the children. There is no evidence that anyone questioned the propriety of their relationship, and Anneke’s daughter later insisted that it was not romantic, but their letters were very intense.
Mary Booth to Mathilde Franziska Anneke, Zürich, 1862
Pardon me, my Dear, for writing you such a miserable little note saying I was unhappy. I am indeed very happy when I think of your sweet love. It glorifies every even[ing] and illuminates the darkest midnights. You are the morning-star of my soul, the beautiful auroral glow of my heart, the saintly lily of my dream, the deep dark rose bud unfolding in my bosom day by day, sweetening my life with your etheriel fragrance – dearest, you are the reality of my dreams, my life, my Love – I have no more sorrow – I have You – My dear and dearest friend – good night
Your Mary
Mary Booth to Mathilde Franziska Anneke, Zürich, December 24, 1862
I have but one little thing,
Scarcely worth the offering,
Yet this little thing I hold,
Never could be bought for gold –
Not for all the pearls and gems
In the world’s bright diadems. –
Though it be of little worth
It is all I have on Earth.
It may not be found, or bought,
Yet I give it all unsought. –
Take – and lay it on the shelf –
For it only is – myself!
Efford, Alison Clark and Viktorija Bilic, editors. Radical Relationships: The Civil War–Era Correspondence of Mathilde Franziska Anneke. Translated by Viktorija Bilic. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2021. P. 155.
Mary Booth to Mathilde Franziska Anneke, Zürich, 1862
Pardon me, my Dear, for writing you such a miserable little note saying I was unhappy. I am indeed very happy when I think of your sweet love. It glorifies every even[ing] and illuminates the darkest midnights. You are the morning-star of my soul, the beautiful auroral glow of my heart, the saintly lily of my dream, the deep dark rose bud unfolding in my bosom day by day, sweetening my life with your etheriel fragrance – dearest, you are the reality of my dreams, my life, my Love – I have no more sorrow – I have You – My dear and dearest friend – good night
Your Mary
Mary Booth to Mathilde Franziska Anneke, Zürich, December 24, 1862
I have but one little thing,
Scarcely worth the offering,
Yet this little thing I hold,
Never could be bought for gold –
Not for all the pearls and gems
In the world’s bright diadems. –
Though it be of little worth
It is all I have on Earth.
It may not be found, or bought,
Yet I give it all unsought. –
Take – and lay it on the shelf –
For it only is – myself!
Efford, Alison Clark and Viktorija Bilic, editors. Radical Relationships: The Civil War–Era Correspondence of Mathilde Franziska Anneke. Translated by Viktorija Bilic. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2021. P. 155.
Lesbian Bars
Dr. Marie Cartier: Baby, You are My Religion
Prior to 1973, as many of you know, gay people were considered the nation’s largest security risk; more of us were let go of our jobs because of McCarthy than because we were homosexual rather than communist. The question was more often are you or have you ever been a homosexual than are you or have you ever been a communist? We were considered mentally ill until 1973, and there was no major or minor religion that considered us anything other than sinners. So to have any place that we could have community was not rare, it was impossible outside of the one public space that was available, which was the gay bar. So… for people pre-Stonewall, the gay bars operated as an alternate church space.
Cartier, Marie. “Dr. Marie Cartier presents ‘Baby You Are My Religion’ at ALMS 2011 Hosted by Mazer.” Keynote Address at ALMS. YouTube. 2011. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kaS_pGyxmg&t=3s.
Cartier, Marie. “Dr. Marie Cartier presents ‘Baby You Are My Religion’ at ALMS 2011 Hosted by Mazer.” Keynote Address at ALMS. YouTube. 2011. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kaS_pGyxmg&t=3s.
Dr. Marie Cartier: Myrna's Story
I came out as gay in 1945, the year that the war ended[…]I was dating a softball player than I met at the gay bar. I met her at Mona's, or as it was the Paper Pony. My first night in a gay bar was freedom. I had a gay male friend and he took me there. Burner was in the gay bars for eight years; She showed me her treasure from the 40s— a gold softball on a necklace chain from her first lover, inscribed with the initials from the professional softball league, to which women belong to, while the men were in the war. We went to the bar all the time. My entire social life was there, there was no other place.[…]I had insomnia— I used to phone up all the gay bars just to hear them answer the phone; just to hear the noise, oh yes. [I would call] just hear [to] the noise and the laughter in the background. I just wanted to be there me.
Cartier, Marie. “Dr. Marie Cartier presents ‘Marie Cartier reads Myrna's Story.” Presented at WeHo Lesbian Speaker Series. YouTube. September 2016. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmURQ0iwhAM&t=5s.
Cartier, Marie. “Dr. Marie Cartier presents ‘Marie Cartier reads Myrna's Story.” Presented at WeHo Lesbian Speaker Series. YouTube. September 2016. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmURQ0iwhAM&t=5s.
Dr. Marie Cartier: Theresa's Story
This woman had separated with her husband and was working as a migratory farmer with her new girlfriend when her ex-husband tracked them down. This is how she described that encounter.
“We went to Beaumont to pick cherries and we made like 50 cents an hour. And yes my ex-husband tracked me down, had a gun. She ran out of the trailer. He hit me in the face with the gun and I still have a scar, but that didn't stop me.”
Anonymous. “Marie Cartier Introduction to Informants for her book Baby, You Are My Religion.” YouTube. June L. Mazer Lesbian Archives. November 3, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI-yYkKFdx8.
“We went to Beaumont to pick cherries and we made like 50 cents an hour. And yes my ex-husband tracked me down, had a gun. She ran out of the trailer. He hit me in the face with the gun and I still have a scar, but that didn't stop me.”
Anonymous. “Marie Cartier Introduction to Informants for her book Baby, You Are My Religion.” YouTube. June L. Mazer Lesbian Archives. November 3, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI-yYkKFdx8.
Anonymous: Introduction
“[It] was sort of in a funny place, and [...] it was a nice bar, it was a nice good-looking bar. We had a lot of people, a lot of teachers, a lot of airline hostesses… Barbara had a really good time in the bar. Very religious… I sort of walked out of the convent door in 1967 and more or less walked into the door of a lesbian bar in 1968. They weren't that different— except–except for the lighting. One was stained glass and one with a little grittier. And the first time I ever went to bed with a woman was in the convent. The morning after we woke up and she said to me, something like I don't remember the exact words because it was ‘68 she said, the morning after we done it she said, ‘Wasn't that a remarkable religious experience we had?’ … I knew the difference between being a lesbian and being a nun and that I couldn't stay.”
Anonymous. “Marie Cartier Introduction to Informants for her book Baby, You Are My Religion.” YouTube. June L. Mazer Lesbian Archives. November 3, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI-yYkKFdx8.
Anonymous. “Marie Cartier Introduction to Informants for her book Baby, You Are My Religion.” YouTube. June L. Mazer Lesbian Archives. November 3, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI-yYkKFdx8.
Title IX
Title IX Timeline
Title IX Timeline:
1928: Betty Robinson becomes the first woman to win Gold in the 100 meter dash after women are allowed to compete in non-aesthetic events.
1936: A federal appeals court effectively says doctors can prescribe women birth control.
1947: The first Truman Commission report pushes for more equal access to higher education, including ending race and religious discrimination.
1953: Toni Stone becomes the first woman to regularly play professional baseball (Negro Leagues).
1954: U.S. Supreme Court rules “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” in landmark Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision.
1960: Wilma Rudolph becomes the first American woman to win three gold medals in an Olympics. The star Black sprinter becomes a prominent advocate for civil rights.
1963: The Commission on the Status of Women, headed by Eleanor Roosevelt, finds widespread discrimination against women in the U.S.. Congress passes the Equal Pay Act.
1964: The Civil Rights Act prevents sex discrimination and establishes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Patsy Mink becomes the first woman of color in the U.S. House.
1966: Bobbi Gibb becomes the first woman to run the Boston Marathon violating a rule preventing women’s participation.
1967: Katherine Switzer registered for the Boston Marathon as K.V. Switzer and was forcibly attacked by the race director.
1971: The Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) is founded to govern collegiate women’s athletics and administer national championships.
1972: Congress passes Title IX co-authored by Mink. Women are allowed to run in the Boston Marathon.
1973: The Supreme Court issues its Roe v. Wade opinion establishing the right to an abortion. Billie Jean King beats Bobby Riggs in the “The Battle of the Sexes” tennis exhibition match.
1974: The Women’s Educational Equity Act provides grants and contracts to help with “nonsexist curricula,” as well as to help institutions meet Title IX requirements.
1976: NCAA challenges the legality of Title IX regarding athletics in a lawsuit that is dismissed.
1977: Three female students at Yale, two graduates and a male faculty member become the first to sue over sexual harassment under Title IX (Alexander v. Yale). It would fail on appeal.
1979: U.S. officials put into effect the important three-prong test for Title IX compliance when it comes to athletics.
1984: Democrat Geraldine Ferraro becomes first woman to earn a vice presidential nomination from a major political party. The U.S. wins its first Olympic gold medal in basketball.
1991: Anita Hill testified that Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her.
1994: The Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act is passed requiring schools with federal financial aid programs to provide annual information regarding gender equity.
1996: Female athletes win a lawsuit and force Brown to restore funding for women’s sports. The NBA clears the way for the WNBA.
1999: Brandi Chastain scores winning goal of World Cup final in a shootout. This image is one of the most iconic images in sports history.
2005: In Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, the Supreme Court rules that individuals, including coaches and teachers, have a “right of action” under Title IX if they’re retaliated against for protesting sex discrimination.
2015: The United States’ 5-2 win over Japan in the World Cup final becomes the most viewed soccer game in the history of American television.
2016: The Obama administration says transgender students should be allowed to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity, rescinded by the Trump administration.
2017: Serena Williams wins her 23rd Grand Slam title, second-most of all time.
2020: New Title IX amendments take effect, largely regarding sexual harassment.
2021: Report rips NCAA for failing to uphold its commitment to gender equity.
2022: The U.S. women’s national soccer team reaches a milestone agreement to be paid equally to the men’s national team. U.S. Gymnastics athletes win 1 billion dollar lawsuit against the FBI mishandling of sexual assault by former coach.
Guiding Questions
1928: Betty Robinson becomes the first woman to win Gold in the 100 meter dash after women are allowed to compete in non-aesthetic events.
1936: A federal appeals court effectively says doctors can prescribe women birth control.
1947: The first Truman Commission report pushes for more equal access to higher education, including ending race and religious discrimination.
1953: Toni Stone becomes the first woman to regularly play professional baseball (Negro Leagues).
1954: U.S. Supreme Court rules “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” in landmark Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision.
1960: Wilma Rudolph becomes the first American woman to win three gold medals in an Olympics. The star Black sprinter becomes a prominent advocate for civil rights.
1963: The Commission on the Status of Women, headed by Eleanor Roosevelt, finds widespread discrimination against women in the U.S.. Congress passes the Equal Pay Act.
1964: The Civil Rights Act prevents sex discrimination and establishes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Patsy Mink becomes the first woman of color in the U.S. House.
1966: Bobbi Gibb becomes the first woman to run the Boston Marathon violating a rule preventing women’s participation.
1967: Katherine Switzer registered for the Boston Marathon as K.V. Switzer and was forcibly attacked by the race director.
1971: The Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) is founded to govern collegiate women’s athletics and administer national championships.
1972: Congress passes Title IX co-authored by Mink. Women are allowed to run in the Boston Marathon.
1973: The Supreme Court issues its Roe v. Wade opinion establishing the right to an abortion. Billie Jean King beats Bobby Riggs in the “The Battle of the Sexes” tennis exhibition match.
1974: The Women’s Educational Equity Act provides grants and contracts to help with “nonsexist curricula,” as well as to help institutions meet Title IX requirements.
1976: NCAA challenges the legality of Title IX regarding athletics in a lawsuit that is dismissed.
1977: Three female students at Yale, two graduates and a male faculty member become the first to sue over sexual harassment under Title IX (Alexander v. Yale). It would fail on appeal.
1979: U.S. officials put into effect the important three-prong test for Title IX compliance when it comes to athletics.
1984: Democrat Geraldine Ferraro becomes first woman to earn a vice presidential nomination from a major political party. The U.S. wins its first Olympic gold medal in basketball.
1991: Anita Hill testified that Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her.
1994: The Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act is passed requiring schools with federal financial aid programs to provide annual information regarding gender equity.
1996: Female athletes win a lawsuit and force Brown to restore funding for women’s sports. The NBA clears the way for the WNBA.
1999: Brandi Chastain scores winning goal of World Cup final in a shootout. This image is one of the most iconic images in sports history.
2005: In Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, the Supreme Court rules that individuals, including coaches and teachers, have a “right of action” under Title IX if they’re retaliated against for protesting sex discrimination.
2015: The United States’ 5-2 win over Japan in the World Cup final becomes the most viewed soccer game in the history of American television.
2016: The Obama administration says transgender students should be allowed to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity, rescinded by the Trump administration.
2017: Serena Williams wins her 23rd Grand Slam title, second-most of all time.
2020: New Title IX amendments take effect, largely regarding sexual harassment.
2021: Report rips NCAA for failing to uphold its commitment to gender equity.
2022: The U.S. women’s national soccer team reaches a milestone agreement to be paid equally to the men’s national team. U.S. Gymnastics athletes win 1 billion dollar lawsuit against the FBI mishandling of sexual assault by former coach.
Guiding Questions
- Based the timeline, why might this law have been necessary in 1972?
- Are there any events in this timeline that surprise you? Why or why not?
Ray Levy-Uyeda: Yale Women Crew Protest
In the spring of 1976, four years after the signing of Title IX, the landmark equity-in-education legislation, and eight years after Yale University voted to admit women applicants, 19 college-athletes marched into the office of the director of physical education and peeled away their Yale training uniforms to reveal their bare bodies. Across their chests and backs they had written, “Title IX.” A photo of the day’s protest taken by a Yale Daily News photographer shows Joni Barnett, physical education director, gawping at captain Chris Ernst as she read a prepared statement decrying the conditions of the women’s rowing program. They protested because the women’s rowing team, newly formed and already better than the men’s, could barely qualify as a program: the team had no locker rooms, no bathrooms, no equipment manager, and no one to wash their uniforms. Either because of a supposed lack of money or because they were women, the university didn’t think the team was worth the investment. "I think women were theoretical to them, but not real,” Ernst told me recently, reflecting on the women's treatment as athletes. After practice, the women athletes would wait on the bus that they shared with the men’s team, still soaked with cold river water, while the men athletes showered away any evidence of their training. Their conditions were a violation of Title IX, and the athletes wanted to do something about it.
The protest was successful by a number of measures: the Yale women’s rowing program got the showers, bathrooms, and locker rooms they demanded; the university hired a faculty member to oversee Title IX compliance; nationwide, universities hurried away to engender Title IX equitability within their own athletic programming. “They found, magically, the money,” Ernst told me. “The university finally had to realize they're gonna have to have a program for women; they're gonna have to actually acknowledge and obey Title IX.” Revealing themselves had worked, and the Yale women produced a kind of public-facing vulnerability that’s often needed to create broader social change.
Levy-Uyeda, Ray. “Yale Rowers Broke Barries Thanks to Title IX.” Global Sport Matters, June 21, 2022. https://globalsportmatters.com/culture/2020/09/24/women-broke-barriers-bodies-title-ix/.
Questions:
The protest was successful by a number of measures: the Yale women’s rowing program got the showers, bathrooms, and locker rooms they demanded; the university hired a faculty member to oversee Title IX compliance; nationwide, universities hurried away to engender Title IX equitability within their own athletic programming. “They found, magically, the money,” Ernst told me. “The university finally had to realize they're gonna have to have a program for women; they're gonna have to actually acknowledge and obey Title IX.” Revealing themselves had worked, and the Yale women produced a kind of public-facing vulnerability that’s often needed to create broader social change.
Levy-Uyeda, Ray. “Yale Rowers Broke Barries Thanks to Title IX.” Global Sport Matters, June 21, 2022. https://globalsportmatters.com/culture/2020/09/24/women-broke-barriers-bodies-title-ix/.
Questions:
- Based on this explanation of events, how was Title IX used?
Julie Johnson: Grove City Bill
[E]ven with popular legislation, benefiting women, minorities, older Americans and people with physical disabilities, many lawmakers, particularly Republicans up for re-election, face a tough choice: A vote to override places them squarely against a still-popular President, and against other interest groups that are also powerful.
The bill passed Congress overwhelmingly… Mr. Reagan, who has introduced an alternative civil rights package, acknowledges that the Supreme Court ruling went too far in limiting Federal antidiscrimination laws, but he contends that the Congressional remedy goes too far in the other direction. The Supreme Court ruled that antidiscrimination provisions on the use of Federal aid apply only to specific programs, not to an entire institution. It held that discrimination in a Grove City College sports program did not justify the denial of Federal aid outside that program.
Although the four-year liberal arts institution did not receive any direct Federal funds, it did enroll students who received federally-backed stipends or grants. The college became entangled in a legal battle with the Government when it separated boys and girls in the school's intramural sports program and refused to file a statement of compliance with Title IX.. The High Court stipulated that it was only the school's financial aid program that was covered by discrimination statutes.
That logic, critics feared, would leave huge loopholes for institutions, and not only schools, to discriminate on the basis of sex, age, race or physical handicaps. The debate has only intensified since 1984…
The conservative Christian groups offer two main objections. For one, they say provisions of the law that bar discrimination against the handicapped are unclear, and some evangelicals assert that the definition could be interpreted to include homosexuals and other groups without physical or mental disabilities. They are also worried about exemptions for religious schools… A widely distributed lobbying letter mailed by the Rev. Jerry Falwell states: “Because of the pressure brought on by the homosexual movement in this country, Congress has caved in to this pressure and passed a law that, combined with present court cases, would qualify drug addicts, alcoholics, active homosexuals, transvestites, among others, for Federal protection as handicapped.”
Johnson, Julie. “Washington Talk: Congress; Foes of Civil Rights Bill Mount 11th-Hour Drive.” The New York Times. The New York Times, March 22, 1988. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/22/us/washington-talk-congress-foes-of-civil-rights-bill-mount-11th-hour-drive.html?searchResultPosition=7.
Questions:
The bill passed Congress overwhelmingly… Mr. Reagan, who has introduced an alternative civil rights package, acknowledges that the Supreme Court ruling went too far in limiting Federal antidiscrimination laws, but he contends that the Congressional remedy goes too far in the other direction. The Supreme Court ruled that antidiscrimination provisions on the use of Federal aid apply only to specific programs, not to an entire institution. It held that discrimination in a Grove City College sports program did not justify the denial of Federal aid outside that program.
Although the four-year liberal arts institution did not receive any direct Federal funds, it did enroll students who received federally-backed stipends or grants. The college became entangled in a legal battle with the Government when it separated boys and girls in the school's intramural sports program and refused to file a statement of compliance with Title IX.. The High Court stipulated that it was only the school's financial aid program that was covered by discrimination statutes.
That logic, critics feared, would leave huge loopholes for institutions, and not only schools, to discriminate on the basis of sex, age, race or physical handicaps. The debate has only intensified since 1984…
The conservative Christian groups offer two main objections. For one, they say provisions of the law that bar discrimination against the handicapped are unclear, and some evangelicals assert that the definition could be interpreted to include homosexuals and other groups without physical or mental disabilities. They are also worried about exemptions for religious schools… A widely distributed lobbying letter mailed by the Rev. Jerry Falwell states: “Because of the pressure brought on by the homosexual movement in this country, Congress has caved in to this pressure and passed a law that, combined with present court cases, would qualify drug addicts, alcoholics, active homosexuals, transvestites, among others, for Federal protection as handicapped.”
Johnson, Julie. “Washington Talk: Congress; Foes of Civil Rights Bill Mount 11th-Hour Drive.” The New York Times. The New York Times, March 22, 1988. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/22/us/washington-talk-congress-foes-of-civil-rights-bill-mount-11th-hour-drive.html?searchResultPosition=7.
Questions:
- Based on this document, how did this event change the way Title IX was handled?
Linda Greenhouse: Court Opens A Path For Students In Sex-Bias Cases
The Supreme Court ruled today that the Federal law barring sex discrimination in schools and colleges permits students to sue for damages for sexual harassment and other forms of sex discrimination. In a surprisingly broad 9-to-0 decision, the Court rejected the Bush Administration's argument that the law, Title IX of a 1972 education law, did not authorize monetary damages as a remedy for illegal discrimination.
In several recent cases, the Supreme Court has taken a narrow view of Federal civil rights laws, so lawyers for women's groups expressed relief about today's decision and praised it. They predicted that it would convert the little-used 20-year-old law into a powerful new weapon against sex discrimination on campus. "Having a real remedy will give an enormous push for equity," Marcia Greenberger, director of the National Women's Law Center, said in an interview. She saw the decision as a victory "that opens up Title IX dramatically" and will promote more fairness in schools and colleges.
Until now, there have been few lawsuits under Title IX. Although it is impossible to predict whether today's ruling will increase the number significantly, there is no doubt that it offers a specific new remedy to students -- men as well as women -- who feel they have been the victims of sex bias. But it was not immediately clear whether the ruling can be applied retroactively.
The new civil rights law that was passed in the last session of Congress made damages for sex discrimination available for the first time. But that law applies only in the context of employment discrimination and so does not apply to students.
The decision today overturned a ruling by a Federal appeals court in Atlanta. That court had dismissed a Title IX suit against a Georgia school district brought by a high school student who charged that school officials had failed to stop a teacher from forcing unwanted sexual attention on her for more than a year.
Greenhouse, Linda. “Court Opens Path for Student Suits in Sex-Bias Cases.” The New York Times. The New York Times, February 27, 1992. https://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/27/us/court-opens-path-for-student-suits-in-sex-bias-cases.html#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20ruled%20today,other%20forms%20of%20sex%20discrimination.
Questions:
In several recent cases, the Supreme Court has taken a narrow view of Federal civil rights laws, so lawyers for women's groups expressed relief about today's decision and praised it. They predicted that it would convert the little-used 20-year-old law into a powerful new weapon against sex discrimination on campus. "Having a real remedy will give an enormous push for equity," Marcia Greenberger, director of the National Women's Law Center, said in an interview. She saw the decision as a victory "that opens up Title IX dramatically" and will promote more fairness in schools and colleges.
Until now, there have been few lawsuits under Title IX. Although it is impossible to predict whether today's ruling will increase the number significantly, there is no doubt that it offers a specific new remedy to students -- men as well as women -- who feel they have been the victims of sex bias. But it was not immediately clear whether the ruling can be applied retroactively.
The new civil rights law that was passed in the last session of Congress made damages for sex discrimination available for the first time. But that law applies only in the context of employment discrimination and so does not apply to students.
The decision today overturned a ruling by a Federal appeals court in Atlanta. That court had dismissed a Title IX suit against a Georgia school district brought by a high school student who charged that school officials had failed to stop a teacher from forcing unwanted sexual attention on her for more than a year.
Greenhouse, Linda. “Court Opens Path for Student Suits in Sex-Bias Cases.” The New York Times. The New York Times, February 27, 1992. https://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/27/us/court-opens-path-for-student-suits-in-sex-bias-cases.html#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20ruled%20today,other%20forms%20of%20sex%20discrimination.
Questions:
- Based on this document, how did this event change the way Title IX was handled?
Alan Blinder and Erik Eckholm: Federal Judge Blocks Transgender Bathroom Access
A federal judge has blocked the Obama administration from enforcing new guidelines that were intended to expand restroom access for transgender students across the country.
Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas said in a 38-page ruling, which he said should apply nationwide, that the government had not complied with federal law when it issued “directives which contradict the existing legislative and regulatory text.”
The judge’s order on Sunday, in a case brought by officials from more than a dozen states, was a victory for social conservatives in the continuing legal battles over the restroom guidelines, which the federal government issued this year. The culture war over the rights of transgender people, and especially their right to use public bathrooms consistent with their gender identities, has emerged as an emotional cause among social conservatives.
The Obama administration’s assertion that the rights of transgender people in public schools and workplaces are protected under existing laws against sex discrimination has been condemned by social conservatives, who said the administration was illegally intruding into local affairs and promoting a policy that would jeopardize the privacy and safety of schoolchildren.
Eckholm, Erik, and Alan Blinder. “Federal Transgender Bathroom Access Guidelines Blocked by Judge.” The New York Times. The New York Times, August 22, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/us/transgender-bathroom-access-guidelines-blocked-by-judge.html.
Questions:
Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas said in a 38-page ruling, which he said should apply nationwide, that the government had not complied with federal law when it issued “directives which contradict the existing legislative and regulatory text.”
The judge’s order on Sunday, in a case brought by officials from more than a dozen states, was a victory for social conservatives in the continuing legal battles over the restroom guidelines, which the federal government issued this year. The culture war over the rights of transgender people, and especially their right to use public bathrooms consistent with their gender identities, has emerged as an emotional cause among social conservatives.
The Obama administration’s assertion that the rights of transgender people in public schools and workplaces are protected under existing laws against sex discrimination has been condemned by social conservatives, who said the administration was illegally intruding into local affairs and promoting a policy that would jeopardize the privacy and safety of schoolchildren.
Eckholm, Erik, and Alan Blinder. “Federal Transgender Bathroom Access Guidelines Blocked by Judge.” The New York Times. The New York Times, August 22, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/us/transgender-bathroom-access-guidelines-blocked-by-judge.html.
Questions:
- Based on this document, how did this event change the way Title IX was handled?
Bianca Quilantan: Devos Reveals Rules That Boost Rights For Students Accused Of Sexual-Misconduct
Schools and colleges face a major overhaul in how they handle sexual misconduct allegations after Education Secretary Betsy DeVos on Wednesday rebuffed calls to delay the sweeping regulation until the conclusion of the national coronavirus emergency. The Title IX rule will offer new rights to accused assailants, and require colleges to respond to formal complaints with courtroom-like hearings. The hearings, which will allow representatives for alleged offenders and victims to call witnesses and challenge their credibility, can occur live or virtually. Students and staff would also have a right to appeal a school’s decisions.
President Donald Trump, conservatives and some civil liberties groups praised the changes as a boon to due process. But the new rule prompted hostile rebukes from Democrats, prominent higher education leaders and advocacy groups who promised a fight, including in the courts.
To investigate and make decisions on complaints, schools will have to use trained personnel to evaluate evidence, though they could offer “informal resolution” options to involved individuals. Schools will also have their choice of using two standards of evidence to make decisions: a “clear and convincing” standard or a less-restrictive standard that relies on the “preponderance of evidence.”
DeVos said that the rule came after years of research and input, and will ensure a process for deciding claims that is fair to all students. “We can and must continue to fight sexual misconduct in our nation’s schools, and this rule makes certain that fight continues,” DeVos said.
The Obama administration had laid out guidance pushing schools to resolve an epidemic of complaints of sexual assault and harassment. But DeVos scrapped the Obama-era policies, saying they were unfair to everyone involved, and she now wants to balance the scales of justice with clear, formal rules.
The White House described the policy change as a way to"restore fairness and due process to our campuses,” arguing that colleges and universities “have often stacked the deck against the accused, failing to offer protections such as a presumption of innocence or adequate ability to rebut allegations.” “With today’s action and every action to come, the Trump administration will fight for America’s students,” Trump said in a statement. The regulations are effective Aug. 14, 2020.
Quilantan , Bianca. “Devos Unveils Rule That Boosts Rights for Students Accused of Sexual Misconduct.” POLITICO, May 6, 2020. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/06/betsy-devos-sexual-misconduct-rule-schools-240131.
Questions:
President Donald Trump, conservatives and some civil liberties groups praised the changes as a boon to due process. But the new rule prompted hostile rebukes from Democrats, prominent higher education leaders and advocacy groups who promised a fight, including in the courts.
To investigate and make decisions on complaints, schools will have to use trained personnel to evaluate evidence, though they could offer “informal resolution” options to involved individuals. Schools will also have their choice of using two standards of evidence to make decisions: a “clear and convincing” standard or a less-restrictive standard that relies on the “preponderance of evidence.”
DeVos said that the rule came after years of research and input, and will ensure a process for deciding claims that is fair to all students. “We can and must continue to fight sexual misconduct in our nation’s schools, and this rule makes certain that fight continues,” DeVos said.
The Obama administration had laid out guidance pushing schools to resolve an epidemic of complaints of sexual assault and harassment. But DeVos scrapped the Obama-era policies, saying they were unfair to everyone involved, and she now wants to balance the scales of justice with clear, formal rules.
The White House described the policy change as a way to"restore fairness and due process to our campuses,” arguing that colleges and universities “have often stacked the deck against the accused, failing to offer protections such as a presumption of innocence or adequate ability to rebut allegations.” “With today’s action and every action to come, the Trump administration will fight for America’s students,” Trump said in a statement. The regulations are effective Aug. 14, 2020.
Quilantan , Bianca. “Devos Unveils Rule That Boosts Rights for Students Accused of Sexual Misconduct.” POLITICO, May 6, 2020. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/06/betsy-devos-sexual-misconduct-rule-schools-240131.
Questions:
- Based on this document, how did this event change the way Title IX was handled?
Dustin Jones: Biden's Title Ix Reforms Would Roll Back Trump-Era Rules, Expand Victim Protections
President Biden and the Department of Education announced proposed amendments to the legislation that would reinstate victim protections that were rolled back by President Donald Trump. The Department of Education said the amendments will include clarifying text to include protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity to strengthen the rights of LGBTQI+ students. "They would make clear that preventing someone from participating in school programs and activities consistent with their gender identity would cause harm in violation of Title IX, except in some limited areas set out in the statute or regulations," the department said.
The department also said it plans to issue a separate notice of proposed rulemaking to address whether and how the agency should amend the Title IX regulations to address students' eligibility to participate on a particular male or female athletics team. Amendments will also include language to prevent discrimination base on sex stereotypes and pregnancy, the department said. It would require schools to provide reasonable modifications for pregnant students and reasonable break time for pregnant employees as well as lactation spaces.
And parents, guardians and a student's authorized legal representative would have greater protections to act on a student's behalf. That would allow these parties to seek assistance under Title IX and participate in grievance procedures, the department said…
Under the Trump-era regulations, some forms of sex-based harassment weren't considered to be Title IX violations. But the proposed changes, which will undergo a public comment period before being finalized, will include all "unwelcome sex-based conduct that creates a hostile environment by denying or limiting a person's ability to participate in or benefit from a school's education program or activity."
The Trump administration's version of Title IX, which remains in place until the amendments are approved, only requires educational institutions to investigate formal sexual harassment complaints. The Department of Education said it would keep as much of the current regulation as possible to ensure consistency, but Biden's changes would require schools to investigate all complaints.
Jones, Dustin. “Biden's Title IX Reforms Would Roll Back Trump-Era Rules, Expand Victim Protections.” NPR. NPR, June 23, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107045291/title-ix-9-biden-expand-victim-protections-discrimination.
Questions:
The department also said it plans to issue a separate notice of proposed rulemaking to address whether and how the agency should amend the Title IX regulations to address students' eligibility to participate on a particular male or female athletics team. Amendments will also include language to prevent discrimination base on sex stereotypes and pregnancy, the department said. It would require schools to provide reasonable modifications for pregnant students and reasonable break time for pregnant employees as well as lactation spaces.
And parents, guardians and a student's authorized legal representative would have greater protections to act on a student's behalf. That would allow these parties to seek assistance under Title IX and participate in grievance procedures, the department said…
Under the Trump-era regulations, some forms of sex-based harassment weren't considered to be Title IX violations. But the proposed changes, which will undergo a public comment period before being finalized, will include all "unwelcome sex-based conduct that creates a hostile environment by denying or limiting a person's ability to participate in or benefit from a school's education program or activity."
The Trump administration's version of Title IX, which remains in place until the amendments are approved, only requires educational institutions to investigate formal sexual harassment complaints. The Department of Education said it would keep as much of the current regulation as possible to ensure consistency, but Biden's changes would require schools to investigate all complaints.
Jones, Dustin. “Biden's Title IX Reforms Would Roll Back Trump-Era Rules, Expand Victim Protections.” NPR. NPR, June 23, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107045291/title-ix-9-biden-expand-victim-protections-discrimination.
Questions:
- Based on this document, how did this event change the way Title IX was handled?
Remy Tumin: Title IX Gave Women Greater Access to Education
On June 23, 1972, President Richard M. Nixon signed an omnibus education bill that would change the paths of millions of women and girls in the United States. At first glance, the sweep conveyed by the words themselves can be hard to recognize. Title IX was part of a long list of education amendments in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, buried amid antibusing policies and outlines of federal financial aid funding. In just 37 words, the statute guaranteed a means to ensure equal access for women to education…
Lawmakers used the Civil Rights Act for framing but intentionally downplayed the policy’s significance to assure its passage through Congress. Fifty years later, Title IX continues to reverberate around the country, ushering in a new era of women’s sports and a framework for handling sexual misconduct complaints on campus.
“Part of the beauty of Title IX is its breadth and comprehensiveness. It’s a ban without creating an exhaustive list,” said Wendy Mink, whose mother, Rep. Patsy Mink, Democrat of Hawaii, was one of the lawmakers to spearhead the policy. The official name of Title IX was changed to the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act after Mink’s death in 2002. “It’s open to interpretation and application,” Wendy Mink said. “She wanted to make sure each of the interpretations would not only be applied but enforced.”
The most visible changes were seen in gymnasiums, fields and courts across the United States — young women were entitled to the same athletic opportunities as their male counterparts at schools. According to a study by the Women’s Sports Foundation, high school participation rose from 294,015 in the 1971-72 school year to 3.4 million in 2018-19 (participation by boys was 3.67 million in 1971-72 and 4.53 million in 2018-19). At the collegiate level, participation at N.C.A.A. schools rose from 29,977 athletes in women’s sports in 1971-72 to 215,486 in 2020-21. Men’s sports had 275,769 athletes in 2020-21.
What’s missing from Title IX?
While Title IX’s intentions to be broad and encompassing have ensured rights for many women and girls, white women have benefited the most. Title IX does not directly address race, gender identity, disabilities or other characteristics besides sex. The Women’s Sports Foundation found that Asian, Black, Indigenous, Hispanic and other girls and women of color participate in sport at lower levels than white women do. The same was true for women with disabilities compared with men who had disabilities. Women of color are also underrepresented in athletic leadership.
A new interpretation of Title IX includes transgender students and new sexual assault guidelines. Title IX falls under the executive branch and therefore is subject to interpretation by each administration. The Biden administration proposed new rules on Thursday that would extend Title IX protections to transgender students by expanding the definition of “sex” to include “stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” The new language, which is still subject to a commentary period, also rolled back a Trump administration policy that narrowed the scope of campus sexual misconduct investigations. The Biden administration maintained that the current rules “weakened protections for survivors of sexual assault and diminished the promise of an education free from discrimination.”
As proposed, the guidance would officially make protecting transgender students a federal legal requirement of Title IX. However, the Education Department said its guidelines for sports would be crafted separately. Miguel A. Cardona, the education secretary, said Thursday that its goal was to create rules for how schools can determine eligibility for sports teams “while upholding Title IX’s nondiscrimination guarantee.” But he declined to give details about how those rules would be determined.
The proposed changes come amid highly contentious debate throughout the sports world about whether transgender women should be allowed to compete in women’s divisions. Some major sports federations have heavily restricted transgender women from competing in women’s divisions. FINA, the world governing body for swimming, voted to prohibit transgender women from competing unless they began medical treatments to suppress production of testosterone before going through one of the early stages of puberty, or by age 12, whichever occurred later. It established one of the strictest rules against transgender participation in international sports.
Nearly 20 states have enacted laws or issued statewide rules that bar or limit transgender sports participation. Title IX, for now, is unlikely to be used specifically by lawmakers either to push for more inclusion or exclusion of transgender women in women’s divisions. The law, an education policy at its core, enjoys broad support by the public and both Republican and Democrat lawmakers.
Tumin, Remy. “Title IX Gave Women Greater Access to Education. Here’s What It Says and Does. The law has grown participation for women and girls in sports and has had other significant ramifications, too.” New York Times. June 22, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/sports/what-is-title-ix.html.
Questions:
Lawmakers used the Civil Rights Act for framing but intentionally downplayed the policy’s significance to assure its passage through Congress. Fifty years later, Title IX continues to reverberate around the country, ushering in a new era of women’s sports and a framework for handling sexual misconduct complaints on campus.
“Part of the beauty of Title IX is its breadth and comprehensiveness. It’s a ban without creating an exhaustive list,” said Wendy Mink, whose mother, Rep. Patsy Mink, Democrat of Hawaii, was one of the lawmakers to spearhead the policy. The official name of Title IX was changed to the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act after Mink’s death in 2002. “It’s open to interpretation and application,” Wendy Mink said. “She wanted to make sure each of the interpretations would not only be applied but enforced.”
The most visible changes were seen in gymnasiums, fields and courts across the United States — young women were entitled to the same athletic opportunities as their male counterparts at schools. According to a study by the Women’s Sports Foundation, high school participation rose from 294,015 in the 1971-72 school year to 3.4 million in 2018-19 (participation by boys was 3.67 million in 1971-72 and 4.53 million in 2018-19). At the collegiate level, participation at N.C.A.A. schools rose from 29,977 athletes in women’s sports in 1971-72 to 215,486 in 2020-21. Men’s sports had 275,769 athletes in 2020-21.
What’s missing from Title IX?
While Title IX’s intentions to be broad and encompassing have ensured rights for many women and girls, white women have benefited the most. Title IX does not directly address race, gender identity, disabilities or other characteristics besides sex. The Women’s Sports Foundation found that Asian, Black, Indigenous, Hispanic and other girls and women of color participate in sport at lower levels than white women do. The same was true for women with disabilities compared with men who had disabilities. Women of color are also underrepresented in athletic leadership.
A new interpretation of Title IX includes transgender students and new sexual assault guidelines. Title IX falls under the executive branch and therefore is subject to interpretation by each administration. The Biden administration proposed new rules on Thursday that would extend Title IX protections to transgender students by expanding the definition of “sex” to include “stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” The new language, which is still subject to a commentary period, also rolled back a Trump administration policy that narrowed the scope of campus sexual misconduct investigations. The Biden administration maintained that the current rules “weakened protections for survivors of sexual assault and diminished the promise of an education free from discrimination.”
As proposed, the guidance would officially make protecting transgender students a federal legal requirement of Title IX. However, the Education Department said its guidelines for sports would be crafted separately. Miguel A. Cardona, the education secretary, said Thursday that its goal was to create rules for how schools can determine eligibility for sports teams “while upholding Title IX’s nondiscrimination guarantee.” But he declined to give details about how those rules would be determined.
The proposed changes come amid highly contentious debate throughout the sports world about whether transgender women should be allowed to compete in women’s divisions. Some major sports federations have heavily restricted transgender women from competing in women’s divisions. FINA, the world governing body for swimming, voted to prohibit transgender women from competing unless they began medical treatments to suppress production of testosterone before going through one of the early stages of puberty, or by age 12, whichever occurred later. It established one of the strictest rules against transgender participation in international sports.
Nearly 20 states have enacted laws or issued statewide rules that bar or limit transgender sports participation. Title IX, for now, is unlikely to be used specifically by lawmakers either to push for more inclusion or exclusion of transgender women in women’s divisions. The law, an education policy at its core, enjoys broad support by the public and both Republican and Democrat lawmakers.
Tumin, Remy. “Title IX Gave Women Greater Access to Education. Here’s What It Says and Does. The law has grown participation for women and girls in sports and has had other significant ramifications, too.” New York Times. June 22, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/sports/what-is-title-ix.html.
Questions:
- Based on the primary and secondary material, how has TITLE IX changed overtime?
DOMA
Defense of Marriage Act
H.R. 3396. Defense of Marriage Act. 1996.
Questions:
Questions:
- What is the Defense of Marriage Act?
- How does the Act define marriage?
- What does this act mean for same-gender couples?
Andrea Bernstein: Hilary Clinton’s Gay Marriage Evolution
In the midst of her senate campaign in 2000, Hilary Clinton’s position on DOMA, a law her husband signed into effect, came under fire. In this document, a reporter who interviewed her then and over the course of her career as a Senator, Secretary of State, and presidential candidate described her early position.
I found myself covering Hillary Clinton’s run for U.S. Senate in New York, the birthplace of the gay rights movement. And her views on DOMA were a lingering mystery.
Hillary… held her first extended question-and-answer session with reporters in a cold January day. The first question was about a custody dispute involving a Cuban boy, Elian Gonzalez. The second was mine: If she were a senator, would she vote for DOMA?
"The Defense of Marriage Act has already been before the Senate," Clinton pushed back. "What I’m concerned about is what’s going to happen at the state level." She went on to express her support for partnership benefits, not marriage. I pressed. Did you agree with Mr. Clinton on DOMA or not?
"He was against it, yeah, I agree with that. But it's moot. It’s already been through the Senate." Then The New York Times' Adam Nagourney and I shot back. "But he signed it. He signed it."
"He signed it," Clinton agreed. "But he signed it because it was something the Congress said, 'Take it or leave it. You’re going to have to do it.' They would have passed it over his veto."
Listening back to that tape — recorded on a long-gone cassette recorder — it's hard to believe how many questions Clinton took on the issue, until she eventually cried uncle. "I would have voted for it at that time but I think to go back and talk about DOMA now especially...is something that is divisive."
So then, why was she against gay marriage? Here's the part of her answer that later became famous. "Because I believe marriage means something different. Marriage is about a historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been between a man and a woman."
To be fair, at the time, not one major elected official in either party supported gay marriage, including Bernie Sanders.
Bernstein, Andrea. “The Tale of the Tape: Hillary Clinton's Gay Marriage Evolution.” WNYC News. November 3, 2015. https://www.wnyc.org/story/tale-tape-hillary-clintons-gay-evolution/.
I found myself covering Hillary Clinton’s run for U.S. Senate in New York, the birthplace of the gay rights movement. And her views on DOMA were a lingering mystery.
Hillary… held her first extended question-and-answer session with reporters in a cold January day. The first question was about a custody dispute involving a Cuban boy, Elian Gonzalez. The second was mine: If she were a senator, would she vote for DOMA?
"The Defense of Marriage Act has already been before the Senate," Clinton pushed back. "What I’m concerned about is what’s going to happen at the state level." She went on to express her support for partnership benefits, not marriage. I pressed. Did you agree with Mr. Clinton on DOMA or not?
"He was against it, yeah, I agree with that. But it's moot. It’s already been through the Senate." Then The New York Times' Adam Nagourney and I shot back. "But he signed it. He signed it."
"He signed it," Clinton agreed. "But he signed it because it was something the Congress said, 'Take it or leave it. You’re going to have to do it.' They would have passed it over his veto."
Listening back to that tape — recorded on a long-gone cassette recorder — it's hard to believe how many questions Clinton took on the issue, until she eventually cried uncle. "I would have voted for it at that time but I think to go back and talk about DOMA now especially...is something that is divisive."
So then, why was she against gay marriage? Here's the part of her answer that later became famous. "Because I believe marriage means something different. Marriage is about a historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been between a man and a woman."
To be fair, at the time, not one major elected official in either party supported gay marriage, including Bernie Sanders.
Bernstein, Andrea. “The Tale of the Tape: Hillary Clinton's Gay Marriage Evolution.” WNYC News. November 3, 2015. https://www.wnyc.org/story/tale-tape-hillary-clintons-gay-evolution/.
Excerpt From The Majority Opinion In US vs Windsor
In 2013, in a Supreme Court case, United States v. Windsor, the Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives. Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways.
The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
Kennedy , Anthony. “United States vs Windsor .” Supreme Court of the United States, June 26, 2013. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf.
Question: What is Kennedy’s main argument?
DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives. Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways.
The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
Kennedy , Anthony. “United States vs Windsor .” Supreme Court of the United States, June 26, 2013. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf.
Question: What is Kennedy’s main argument?
Antonin Scalia: Dissenting Opinion Of Justice Scalia Us Vs Windsor
The Court is eager—hungry—to tell everyone its view of the legal question at the heart of this case. Standing in the way is an obstacle, a technicality of little interest to anyone but the people of We the People, who created it as a barrier against judges’ intrusion into their lives. They gave judges, in Article III, only the “Judicial Power,” a power to decide not abstract questions but real, concrete “Cases” and “Controversies”… What, then, are we doing here? The answer lies at the heart of the jurisdictional portion of today’s opinion, where a single sentence lays bare the majority’s vision of our role. The Court says that we have the power to decide this case because if we did not, then our “primary role in determining the constitutionality of a law” … would “become only secondary to the President’s.” But wait, the reader wonders—Windsor won below, and so cured her injury, and the President was glad to see it. True, says the majority, but the judicial review must march on regardless, lest we “undermine the clear dictate of the separation-of-powers principle that when an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
Neither party sought to undo the judgment for Windsor, and so that court should have dismissed the appeal (just as we should dismiss) for lack of jurisdiction. Since both parties agreed with the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, the suit should have ended there.
Scalia , Antonin. “United States vs Windsor .” Supreme Court of the United States, June 26, 2013. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf.
Question:
Neither party sought to undo the judgment for Windsor, and so that court should have dismissed the appeal (just as we should dismiss) for lack of jurisdiction. Since both parties agreed with the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, the suit should have ended there.
Scalia , Antonin. “United States vs Windsor .” Supreme Court of the United States, June 26, 2013. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf.
Question:
- What is Scalia’s main argument?
Edith Windsor: LGBTQ Advocate Who Fought The Defense Of Marriage Act, Dies At 88
Emmanuelle Levine: On Edith Windsor, SCOTUS, and the Joys of Becoming a Person
It was that fairly unromantic, upper-middle class issue that led Edie to sue. In 2013, she won, and DOMA was overturned. In 2015, “Obergefell v. Hodges” cracked open the marriage piñata for the 37 states plus the territories that were left. That was the end of the story as I heard it in high school Gay-Straight Alliance meetings. Edie helped us win marriage, end of discussion. But of course, marriage wasn’t and isn’t the Final Boss of queer civil rights.
Edie wasn’t a perfect icon — she wasn’t especially intersectional in her approach to the movement. You’ll notice I said “gay rights” and not “LGBT rights” or even “queer justice.” A lot of people will argue that the marriage fight wasn’t the best use of our resources as a queer community, that we should have focused on employment and housing discrimination, hate crimes against transgender people of color, Title IX protections, mass incarceration and homelessness. The particular privilege of marriage that Edie sued for benefited a lot of middle-and upper-class people — estate tax exemptions are regressive; that is, they benefit rich people more than everyone else…
It is a great privilege to have marked my childhood by civil rights battles won. A privilege of being born in the right place at the right time, sure, but mostly a privilege in that a lot of people poured a lot of resources into fighting for rights that would affect me… I’m grateful to Edie for Doing the Work on my behalf. She gave me the great joy and privilege of feeling like a person. Her death is a blow, but it also opens a vacancy for me — there’s an open spot to fill in the phalanx of those who defend civil rights. In gratitude to Edie, and in the hope that more of us get to experience the exhilaration of being seen as people, I recommit to trying to fill in the battle line.
Levine , Emmanuelle. “On Edith Windsor, Scotus, and the Joys of Becoming a Person .” Yale Daily News, September 29, 2017. https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2017/09/29/142220/.
Questions:
Edie wasn’t a perfect icon — she wasn’t especially intersectional in her approach to the movement. You’ll notice I said “gay rights” and not “LGBT rights” or even “queer justice.” A lot of people will argue that the marriage fight wasn’t the best use of our resources as a queer community, that we should have focused on employment and housing discrimination, hate crimes against transgender people of color, Title IX protections, mass incarceration and homelessness. The particular privilege of marriage that Edie sued for benefited a lot of middle-and upper-class people — estate tax exemptions are regressive; that is, they benefit rich people more than everyone else…
It is a great privilege to have marked my childhood by civil rights battles won. A privilege of being born in the right place at the right time, sure, but mostly a privilege in that a lot of people poured a lot of resources into fighting for rights that would affect me… I’m grateful to Edie for Doing the Work on my behalf. She gave me the great joy and privilege of feeling like a person. Her death is a blow, but it also opens a vacancy for me — there’s an open spot to fill in the phalanx of those who defend civil rights. In gratitude to Edie, and in the hope that more of us get to experience the exhilaration of being seen as people, I recommit to trying to fill in the battle line.
Levine , Emmanuelle. “On Edith Windsor, Scotus, and the Joys of Becoming a Person .” Yale Daily News, September 29, 2017. https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2017/09/29/142220/.
Questions:
- Why did Levine NOT consider Windsor a LGBTQ+ advocate and instead described her as a “gay rights” advocate?
- What other concerns did she have about Windsor’s limited advocacy?
- How long did Windsor live a rather closeted life?
- What impact did Windsor have on Levine’s life?
M.A.D.d.
Vox: Why the US Drinking Age is 21 Video
Partial Transcript:
Prohibition, the 18th amendment to the US Constitution, banned alcohol in 1920. It was repealed by the 21st amendment — and after that, a lot of states settled on a drinking age of 21 and older… In the 70s, the 26th amendment changed the dynamic again. “That amendment, as you know, provides for the right to vote of all of our young people between 18 and 21, 11 million new voters as a result of this amendment” (Ronald Reagan). 18 year olds could be drafted to Vietnam and vote, so a lot of states decided they could drink.
That map was short lived for one reason… “Nearly 50,000 people were killed on our highways last year. Now out of that statistic comes an even more chilling one. Drunk drivers were involved in 25,000 of those fatalities, in addition to 750,000 injuries a year” (Ronald Reagan). Drinking age reform advocates quickly attributed drunk driving fatalities in the blue states, or 18 and older states, to earlier drinking ages. People argued that teens driving across state lines to drink or purchase alcohol increased drunk driving. This 1983 map was still a hodgepodge, but see how more states turned green — for 19— and yellow — for 20 years old? That was driven partly by an awareness campaign… Michael Jackson? He was being honored for letting his music be used in anti-drunk driving PSAs.
President Reagan is famous for saying: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” That made his strategy kind of surprising. “For even though drunk driving is a problem nation-wide, it can only be solved at the state and local level. Yet the Federal Government also has a role to play.” His thinking was influenced by two main groups. “Much of the credit for focusing public attention goes to the grassroots campaign of organizations like MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, and RID, Remove Intoxicated Drivers” (Ronald Reagan).
Candace “Candy” Lightner founded MADD in 1980 after her daughter Cari was killed by a drunk driver. MADD’s goals at the time included making it easier to obtain DUI convictions... and raising the drinking age. This direction was clear at River Dell High School in Oradell, New Jersey, where President Reagan explained his unpredictable political evolution. The problem: “I appointed a Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving. They told us that alcohol related automobile accidents are the leading cause of teenage deaths in this country.”
The theory: “In states in which the drinking age has been raised, teenage drinking fatalities have gone down significantly. Here in New Jersey, you raised the drinking age to 21 in 1983, and you know what happened: you had a 26% reduction in nighttime single vehicle fatalities among 19 and 20 year olds in the first year alone” (Ronald Reagan).
The dilemma: “I was delighted again because I hoped that the states would, as they should, take this action themselves without federal orders or interference.” “It’s led to a kind of crazy quilt of different state drinking laws, and that’s led to what’s been called blood borders, with teenagers leaving their home to go the nearest state with a lower drinking age.”
And here? This is where the roads come in. The Interstate Highway Act of 1956 created a network of roads largely funded by Federal dollars. Those roads quickly became crucial to state economies. That money also became a way to bend the states to Federal priorities, even if it meant Reagan had to change his typical political positions. “I’ve decided to support legislation to withhold 5% of a state’s highway funds if it does not enact the 21-year-old drinking age. Some may feel that my decision is at odds with my philosophical viewpoint that state problems should involve state solutions, and it isn’t up to a big and overwhelming government in Washington to tell the states what to do. And you’re partly right. Beyond that, there are some special cases in which overwhelming need can be dealt with by prudent and limited federal action” (Ronald Reagan). The law passed.
That’s Candy Lightner, celebrating. “I’d like to make you an honorary mother against drunk drivers.” It wasn’t technically a nationwide drinking age law, but in effect — it was. “We have no misgiving about this judicious use of Federal power.” States quickly adopted the 21-year-old drinking age. Most couldn't afford to lose federal funding for their highways. Louisiana was the only state that held out at age 18 (due to a loophole, which it closed in the mid 90s). South Dakota challenged the law to preserve sale of low alcohol beer for 19 year olds and up, and it reached the Supreme Court. “Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court, the issue in this case is whether or not Congress may condition the receipt of highway funds upon a state having in effect 21-year-old drinking age.” The court ruled 7-2, stating it was within Congress’s powers to control spending that promoted “general welfare,” argued as the reduction of youth drinking and driving via the 21-year-old drinking age. Did it work?
Most studies of studies declare “case closed” — that the higher drinking age saves lives, and “reduces alcohol consumption.” Skeptics, like people from the libertarian Cato Institute, claim a broader cultural change, not a law, should be credited with saving lives. Reagan himself kind of argued both sides, saying that, “the new minimum drinking age is working,” but that “my friends, there’s so much more to do, and it’s not government that can do it.”
Politically, Ronald Reagan using Federal purse strings to strong arm states is…a strange pairing. But beyond the politics, there’s a bigger message. The Federal government has used other levers to push states, but to change the drinking age there was one big tool. The thing that changed the country wasn’t just the lines on states’ edges. It was the ones that run through them.
Vox.com. “Why the US Drinking Age Is 21.” YouTube. YouTube, August 23, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aWYJugVTs4.
Guiding Questions:
Prohibition, the 18th amendment to the US Constitution, banned alcohol in 1920. It was repealed by the 21st amendment — and after that, a lot of states settled on a drinking age of 21 and older… In the 70s, the 26th amendment changed the dynamic again. “That amendment, as you know, provides for the right to vote of all of our young people between 18 and 21, 11 million new voters as a result of this amendment” (Ronald Reagan). 18 year olds could be drafted to Vietnam and vote, so a lot of states decided they could drink.
That map was short lived for one reason… “Nearly 50,000 people were killed on our highways last year. Now out of that statistic comes an even more chilling one. Drunk drivers were involved in 25,000 of those fatalities, in addition to 750,000 injuries a year” (Ronald Reagan). Drinking age reform advocates quickly attributed drunk driving fatalities in the blue states, or 18 and older states, to earlier drinking ages. People argued that teens driving across state lines to drink or purchase alcohol increased drunk driving. This 1983 map was still a hodgepodge, but see how more states turned green — for 19— and yellow — for 20 years old? That was driven partly by an awareness campaign… Michael Jackson? He was being honored for letting his music be used in anti-drunk driving PSAs.
President Reagan is famous for saying: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” That made his strategy kind of surprising. “For even though drunk driving is a problem nation-wide, it can only be solved at the state and local level. Yet the Federal Government also has a role to play.” His thinking was influenced by two main groups. “Much of the credit for focusing public attention goes to the grassroots campaign of organizations like MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, and RID, Remove Intoxicated Drivers” (Ronald Reagan).
Candace “Candy” Lightner founded MADD in 1980 after her daughter Cari was killed by a drunk driver. MADD’s goals at the time included making it easier to obtain DUI convictions... and raising the drinking age. This direction was clear at River Dell High School in Oradell, New Jersey, where President Reagan explained his unpredictable political evolution. The problem: “I appointed a Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving. They told us that alcohol related automobile accidents are the leading cause of teenage deaths in this country.”
The theory: “In states in which the drinking age has been raised, teenage drinking fatalities have gone down significantly. Here in New Jersey, you raised the drinking age to 21 in 1983, and you know what happened: you had a 26% reduction in nighttime single vehicle fatalities among 19 and 20 year olds in the first year alone” (Ronald Reagan).
The dilemma: “I was delighted again because I hoped that the states would, as they should, take this action themselves without federal orders or interference.” “It’s led to a kind of crazy quilt of different state drinking laws, and that’s led to what’s been called blood borders, with teenagers leaving their home to go the nearest state with a lower drinking age.”
And here? This is where the roads come in. The Interstate Highway Act of 1956 created a network of roads largely funded by Federal dollars. Those roads quickly became crucial to state economies. That money also became a way to bend the states to Federal priorities, even if it meant Reagan had to change his typical political positions. “I’ve decided to support legislation to withhold 5% of a state’s highway funds if it does not enact the 21-year-old drinking age. Some may feel that my decision is at odds with my philosophical viewpoint that state problems should involve state solutions, and it isn’t up to a big and overwhelming government in Washington to tell the states what to do. And you’re partly right. Beyond that, there are some special cases in which overwhelming need can be dealt with by prudent and limited federal action” (Ronald Reagan). The law passed.
That’s Candy Lightner, celebrating. “I’d like to make you an honorary mother against drunk drivers.” It wasn’t technically a nationwide drinking age law, but in effect — it was. “We have no misgiving about this judicious use of Federal power.” States quickly adopted the 21-year-old drinking age. Most couldn't afford to lose federal funding for their highways. Louisiana was the only state that held out at age 18 (due to a loophole, which it closed in the mid 90s). South Dakota challenged the law to preserve sale of low alcohol beer for 19 year olds and up, and it reached the Supreme Court. “Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court, the issue in this case is whether or not Congress may condition the receipt of highway funds upon a state having in effect 21-year-old drinking age.” The court ruled 7-2, stating it was within Congress’s powers to control spending that promoted “general welfare,” argued as the reduction of youth drinking and driving via the 21-year-old drinking age. Did it work?
Most studies of studies declare “case closed” — that the higher drinking age saves lives, and “reduces alcohol consumption.” Skeptics, like people from the libertarian Cato Institute, claim a broader cultural change, not a law, should be credited with saving lives. Reagan himself kind of argued both sides, saying that, “the new minimum drinking age is working,” but that “my friends, there’s so much more to do, and it’s not government that can do it.”
Politically, Ronald Reagan using Federal purse strings to strong arm states is…a strange pairing. But beyond the politics, there’s a bigger message. The Federal government has used other levers to push states, but to change the drinking age there was one big tool. The thing that changed the country wasn’t just the lines on states’ edges. It was the ones that run through them.
Vox.com. “Why the US Drinking Age Is 21.” YouTube. YouTube, August 23, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aWYJugVTs4.
Guiding Questions:
- Based on this video, did MADD impact federal policy related to drunk driving?
- According to this video, did legislation alone help change drunk driving?
American Addiction Center: Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
Every single day in the United States, 28 people die in a car crash that involves a driver who is under the influence of and impaired by alcohol, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes. This equates to just more than one death every hour of every day in America.
After the senseless death of her 13-year-old daughter Cari, who was killed by a drunk driver, Candace Lightner began feverishly working in her home state of California to raise awareness about drunk driving and to attempt to illicit change in drunk driving laws. Together with another mother, Cindi Lamb, whose child was a victim of a crash with an alcohol-impaired driver, the grassroots nonprofit organization Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, or MADD, was founded and incorporated in Sacramento, California on September 5th of 1980…
Since 1980, MADD reports that they have helped to cut drunk driving deaths in half, saved around 350,000 lives, and helped more than 850,000 victims. Today, there are several hundred local MADD chapters spread throughout the US and Canada. The journal World Psychiatry publishes that the MADD campaign has helped to get over 1,000 new laws involving alcohol passed on both a local and national level, including laws regarding server liability, the setting up of sobriety checkpoints, and raising the minimum drinking age. MADD has also influenced public perception of drunk driving, putting faces to the victims to highlight that these are not “accidents” but rather instances of avoidable violence and that the crime is not “victimless.”
… Arguably, MADD has been extremely influential, not only in affecting public policy and legislation, but also in changing public perception and social policy. As a grassroots organization, MADD has brought the crimes and tragedy of drunk driving consequences into the light, offering hope and encouragement for survivors, victims, and their families while also advocating for preventative efforts and positive change.
Editors of American Addiction Centers. “Effectiveness of Mothers Against Drunk Driving: Over the years, MADD has worked tirelessly to influence DUI laws, increase public awareness about underage drinking and impaired driving.” American Addiction Centers. December 13, 2022. https://alcohol.org/teens/mothers-against-drunk-driving/.
Guiding Questions
After the senseless death of her 13-year-old daughter Cari, who was killed by a drunk driver, Candace Lightner began feverishly working in her home state of California to raise awareness about drunk driving and to attempt to illicit change in drunk driving laws. Together with another mother, Cindi Lamb, whose child was a victim of a crash with an alcohol-impaired driver, the grassroots nonprofit organization Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, or MADD, was founded and incorporated in Sacramento, California on September 5th of 1980…
Since 1980, MADD reports that they have helped to cut drunk driving deaths in half, saved around 350,000 lives, and helped more than 850,000 victims. Today, there are several hundred local MADD chapters spread throughout the US and Canada. The journal World Psychiatry publishes that the MADD campaign has helped to get over 1,000 new laws involving alcohol passed on both a local and national level, including laws regarding server liability, the setting up of sobriety checkpoints, and raising the minimum drinking age. MADD has also influenced public perception of drunk driving, putting faces to the victims to highlight that these are not “accidents” but rather instances of avoidable violence and that the crime is not “victimless.”
… Arguably, MADD has been extremely influential, not only in affecting public policy and legislation, but also in changing public perception and social policy. As a grassroots organization, MADD has brought the crimes and tragedy of drunk driving consequences into the light, offering hope and encouragement for survivors, victims, and their families while also advocating for preventative efforts and positive change.
Editors of American Addiction Centers. “Effectiveness of Mothers Against Drunk Driving: Over the years, MADD has worked tirelessly to influence DUI laws, increase public awareness about underage drinking and impaired driving.” American Addiction Centers. December 13, 2022. https://alcohol.org/teens/mothers-against-drunk-driving/.
Guiding Questions
- Why is the name “Mothers” Against Drunk driving a powerful title to the organization?
- Why did Candy Lightner found MADD?
- Based on this article, did MADD impact federal policy related to drunk driving?
- According to this article, did legislation alone help change drunk driving?
Glasses: Video
Guiding Questions:
Maddcanada. “Glasses - Public Television Campaign.” YouTube. YouTube, November 20, 2007. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrhV3QTkNyw.
- What did it feel like watching this clip?
- Why might this public awareness campaign have been effective?
Maddcanada. “Glasses - Public Television Campaign.” YouTube. YouTube, November 20, 2007. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrhV3QTkNyw.
Drunk Driving Video
Guiding Questions:
Casskane007. “Best Madd Anti Dui Commercial Ever.” YouTube. YouTube, November 18, 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b69J_bMoYk.
- What did it feel like watching this clip?
- Why might this public awareness campaign have been effective?
- Was the purpose of MADD’s early advertising campaign to support stricter laws relating to drinking and driving or to encourage individuals to make a personal choice to stop drinking and driving?
Casskane007. “Best Madd Anti Dui Commercial Ever.” YouTube. YouTube, November 18, 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b69J_bMoYk.
John J. Miller: The Case Against 21
Mothers Against Drunk Driving says on its website that setting the legal drinking age at 21, rather than 18, has saved “more than 21,000 lives” from alcohol-related traffic fatalities. It certainly sounds like a success story. But is it really so simple?
The former president of Middlebury College says that the picture is in fact far more complicated. “It’s just not true,” says John M. McCardell Jr. of MADD’s assertion. “I’m not going to claim that legal-age 21 has saved no lives at all, but it’s just one factor among many and it’s not anywhere near the most important factor.”As his report reveals, alcohol-related driving fatalities have fallen sharply since 1982, when a presidential commission on drunk driving urged states to raise their drinking ages to 21. That year, there were 1.64 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles of travel; in 2001, there were 0.63 deaths. That’s a drop of 62 percent.
This is an important achievement. Yet the drinking age probably played only a small role. The dramatic increase in seat-belt use almost certainly accounts for most of the improvement. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration says that the proper use of seat belts reduces the odds of death for front-seat passengers involved in a car crashes by 45 percent. In 1984, when President Reagan linked federal highway funds to the 21-year drinking age, about 14 percent of motorists used seat belts. By 2004, this figure had shot up to 80 percent. Also during this period, life-saving airbags became a standard feature on cars.
What’s more, alcohol-related fatalities were beginning to decline before the movement for a raised drinking age got off the ground, thanks to a cultural shift. “As a society, we’ve become a lot more aware of the problem of drunk driving,” says McCardell. “When I was in school, nobody used the term ‘designated driver.’” Demographic forces helped out, too: In the 1980s, following the Baby Boom, the population of young people actually shrank. Fewer young drivers means fewer high-risk drivers, and so even if attitudes about seat belts and drunk driving hadn’t changed, there almost certainly would have been a reduction in traffic deaths anyway.
McCardell suggests that one effect of raising the drinking age was not to prevent deaths but merely to delay them. “The most common age for drinking-related deaths is now 21, followed by 22 and 23,” he says. “It seems that the minimum drinking age is as likely to have postponed fatalities as to have reduced them.”
Miller, John J. “John J. Miller on Drinking Age on National Review Online.” National Review Online, 2007. https://web.archive.org/web/20070829161232/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzU4NTcwMTQ4NTBmYzVlNWMzZjgwYTRjYjgyMzllMjg%3D.
Guiding Questions
The former president of Middlebury College says that the picture is in fact far more complicated. “It’s just not true,” says John M. McCardell Jr. of MADD’s assertion. “I’m not going to claim that legal-age 21 has saved no lives at all, but it’s just one factor among many and it’s not anywhere near the most important factor.”As his report reveals, alcohol-related driving fatalities have fallen sharply since 1982, when a presidential commission on drunk driving urged states to raise their drinking ages to 21. That year, there were 1.64 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles of travel; in 2001, there were 0.63 deaths. That’s a drop of 62 percent.
This is an important achievement. Yet the drinking age probably played only a small role. The dramatic increase in seat-belt use almost certainly accounts for most of the improvement. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration says that the proper use of seat belts reduces the odds of death for front-seat passengers involved in a car crashes by 45 percent. In 1984, when President Reagan linked federal highway funds to the 21-year drinking age, about 14 percent of motorists used seat belts. By 2004, this figure had shot up to 80 percent. Also during this period, life-saving airbags became a standard feature on cars.
What’s more, alcohol-related fatalities were beginning to decline before the movement for a raised drinking age got off the ground, thanks to a cultural shift. “As a society, we’ve become a lot more aware of the problem of drunk driving,” says McCardell. “When I was in school, nobody used the term ‘designated driver.’” Demographic forces helped out, too: In the 1980s, following the Baby Boom, the population of young people actually shrank. Fewer young drivers means fewer high-risk drivers, and so even if attitudes about seat belts and drunk driving hadn’t changed, there almost certainly would have been a reduction in traffic deaths anyway.
McCardell suggests that one effect of raising the drinking age was not to prevent deaths but merely to delay them. “The most common age for drinking-related deaths is now 21, followed by 22 and 23,” he says. “It seems that the minimum drinking age is as likely to have postponed fatalities as to have reduced them.”
Miller, John J. “John J. Miller on Drinking Age on National Review Online.” National Review Online, 2007. https://web.archive.org/web/20070829161232/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzU4NTcwMTQ4NTBmYzVlNWMzZjgwYTRjYjgyMzllMjg%3D.
Guiding Questions
- Based on this article, did MADD impact federal policy related to drunk driving?
- According to this article, did legislation alone help change drunk driving?
Rick Sand: DUI Statistics In The United States
An arrest for a DUI can cause your insurance to skyrocket by around 71%. Many drivers find it impossible to get back on the road after their DUI, simply because the costs become too expensive for them to afford. However, drunk driving is on a decline. Between 1991 and 2017, the rate of accidents and fatalities has decreased by 50%. [T]he United States… are the third worst country when it comes to drunk driving—which obviously isn’t great. In 2015, South Africa was ranked number one as the worst country when it comes to drunk driving. With 58% of their fatal accidents involving alcohol in some way, they sit high above the second and third seats. The second seat goes to Canada, at 34% and the third to the United States at 31%. Countries on the lower end of the spectrum include Germany (9%), Russia (9%), India (5%), and China (4%).
WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU GET A DUI IN THE UNITED STATES?
…Some states will allow you to be released when bail is paid, but other states have a one- or two-day minimum sentence for people who are arrested for driving under the influence. Your circumstances may be different depending on the nature of your accident. If anyone else is injured, or even killed, your jail time could be much longer. However, this would normally be determined in court… After this, you’ll lose your license for a period of time. After your license is restored, you may have to deal with a variety of restrictions, like taking a breathalyzer before starting your car.
You may also have to serve probation, even if you don’t serve jail time. This probation will be used to keep someone from repeating an offense. If you were to repeat your offense, you may face greater jail time for breaking your probation.
Before getting your license back, you may have to attend driving school specifically for people convicted of DUIs. You’ll then have to pay your fines in order to get your license back. Your insurance may also go up because of your new DUI.
WHAT ARE DUI PENALTIES IN OTHER COUNTRIES?
Let’s look at South Africa, the country with the highest concentration of alcohol accidents in the world. In South Africa, it’s illegal to drive with a blood alcohol content greater than .05, a little lower than the US’s .08mg/dl. If you’re arrested for drunk driving, you’ll likely be granted bail. However, if you’re convicted a second time, you may be sent to prison for up to six years… In China, the legal limit for alcohol in the blood while driving is .02mg, much lower than both the US and South Africa. They have a zero-tolerance policy for repeat offenders, and may suspend your license for a few months even if you’re a first time offender.
DOES THE UNITED STATES HAVE STRICT-ENOUGH DUI LAWS?
When comparing the United States to other countries, it’s easy to see that many other countries have stricter laws than the US, especially when it comes to longer suspension times and higher fines. Other countries generally make it harder to get back on the road after a DUI… In China, their low tolerance policies seem to be working when it comes to keeping drunk drivers off the roads. The United States could experiment with tighter laws and see what happens. However, our percentages seem to be going down over the years.
Sand, Rick. “Comparing DUI Statistics of the U.S. vs. Other Countries.” Sand Law North Dakota, October 5, 2021. https://www.sandlawnd.com/dui-statistics-of-us-vs-other-countries/.
Guiding Questions
WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU GET A DUI IN THE UNITED STATES?
…Some states will allow you to be released when bail is paid, but other states have a one- or two-day minimum sentence for people who are arrested for driving under the influence. Your circumstances may be different depending on the nature of your accident. If anyone else is injured, or even killed, your jail time could be much longer. However, this would normally be determined in court… After this, you’ll lose your license for a period of time. After your license is restored, you may have to deal with a variety of restrictions, like taking a breathalyzer before starting your car.
You may also have to serve probation, even if you don’t serve jail time. This probation will be used to keep someone from repeating an offense. If you were to repeat your offense, you may face greater jail time for breaking your probation.
Before getting your license back, you may have to attend driving school specifically for people convicted of DUIs. You’ll then have to pay your fines in order to get your license back. Your insurance may also go up because of your new DUI.
WHAT ARE DUI PENALTIES IN OTHER COUNTRIES?
Let’s look at South Africa, the country with the highest concentration of alcohol accidents in the world. In South Africa, it’s illegal to drive with a blood alcohol content greater than .05, a little lower than the US’s .08mg/dl. If you’re arrested for drunk driving, you’ll likely be granted bail. However, if you’re convicted a second time, you may be sent to prison for up to six years… In China, the legal limit for alcohol in the blood while driving is .02mg, much lower than both the US and South Africa. They have a zero-tolerance policy for repeat offenders, and may suspend your license for a few months even if you’re a first time offender.
DOES THE UNITED STATES HAVE STRICT-ENOUGH DUI LAWS?
When comparing the United States to other countries, it’s easy to see that many other countries have stricter laws than the US, especially when it comes to longer suspension times and higher fines. Other countries generally make it harder to get back on the road after a DUI… In China, their low tolerance policies seem to be working when it comes to keeping drunk drivers off the roads. The United States could experiment with tighter laws and see what happens. However, our percentages seem to be going down over the years.
Sand, Rick. “Comparing DUI Statistics of the U.S. vs. Other Countries.” Sand Law North Dakota, October 5, 2021. https://www.sandlawnd.com/dui-statistics-of-us-vs-other-countries/.
Guiding Questions
- Based on this article, do laws impact the behavior of drunk drivers?
- According to this article, did legislation alone help change drunk driving?
Connie Koenenn: The Company She Keeps
When Candy Lightner went to work at a consulting firm that represents restaurants that serve alcohol, she considered the job compatible with her past as the crusading founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. But that hasn’t been the media perception. In a sudden wave of publicity this month, Lightner has found herself portrayed in news stories and on talk shows as having joined the enemy. “MADD Founder Switches Sides” was a typical headline, and “lobbyist for the liquor industry” the typical job description when the media discovered Lightner’s new position.
Lightner, who founded MADD in Fair Oaks, Calif., in 1980 when her 13-year-old daughter Cari was killed by a drunk driver, says she has not changed sides. “I am a government relations consultant on public policy issues, and it’s something I have wanted to do for a long time,” she says. Lightner accepted the job in November with Rick Berman, whose Washington, D.C.-based Berman and Co.'s clients include the American Beverage Institute, a 4,000-member trade organization representing restaurants and other establishments that serve alcohol.
She will lobby state legislatures to reject laws that lower the legal standard for driving under the influence to .08% blood-alcohol level because she agrees with the restaurant industry’s position that these are not the dangerous drivers and it is counterproductive to waste law enforcement resources on them. Only a few states, including California, have .08% laws. Most use .10%. “Lowering the level accomplishes nothing. I think we should target the repeat offenders--they are the real danger on our roads,” says Lightner, recalling that the man who killed her daughter had a long record of DUI arrests and had just been bailed out on a hit-and-run drunk-driving charge.
Berman says Lightner will lobby state legislatures for laws that distinguish among light, moderate and heavy drinkers, and adjust the penalties accordingly. “We think that as a person’s blood-alcohol level goes up, the penalties should get stiffer,” Berman says. “The restaurant industry has never done this before.” “This escalated penalty plan is a new approach in our country and I’m very excited about it,” Lightner says. The American Beverage Institute maintains that the .08% standard makes criminals of social drinkers and weakens law enforcement by stretching it over a wider pool of drivers than is necessary.
With this position, Lightner breaks ranks with MADD and other organizations in the anti-drunk driving movement. MADD’s national president, Rebecca Brown of Tampa, Fla., says she doesn’t criticize Lightner, who to the public personifies MADD’s success. The group has grown to 3 million members and is credited with toughening laws against drunk driving in every state and with reducing alcohol-related deaths on America’s highways. “Candy made a great difference in America and we can only be grateful,” Brown says. “The issue here is not Candy Lightner. It’s .08 and we are on different sides of that issue. We have a great deal of research and evidence that even experienced drivers are impaired at that blood-alcohol level.”
California MADD worked on the campaign to lower the state’s blood alcohol level to .08%. Michelle Payne at the Sacramento office says the group has received only a few calls about Lightner and that all comments on policy come from the national office.
MADD is lobbying for .08 because its leaders think this is an achievable goal, Brown says. “However, we believe that no one should drive after drinking, period.” Lightner says she is surprised at the negative reaction to her new post, since much of her progress with MADD was made in conjunction with the restaurant industry and she was praised for the results. “We got them, in some cases, to eliminate happy hours, and two-for-one drinks, and to initiate mandatory server training for bartenders and things like designated drivers and free taxi service,” she says.
After Lightner left MADD in 1985, she wrote a book about grieving, “Giving Sorrow Words,” published in 1990. Last year, she turned her attention to Americans Against Crime, a citizens’ group aimed at stemming violent crime. “We couldn’t raise the money to keep it going,” she says. “It was partly the economy.”
Lightner, who has two grown children, lives in Alexandria, Va. She says she joined Berman’s firm because she wants to continue to make a difference. “I’ve only been doing this for 2 1/2 months and I’m not discouraged. I believe strongly in what I’m doing and I have no problem about the world knowing.” Of her relationship with MADD, she says, the disagreement is with the blood-alcohol level and nothing more. “I oppose .08 and I advocate escalated penalties. I haven’t switched to the ‘other side.’ The ‘other side’ is being a defense attorney for drunk drivers.”
Koenenn, Connie. “The Company She Keeps : Drunk driving: Candy Lightner says she still wants reforms. But now that the MADD founder works for restaurants, some wonder whose side she’s really on.” Los Angeles Times. January 29, 1994. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-01-26-vw-15591-story.html.
Guiding Questions
Lightner, who founded MADD in Fair Oaks, Calif., in 1980 when her 13-year-old daughter Cari was killed by a drunk driver, says she has not changed sides. “I am a government relations consultant on public policy issues, and it’s something I have wanted to do for a long time,” she says. Lightner accepted the job in November with Rick Berman, whose Washington, D.C.-based Berman and Co.'s clients include the American Beverage Institute, a 4,000-member trade organization representing restaurants and other establishments that serve alcohol.
She will lobby state legislatures to reject laws that lower the legal standard for driving under the influence to .08% blood-alcohol level because she agrees with the restaurant industry’s position that these are not the dangerous drivers and it is counterproductive to waste law enforcement resources on them. Only a few states, including California, have .08% laws. Most use .10%. “Lowering the level accomplishes nothing. I think we should target the repeat offenders--they are the real danger on our roads,” says Lightner, recalling that the man who killed her daughter had a long record of DUI arrests and had just been bailed out on a hit-and-run drunk-driving charge.
Berman says Lightner will lobby state legislatures for laws that distinguish among light, moderate and heavy drinkers, and adjust the penalties accordingly. “We think that as a person’s blood-alcohol level goes up, the penalties should get stiffer,” Berman says. “The restaurant industry has never done this before.” “This escalated penalty plan is a new approach in our country and I’m very excited about it,” Lightner says. The American Beverage Institute maintains that the .08% standard makes criminals of social drinkers and weakens law enforcement by stretching it over a wider pool of drivers than is necessary.
With this position, Lightner breaks ranks with MADD and other organizations in the anti-drunk driving movement. MADD’s national president, Rebecca Brown of Tampa, Fla., says she doesn’t criticize Lightner, who to the public personifies MADD’s success. The group has grown to 3 million members and is credited with toughening laws against drunk driving in every state and with reducing alcohol-related deaths on America’s highways. “Candy made a great difference in America and we can only be grateful,” Brown says. “The issue here is not Candy Lightner. It’s .08 and we are on different sides of that issue. We have a great deal of research and evidence that even experienced drivers are impaired at that blood-alcohol level.”
California MADD worked on the campaign to lower the state’s blood alcohol level to .08%. Michelle Payne at the Sacramento office says the group has received only a few calls about Lightner and that all comments on policy come from the national office.
MADD is lobbying for .08 because its leaders think this is an achievable goal, Brown says. “However, we believe that no one should drive after drinking, period.” Lightner says she is surprised at the negative reaction to her new post, since much of her progress with MADD was made in conjunction with the restaurant industry and she was praised for the results. “We got them, in some cases, to eliminate happy hours, and two-for-one drinks, and to initiate mandatory server training for bartenders and things like designated drivers and free taxi service,” she says.
After Lightner left MADD in 1985, she wrote a book about grieving, “Giving Sorrow Words,” published in 1990. Last year, she turned her attention to Americans Against Crime, a citizens’ group aimed at stemming violent crime. “We couldn’t raise the money to keep it going,” she says. “It was partly the economy.”
Lightner, who has two grown children, lives in Alexandria, Va. She says she joined Berman’s firm because she wants to continue to make a difference. “I’ve only been doing this for 2 1/2 months and I’m not discouraged. I believe strongly in what I’m doing and I have no problem about the world knowing.” Of her relationship with MADD, she says, the disagreement is with the blood-alcohol level and nothing more. “I oppose .08 and I advocate escalated penalties. I haven’t switched to the ‘other side.’ The ‘other side’ is being a defense attorney for drunk drivers.”
Koenenn, Connie. “The Company She Keeps : Drunk driving: Candy Lightner says she still wants reforms. But now that the MADD founder works for restaurants, some wonder whose side she’s really on.” Los Angeles Times. January 29, 1994. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-01-26-vw-15591-story.html.
Guiding Questions
- Based on this article, what is the disagreement over 0.08?
- According to this article, do laws alone help change drunk driving?
Remedial Herstory Editors. "25. WOMEN AND LGBTQ+." The Remedial Herstory Project. July 12, 2023. www.remedialherstory.com.
Primary AUTHOR: |
Dr. Alicia Gutierrez-Romine
|
Primary ReviewerS: |
Kelsie Brook Eckert
|
|
Consulting TeamKelsie Brook Eckert, Project Director
Coordinator of Social Studies Education at Plymouth State University Dr. Barbara Tischler, Consultant Professor of History Hunter College and Columbia University Dr. Alicia Gutierrez-Romine, Consultant Assistant Professor of History at La Sierra University Jacqui Nelson, Consultant Teaching Lecturer of Military History at Plymouth State University Dr. Deanna Beachley Professor of History and Women's Studies at College of Southern Nevada |
EditorsAlice Stanley
ReviewersColonial
Dr. Margaret Huettl Hannah Dutton Dr. John Krueckeberg 19th Century Dr. Rebecca Noel Michelle Stonis, MA Annabelle L. Blevins Pifer, MA Cony Marquez, PhD Candidate 20th Century Dr. Tanya Roth Dr. Jessica Frazier Mary Bezbatchenko, MA Dr. Alicia Gutierrez-Romine Matthew Cerjak |
Baby, You Are My Religion argues that American butch-femme bar culture of the mid-20th Century should be interpreted as a sacred space for its community. Before Stonewall―when homosexuals were still deemed mentally ill―these bars were the only place where many could have any community at all. Baby, You are My Religion explores this community as a site of a lived corporeal theology and political space. It reveals that religious institutions such as the Metropolitan Community Church were founded in such bars, that traditional and non-traditional religious activities took place there, and that religious ceremonies such as marriage were often conducted within the bars by staff. Baby, You are My Religion examines how these bars became not only ecclesiastical sites but also provided the fertile ground for the birth of the struggle for gay and lesbian civil rights before Stonewall.
"No matter how wise a mother's advice is, we listen to our peers." At least that's writer Naomi Wolf's take on the differences between her generation of feminists―the third wave―and the feminists who came before her and developed in the late '60s and '70s―the second wave. In Not My Mother's Sister, Astrid Henry agrees with Wolf that this has been the case with American feminism, but says there are problems inherent in drawing generational lines.
Second Wave feminism collapsed in the early 1980s when a universal definition of women was abandoned. At the same time, as a reaction to the narcissism of white middle class feminism, "intersectionality" led to many different feminisms according to race, sexual preference and class. These ongoing segregations make it impossible for women to unite politically and they have not ended exclusion and discrimination among women, especially in the academy. In Inclusive Feminism, Naomi Zack provides a universal, relational definition of women, critically engages both Anglo and French feminists and shows how women can become a united historical force, with the political goal of ruling in place of men.
|
The sexual politics of television culture is the territory covered by this ground-breaking book - the first to demonstrate the ways in which third wave feminist television studies approaches and illuminates mainstream TV. The book offers an exuberant and accessible discussion of what television has to offer today's feminist fan. It also sets a new tone for future debate, turning away from a sober, near-pessimistic trend in much feminist media studies to reconnect with the roots of third wave feminism in riot grrrl culture, sex-radical feminism, and black feminism, tracing too the narratives provided by queer theory in which pleasure has a less contested place.
Why should feminists care about Christianity? Why should Christians care about feminism? In Feminism and Christianity Riswold presents a collection of concise answers to basic questions like these in order to generate discussion about how the two can challenge each other and can even work together in the twenty-first century. Situated firmly in the third wave of feminist activism and scholarship as well as in contemporary Christian theology, Riswold addresses issues such as race, class, gender, and sexuality with an affirmation of tradition alongside a push for change.
|
New Blood offers a fresh interdisciplinary look at feminism-in-flux. For over three decades, menstrual activists have questioned the safety and necessity of feminine care products while contesting menstruation as a deeply entrenched taboo. Chris Bobel shows how a little-known yet enduring force in the feminist health, environmental, and consumer rights movements lays bare tensions between second- and third-wave feminisms and reveals a complicated story of continuity and change within the women's movement.
This revised and expanded edition, new in paperback, provides a definitive collection on the current period in feminism known by many as the 'third wave'. Three sections - genealogies and generations, locales and locations, politics and popular culture - interrogate the wave metaphor and, through questioning the generational account of feminism, indicate possible future trajectories for the feminist movement.
|
Feminisms in Leisure Studies acknowledges and advances the contribution of feminist theories to leisure knowledge and research. Building upon the strong history of feminist leisure scholarship, the book reviews key feminist theories and offers an overview of a fourth wave of feminism and its relevance to leisure.
Kira Cochrane’s 'All the Rebel Women' is an irrepressible exploration of today’s feminist landscape, asking how far we have come over the past century – and how far there still is to go. Whether engaging with leading feminists, describing the fight against rape culture or bringing immediate, powerful life to vital theories such as intersectionality, 'All the Rebel Women' binds everything together into one unstoppable idea. This is modern feminism. This is the fourth wave.
|
This book addresses the current resurgence of interest in feminism–notably within popular culture and media–that has led some to announce the arrival of the fourth wave. Research explores where fourth-wave feminism sits in relation to those that preceded it, and in particular, how fourth-wave feminism intersects with differing understandings of postfeminism(s).
Hip Hop Womanist writer and theologian EbonyJanice’s book of essays center a fourth wave of Womanism, dreaming, the pursuit of softness, ancestral reverence, and radical wholeness as tools of liberation. All The Black Girls Are Activists is a love letter to Black girls and Black women, asking and attempting to offer some answers to “Who would black women get to be if we did not have to create from a place of resistance?” by naming Black women’s wellness, wholeness, and survival as the radical revolution we have been waiting for.
|
This book discusses the recent re-emergence of interest in feminism in popular culture and social media which has prompted many to celebrate the events as a new wave of feminism, the fourth wave. The book takes up the debate of postfeminism and /or fourth wave and studies how the new wave intersects with the previous feminist goals. It closely studies the hashtag campaigns to trace how a generation of women are drawn into (sl)activism (slacktivism) thereby surging the resurgence.
Networked Feminism tells the story of how activists have used media to reconfigure what feminist politics and organizing look like in the United States. Drawing on years spent participating in grassroots communities and observing viral campaigns, Rosemary Clark-Parsons argues that feminists engage in a do-it-ourselves feminism characterized by the use of everyday media technologies. Faced with an electoral system and a history of collective organizing that have failed to address complex systems of oppression, do-it-ourselves feminists do not rely on political organizations, institutions, or authorities. Instead, they use digital networks to build movements that reflect their values and meet the challenges of the current moment, all the while juggling the advantages and limitations of their media tools.
|
How to teach with Films:
Remember, teachers want the student to be the historian. What do historians do when they watch films?
- Before they watch, ask students to research the director and producers. These are the source of the information. How will their background and experience likely bias this film?
- Also, ask students to consider the context the film was created in. The film may be about history, but it was made recently. What was going on the year the film was made that could bias the film? In particular, how do you think the gains of feminism will impact the portrayal of the female characters?
- As they watch, ask students to research the historical accuracy of the film. What do online sources say about what the film gets right or wrong?
- Afterward, ask students to describe how the female characters were portrayed and what lessons they got from the film.
- Then, ask students to evaluate this film as a learning tool. Was it helpful to better understand this topic? Did the historical inaccuracies make it unhelpful? Make it clear any informed opinion is valid.
|
Girl.
A promising teenage dancer enrolls at a prestigious ballet school while grappling with her gender dysphoria.
IMDB. |
|
The Incredible True Adventure Of Two Girls In Love.
|
An adventurous love story between two young women of different social and economic backgrounds who find themselves going through all the typical struggles of a new romance.
IMDB. |
|
Happy Birthday, Marsha!
|
The story of extraordinary transgender rights activists, pioneers, and friends, Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, in the hours before the Stonewall riots.
IMDB. |
|
Bibliography
Ashley, Colin P. “Gay Liberation: How a Once Radical Movement Got Married and Settled Down.” New Labor Forum 24, no. 3 (2015): 28–32. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24718619.
Cartier, M. (2013). Baby, You are My Religion: Women, Gay Bars, and Theology Before Stonewall (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315729039.
Colangelo, Gabrielle. “We Are Everywhere: Lesbians in the Archive.” Yale University Library. 2022. https://onlineexhibits.library.yale.edu/s/we-are-everywhere/page/women-and-the-aids-crisis.
Cook, Blanche Wiesen. “Reviewed Work: The Life of Lorena Hickok: ER's Friend by Doris Faber.” Feminist Studies 6, no. 3 (1980): 511–16. https://doi.org/10.2307/3177477.
Cray, Andrew and Sunny Frothingham. “DOMA’s Impact on LGBT Older Americans.” Center for American Progress. July 1, 2013. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/domas-impact-on-lgbt-older-americans/.
Ennis, Dawn. “Trans All American Cece Telfer Featured in Women’s Sports Equality Campaign.” Forbes Magazine. September 14, 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2021/09/14/trans-all-american-cec-telfer-featured-in-womens-sports-equality-campaign/?sh=4acba0e84c3c.
Garza, Alejandro. “'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Was a Complicated Turning Point for Gay Rights. 25 Years Later, Many of the Same Issues Remain.” Time Magazine. July 19, 2018. https://time.com/5339634/dont-ask-dont-tell-25-year-anniversary/.
GRAHAM, HUGH DAVIS. “THE PARADOX OF ELEANOR ROOSEVELT: ALCOHOLISM’S CHILD.” The Virginia Quarterly Review 63, no. 2 (1987): 210–30. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26436747.
HRC Staff. “Four Cases That Paved The Way for Marriage Equality and a Reminder of the Work Ahead.” Human Rights Campaign. June 26, 2017. https://www.hrc.org/news/four-cases-that-paved-the-way-for-marriage-equality-and-a-reminder-of-the-w.
Mar, Ria Tobacco. “Trans Rights are Women’s Rights.” American Civil Liberties Union. March 17, 2023. https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/trans-rights-are-womens-rights.
NYC LGBT Historic Sites Project. “Lavender Menace Action at Second Congress to Unite Women.” N.D. https://www.nyclgbtsites.org/site/lavender-menace-action-at-second-congress-to-unite-women/.
Perry, Ana. “Sylvia Rivera: Activist and Trailblazer.” National Portrait Gallery. N.D. https://npg.si.edu/blog/welcome-collection-sylvia-rivera.
Ramirez, Christina Dugan. “Ellen DeGeneres' Iconic 'Coming-Out' Episode Aired 25 Years Ago Today: Why It Was So Groundbreaking.” People Magazine. April 30, 2022. https://people.com/tv/ellen-degeneres-iconic-coming-out-episode-25-year-anniversary/.
Rojek, Isabelle (2021) "The Past, Present, and Future Feminism: LGBTQ+ Representation Matters," The
Mall: Vol. 5 , Article 13. https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/the-mall/vol5/iss1/13.
Rothberg, Emma. “Sylvia Rivera.” National Women’s History Museum. 2021. www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/Sylvia-Rivera.
Rothberg, Emma. “Marsha P. Johnson.” National Women’s History Museum. 2022. www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/marsha-p-johnson.
Schares, Evan Mitchell. U.S. homonationalist battle portraiture and queer armed archival artifacts. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication. 2021. 14:4, pages 335-350.
Strangio, Chase and Gabriel Arkles. “Four Myths About Trans Athletes Debunked.” ACLU. April 30, 2020. https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked.
Sprayregen, Molly. “Transgender Runner Cece Telfer Deemed Ineligible for US Olympic Trials.” Them June 25, 2021. https://www.them.us/story/transgender-runner-cece-telfer-deemed-ineligible-us-olympic-trials.
“Terry McGovern, JD. Profile: Overview.” Public Health. Columbia. https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/profile/terry-mcgovern-jd.
Cartier, M. (2013). Baby, You are My Religion: Women, Gay Bars, and Theology Before Stonewall (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315729039.
Colangelo, Gabrielle. “We Are Everywhere: Lesbians in the Archive.” Yale University Library. 2022. https://onlineexhibits.library.yale.edu/s/we-are-everywhere/page/women-and-the-aids-crisis.
Cook, Blanche Wiesen. “Reviewed Work: The Life of Lorena Hickok: ER's Friend by Doris Faber.” Feminist Studies 6, no. 3 (1980): 511–16. https://doi.org/10.2307/3177477.
Cray, Andrew and Sunny Frothingham. “DOMA’s Impact on LGBT Older Americans.” Center for American Progress. July 1, 2013. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/domas-impact-on-lgbt-older-americans/.
Ennis, Dawn. “Trans All American Cece Telfer Featured in Women’s Sports Equality Campaign.” Forbes Magazine. September 14, 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2021/09/14/trans-all-american-cec-telfer-featured-in-womens-sports-equality-campaign/?sh=4acba0e84c3c.
Garza, Alejandro. “'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Was a Complicated Turning Point for Gay Rights. 25 Years Later, Many of the Same Issues Remain.” Time Magazine. July 19, 2018. https://time.com/5339634/dont-ask-dont-tell-25-year-anniversary/.
GRAHAM, HUGH DAVIS. “THE PARADOX OF ELEANOR ROOSEVELT: ALCOHOLISM’S CHILD.” The Virginia Quarterly Review 63, no. 2 (1987): 210–30. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26436747.
HRC Staff. “Four Cases That Paved The Way for Marriage Equality and a Reminder of the Work Ahead.” Human Rights Campaign. June 26, 2017. https://www.hrc.org/news/four-cases-that-paved-the-way-for-marriage-equality-and-a-reminder-of-the-w.
Mar, Ria Tobacco. “Trans Rights are Women’s Rights.” American Civil Liberties Union. March 17, 2023. https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/trans-rights-are-womens-rights.
NYC LGBT Historic Sites Project. “Lavender Menace Action at Second Congress to Unite Women.” N.D. https://www.nyclgbtsites.org/site/lavender-menace-action-at-second-congress-to-unite-women/.
Perry, Ana. “Sylvia Rivera: Activist and Trailblazer.” National Portrait Gallery. N.D. https://npg.si.edu/blog/welcome-collection-sylvia-rivera.
Ramirez, Christina Dugan. “Ellen DeGeneres' Iconic 'Coming-Out' Episode Aired 25 Years Ago Today: Why It Was So Groundbreaking.” People Magazine. April 30, 2022. https://people.com/tv/ellen-degeneres-iconic-coming-out-episode-25-year-anniversary/.
Rojek, Isabelle (2021) "The Past, Present, and Future Feminism: LGBTQ+ Representation Matters," The
Mall: Vol. 5 , Article 13. https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/the-mall/vol5/iss1/13.
Rothberg, Emma. “Sylvia Rivera.” National Women’s History Museum. 2021. www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/Sylvia-Rivera.
Rothberg, Emma. “Marsha P. Johnson.” National Women’s History Museum. 2022. www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/marsha-p-johnson.
Schares, Evan Mitchell. U.S. homonationalist battle portraiture and queer armed archival artifacts. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication. 2021. 14:4, pages 335-350.
Strangio, Chase and Gabriel Arkles. “Four Myths About Trans Athletes Debunked.” ACLU. April 30, 2020. https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked.
Sprayregen, Molly. “Transgender Runner Cece Telfer Deemed Ineligible for US Olympic Trials.” Them June 25, 2021. https://www.them.us/story/transgender-runner-cece-telfer-deemed-ineligible-us-olympic-trials.
“Terry McGovern, JD. Profile: Overview.” Public Health. Columbia. https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/profile/terry-mcgovern-jd.