Homosexuality In The 1960's

The reactions of American society have varied towards Homosexuality, as evidenced from the Victorian Era, the 1960s, and the 1990s. In the Victorian era, lacking a name for the term, same sex relationships were not opposed as long as it did not interfere with the heterosexual marriage. In the 1960s, homosexuality was perceived by some of the radical feminists as a political move, and embraced by them, while the moderate feminists opposed it, arguing that they it was a threat. In addition, in the 1992 election, the Democrats and the Republicans became divided over it, with the Republicans attacking homosexuality and the Democrats initially defending them, only to cause gay rights lose more ground with the DOMA (Friend, 470). As Homosexuality

In terms of historical context, this takes place during the 1960s, approaching the 1970s, which is during the time of the Women’s rights movement, where women had risen to protest the abuse of other women by men beginning 1963. During this time, gay and lesbian organizations were forming, such as the Mattachine organization in 1951, ONE Inc in 1952, the Daughters of Bilitis in 1955, and a national organization, ECHO, that formed in New York in 1963, ready to protest for their rights (Eaklor, 96-97, 101-102). This is another instance where Homosexuality was sought after by a group, in this case being some of the radical feminists, who preferred to be with women rather than men. For example, one radical feminist, Anne Koedt, in 1969 states that women didn’t need men for pleasure, as they had women, and advocated turning their attention and preference to women rather than men (Stansell 260). Essentially, according to Koedt, going with men was the better option, and it was also expressed as a political choice rather than as a sexual identity, hoping that it would erode patriarchal constructs through this and signifying that they did not need men for pleasure (Stansell 260-261). The radical feminists, therefore, embraced the lifestyle as a political choice, however they also alienated the older feminists by criticizing them for not being true

In addition, this was also the time of the 1992 election, where the Clintons, well known feminists, were going up against Bush and the Republicans, to win the election (Friend, 153). In this case, during the Republican National Convention and the 1992 election, Patrick Buchanan went on the attack, calling Clinton and Gore pro-gay, and that they, if they won, would impose a series of new act, such as abortion on demand, religious discrimination, and even gay rights, while arguing that he did not consider that to be acceptable, while also portraying Clinton’s efforts as a culture war (Friend, 164). Essentially, based on the way that Buchanan portrayed civil rights, he seemed as if he was describing it as a threat to the nation, the way that homosexuals had been described during the time of the Lavender Scare (Friend, 164-165). This is partly due to the recent changes that affected how Gay rights groups are seen in American society, mainly producing a backlash against it. For instance, one such change, in the late 1970s, was that, Miami, Florida found itself as a battle ground between two organizations, Save our Children, a conservative organization that was determined to overturn the gay rights movement, and oppose any bill designed to grant them more rights under the law, and the DCCHR, a civil rights organization defending homosexuality (Frank,