Skip to main content

What formal and informal structures fueled the Gay Rights movement?

The catalyst to the organized gay rights movement in the United States — what instigated work toward gay rights being a movement — was the Stonewall riot in New York City on July 28, 1969. Officers raided the illegal Stonewall Inn, a gay bar, leading to several days of confrontations between the police and gay people. Pro-gay demonstrations culminated in the first gay pride parade. After that, gay people began to realize they could fight back against the legal, social, and psychological stigmas that kept them in the closet. 


As of 1969, homosexuality in the United States was classified as a mental illness — a form of deviance — and sodomy was illegal. Because of this, gay people were largely forced into underground lives. After 1969, as the movement took off in the heady period of political activism and social change in the late sixties and early seventies, the Gay Activists Alliance and the Gay Liberation Front groups formed. Awareness of gay issues led the American Psychiatric Association in 1974 to reclassify homosexuality as an ego" disturbance" rather than a form of mental illness. 


In the 1980s, the spread of AIDS fueled a new chapter in the gay rights movement, as gay people both formally and informally fought back against the idea that AIDS was a "gay" disease. ACT UP was started in 1987 to campaign for gay rights. In recent years groups like EQUALITY NOW have advocated for gay marriage rights, which has the formal focus of gay activism since the Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws in the 1990s. 


It is easier to document formal than informal structures that fueled the gay rights movement, but a growing awareness that gay people exist and a growing tolerance for divorce, cohabitation, and other non-traditional social formations after the 1960s helped build social tolerance for and sympathy toward the gay rights movement as a whole. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more