- Used Books
- Staff Picks
- Gifts & Gift Cards
- Sell Books
- Stores & Events
- Let's Talk Books
Special Offers see all
More at Powell's
Recently Viewed clear list
Sale Trade Paper
Ships in 1 to 3 days
More copies of this ISBN
Smash the Church, Smash the State!: The Early Years of Gay Liberationby Tomm Avicolli Mecca
Smash the Church, Smash the State!
edited by Tommi Avicolli Mecca
by Tommi Avicolli Mecca, Editor
“We are a revolutionary group of men and women formed with the realization that complete sexual liberation for all people can not come about unless existing social institutions are abolished. We reject society’s attempt to impose sexual roles and definitions of our nature.”
— New York Gay Liberation Front Statement of Purpose
It seemed like a sudden transformation, but it wasn’t: Queers had gone from a small movement of properly dressed “homophiles” (men in suits, women in dresses) marching around Independence Hall in Philadelphia every July 4 to a rowdy bunch of militant drag queens, long-haired hippie men in jeans and T-shirts, and lesbian/feminist women who refused to bake the bread and make the coffee, either in the gay liberation or in the women’s movement.
It had been brewing for decades, at least since 1949, when Communist Party labor organizer Harry Hay brought together a rap group for gay men that became the Mattachine Society. A lesbian organization, Daughters of Bilitis, followed a few years later. With McCarthyism and sexual repression the norm, the ’50s were not an easy time to gain support for anything unorthodox.
Relief was on the way. The ’60s ushered in an era of sexual freedom previously unimaginable in America. Young people rejected the conservative values of previous generations and asserted their right to their bodies and their sexuality. Queer radicals took a bit longer to demand their place in the revolution. In the meantime, they did what many other young people were doing: They listened to rock music, grew their hair, hung out in jeans and T-shirts, moved to farms, lived in communes, made lots of love and turned on and dropped out.
They also risked their lives down South with the Freedom Rides, marching alongside Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the thousands of others who demanded an end to segregation. Some, like Simeon White of Kinston, North Carolina, mobilized against racism in their own hometowns. Many of them were in the crowd in Washington, D.C., when King made his historic “I have a dream” speech. In fact, a gay African American man, Bayard Rustin, helped organize that march.
They hitchhiked from all over big- and little-town America to play protest songs or read stream-of-consciousness poetry in Greenwich Village or North Beach cafés. They spoke out at Berkeley for free speech with Mario Savio and others who ushered in a new era for America’s college students. They were teargassed while defending People’s Park or marching on campuses against the unjust war in Vietnam.
They organized and fed poor people as part of the Black Panthers. They were members of the Young Lords (a Puerto Rican group) in Philadelphia or Chicago. They were part of the United Farm Workers movement in California. They joined the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) to stop the war in Vietnam and prepare for the revolution that would change America. They came to San Francisco wearing flowers in their hair for the Summer of Love.
At least one of them, beat poet Allen Ginsberg, declared that he was “putting his queer shoulder to the wheel.” While he was a hero to many, few were willing to follow his lead and break free of the closet.
The signs of a more militant queer spirit were always there among the most vulnerable queers, the street queens who couldn’t pass as anything other than what they were. Tapping into the anger of the times, they rose up and fought back at Cooper’s Donuts in Los Angeles in 1959, Dewey’s Deli in Philadelphia in 1965, and Compton’s Diner in San Francisco in 1966.
The fourth rebellion was the charmer: In June 1969, a routine police raid on a West Village gay bar called the Stonewall Inn sparked several days of unrest that gave birth to the modern queer movement. It was this incident that overnight would send thousands of counter cultural types, many from the civil rights, feminist and anti-war movements, racing out of their closets. It prompted Ginsberg to remark that queers had finally lost “that wounded look.”
The first manifestation of post-Stonewall activism was the Gay Liberation Front (GLF). Unlike the homophile organizations of the ’50s and ’60s, the new group wasn’t afraid to speak its name or its politics proudly. The name “Gay Liberation Front” was derived from the National Liberation Front, the Vietnamese group that fought the U.S. occupation of its country. The new movement saw itself in solidarity with all other struggles for social justice.
As Len Richmond and Gary Noguera, editors of The Gay Liberation Book, a pioneering anthology published by Ramparts Press in San Francisco in 1973, wrote: “Gay liberation is a radical movement that advocates a radical change in society — its social structures, power structures, its racism and sexual dogmas. We have a commitment not just to homosexual liberation but to total human liberation.”
Activists with fabulous chosen names such as Blackberri, Hibiscus and Sweet Basil Razzle Dazzle marched, organized and generally made trouble. They wore outrageous outfits and paraded the street in what was then called “genderfuck,” a form of dress that turned upside down society’s notion of gender. A bearded man in long hair, an evening gown, makeup and army boots was a sight to be seen on the streets anywhere in America in 1969 or 1970. David Bowie and the New York Dolls, among others, stole their gimmicky looks (and made tons of money) from the “genderfuck” of those early gay liberationists.
At antiwar protests, gay men used campy new tactics to fend off cops and defuse tensions. As Kiyoshi Kuromiya relates in City of Sisterly and Brotherly Love (Marc Stein, Univ. of Chicago Press, 2000), “We’d go up to a line of cops with tear gas grenades and horses and clubs. And link arms and do a can-can. Really threw them off guard.”
Beyond the outrageousness, gay liberation was about defining a new form of community and politics for queers, one based on tearing down all boundaries. Gay liberationists chanted as they marched in the streets: “Two, four, six, eight, smash the church, smash the state.” Gay men chanted “Ho-ho-homosexual, the ruling class is ineffectual,” while lesbians were yelling, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, male supremacy’s got to go.”
Those early trailblazers were not looking for marriage and corporate jobs or acceptance into the military or the church. They were into communal living and multipartnered sexual arrangements outside of the jurisdiction of the state and the family. They flaunted their difference. They made no apologies. Like their hippie, yippie and countercultural counterparts, they believed in sex, drugs and rock ’n roll. Not to mention truth, justice and a redistribution of wealth.
It wasn’t just about meetings and demonstrations. Music, art, poetry and performance marked the new gay consciousness. For the first time ever, out queer artists packed coffeehouses and conference halls with appreciative fans.
It wasn’t all a bed of roses. Sexism, transphobia and racism within the nascent movement led to split-offs by women, transgenders and people of color. Women, who suffered a dual oppression, preferred struggling with the homophobia of their straight sisters to dealing with the sexism of their gay brothers. Transgenders felt unwelcome at many gay organizations and were eventually left out of proposed gay rights legislation. Issues raised by people of color were ignored or deemed unimportant. The movement often acted as if it were a private party for white boys.
The result was a multitude of split-off groups that included Radicalesbians, Third World Gay Revolution, STAR (Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries), Radicalqueens, and Les-bian Feminist Liberation. Eventually, the more reformist-oriented Gay Activists Alliance would take over the reins from the semi-anarchistic post-Stonewall, consensus-run organizations.
Despite its shortcomings, gay liberation succeeded in making coming out a queer rite of passage. It was a political strategy that affirmed the feminist adage that the personal is political. It was also a revolutionary act at a time when polite company didn’t discuss sex, let along someone’s sexual orientation.
My own coming out had all the drama of an Italian opera. How appropriate, considering I come from a working-class, immigrant, southern Italian family in South Philly. Despite a conservative Catholic upbringing, I became radicalized by the time I was 16 or 17, sneaking off to civil rights and antiwar marches.
In the fall of 1969, I started college at Temple University, mainly to avoid the draft. Within no time at all I joined the campus SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), an antiwar group. Then I discovered that the Gay Liberation Front held weekly coffee hours. It was a perfect fit. Filled with revolutionary fervor, I made the queer movement my life. Within weeks, I was secretary, then chair of the group. (Though nonhierarchal, we had to have officers to fulfill the requirements of being a student group.)
One of our key campaigns was pressuring the university to stop funding aversion therapy at a nearby psychiatric institute. A popular form of behavior modification, it involved attaching electrodes to the genitals of gay men, showing them slides of naked men and then shocking them with electricity, so that they would “lose” the impulse to be aroused by men. It didn’t work, but that didn’t stop the mad doctors. Our campaign eventually got the attention of a local late-night talk show. As chair, I was invited to debate an aversion therapist on the program. Of course, I agreed.
I told my mother the day before. I didn’t tell anyone else. My father freaked when my uncle, a cop, called to say that I had been on TV, wearing blue eye shadow no less! It was not the way to come out to la famiglia. My godfather never spoke to me again. My father eventually threw me out of the house. I was lucky: My siblings and my mother became strong supporters. (My father and I made a teary-eyed peace 15 years later, just months before he died of a massive stroke.) Puccini would have had a field day.
The university eventually stopped funding aversion therapy.
At Temple GLF, we continued pushing the envelope as much as we could, running a drag queen for homecoming queen to protest the objectification of women inherent in such competitions. To mess with the minds of the campus ROTC (Reserve Officers Training Corps) recruiters, I approached their table at a student fair in genderfuck one day and asked to sign up. When they refused, several others who’d planted themselves in the room raced to my aid, yelling and causing a very public scene. Terrified, the recruiters packed up and left.
By far the most controversial thing we did was set up a “Kiss a Queer” booth on Valentine’s Day 1973 outside the student bookstore. We were ahead of our time in using the word “queer.” The booth drew few kisses, but such hostile reactions from students that the Temple News dubbed it the “Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre.” Not only were we taunted and called names, but we also had coins and rolled-up paper tossed at us. To add to the mayhem, mainstream media from near and far showed up after a group of straight jocks put up a “Kiss a Straight” table across from ours and called the press.
Conservative legislators in Harrisburg, the state capital, weren’t too pleased and threatened to cut off funding to the university. I was called into the Office of Student Affairs and read the riot act. Fortunately, the school couldn’t really do anything. We were a sanctioned student group. We had filled out the proper paperwork. At one point the administrator said to me, “You’re not helping your cause any by doing things like this.”
“What cause is that?” I asked.
“To be accepted as normal.”
But we weren’t trying to be “normal”!
Forty years later, I find that “being normal” is more popular than ever. The predominant cry within the LGBT community these days is no longer “smash the church, smash the state.” It’s inclusion (and ordination) in the churches, synagogues and other religious institutions that still oppress us. It’s “marriage equality” for queer couples so that they can have the many benefits the state awards to heterosexual pairings. It’s ending “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” to allow LGBT soldiers to be out of the closet while killing for oil in the Middle East. It’s home ownership, adoption and a lavender picket fence in gentrified neighborhoods where working-class folks used to live.
In many ways, the new millennium gay movement is the antithesis of the early ’70s gay liberation. It cavorts with politicians who may be good on gay issues, but not on concerns affecting other disenfranchised communities. It is in bed with the Democratic Party establishment that gave carte blanche to George Bush to wage two illegal and immoral wars in the Middle East. It courts corporate support for its gala events, even its pride parades, which used to be protest marches and celebrations of the Stonewall Riots. Now those marches seem more of a market than a movement.
The queer movement still hasn’t entirely gotten its act together about sexism, racism or the exclusion of transgenders. The recent controversy over the nixing of transgenders from coverage in the Congressional Employment Non-Discrimination Act by the Human Rights Campaign demonstrates once again that the struggle goes on as much within the community as outside of it. Racist carding policies still exist in some gay bars, as evidenced by a report from the San Francisco Human Rights Commission in 2005 alleging that a bar in the Castro discriminated against African American men.
As we mark the 40th anniversary (June 2009) of the Stonewall Riots that sparked gay liberation, let us remember the radical roots of our modern LGBT movement. Thanks to the efforts of radical queers, ’70s activists passed gay rights bills, got positive images on TV and in the movies, forced the shrinks to drop homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder, halted police raids on gay bars and abolished some state sodomy laws, not to mention making “the love that dare not speak its name” a household word.
We still have a long way to go, but there’s no denying the impact a generation of activists had when they took their lead from a crowd of rowdy patrons of a West Village bar and demanded an end to this country’s homophobic business as usual.
Those brave souls, many of whom are contributors to this book, could never have realized what they were creating when they began meeting in church basements, on college campuses, and out in the streets. Though many have died of AIDS, this collection is a tribute to all of the early activists who blazed trails in those years just after Stonewall.
I still cling to many of the same ideals I had back then. Not only in terms of wanting an end to war and social injustice, but also in believing that the queer movement needs to concern itself with more than strictly gay rights or hate crimes legislation.
According to a study by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Council and the National Coalition for the Homeless, 20 to 40 percent of homeless youth in this country identify as LGBT. In San Francisco, the “gay Mecca,” it’s 30 to 35 percent. In a city where queers are easily elected to office and the mayor defies state law to marry queer couples, 75 percent of transgenders don’t have full-time employment. In that same city, touted in the late ’80s as a model of caring for people with AIDS, 14 percent of people with the disease are homeless.
As long as queer people are homeless, hungry and without jobs or medical coverage, as long as LGBT workers don’t receive a living wage, as long as the wealth of this country is in the hands of a few, as long as the means of production are owned by that very same monied class, we queers will never truly have achieved what gay liberation set out to do four decades ago.
This book represents a snapshot of that moment in time when queers weren’t obsessed with tying the knot or picking up a rifle to go off and fight “terrorists.” Revolution was in the air. We truly believed that a united front with all oppressed peoples would help us create a better world, one built on inclusion and an equal distribution of wealth and resources.
Relive that dream within the pages of this book.
Tommi Avicolli Mecca
San Francisco, April 2009
Out of the Bars and Into the Streets
by Susan Stryker
Editor’s Note: Even though this is a book about the gay liberation movement that grew out of the Stonewall Riots, generally considered the beginning of the militant phase of the gay movement, I thought it important to include an excerpt from Susan Stryker’s Transgender History (Seal Press, 2008) on three acts of queer rebellion that pre-date June 1969. They were important steps towards our mass coming out in the ’70s.
In a 2005 interview, John Rechy, author of City of Night and other classic mid-twentieth-century novels set in the gritty urban underworlds where sexual outlaws and gender nonconformists carved out spaces they could call their own, spoke of a previously undocumented incident in May of 1959, when transgender and gay resentment of police oppression erupted into collective resistance.
According to Rechy, it happened at Cooper’s Donuts, a coffeehouse that stayed open all night on a rough stretch of Main Street in Los Angeles, which happened to be situated between two popular gay bars. An ethnically mixed crowd of drag queens and male hustlers, many of them Latino or African American, frequented Cooper’s, along with the people who enjoyed their company or purchased their sexual services. Police cars regularly patrolled the vicinity and often stopped to question people in the area for no reason at all. They would demand identification — which, for transgender people whose appearance might not match the name or gender designation on their ID, often led to arrest on suspicion of prostitution, vagrancy, loitering or many other so-called “nuisance crimes.”
On that night in May 1959, when the police came in and arbitrarily started rounding up the drag queen patrons of Cooper’s Donuts, the rest of the customers decided to resist en masse. The incident started with customers throwing donuts at the cops, and ended with fighting in the streets, as squad cars and paddy wagons converged on the scene to make arrests. In the ensuing chaos, many people who had been arrested, including Rechy, escaped into the night.
The disturbance at Cooper’s seems to have been a spontaneous outburst of frustration, with no lasting consequences, and it was no doubt typical of other unrecorded and previously unremembered acts of spur-of-the-moment resistance to anti-transgender and anti-gay oppression.
A similar, though nonviolent, incident took place in Philadelphia in 1965 at Dewey’s, a lunch counter and late-night coffeehouse much like Cooper’s, which had been popular since the 1940s with gays, lesbians, drag queens, and street prostitutes, as a place to go after the bars had closed. In April of 1965, Dewey’s started refusing to serve young customers who wore what one gay newspaper of the day euphemistically described as “nonconformist clothing,” claiming that “gay kids” were driving away other business.
Customers rallied together to protest, and on April 25, more than 150 patrons were turned away by the management. Three teenagers (two male and one female) refused to leave after being
Over the next week, Dewey’s patrons and members of Philadelphia’s homosexual community set up an informational picket line at the restaurant, where they passed out thousands of pieces of literature protesting the lunch counter’s treatment of gender-variant young people. On May 2, activists staged another sit-in. The police were again called in, but this time made no arrests; the restaurant’s management backed down and promised “an immediate cessation of all indiscriminate denials of service.”
The Dewey’s incident, like the one at Cooper’s, demonstrates the overlap between gay and transgender activism in the working-class districts of major U.S. cities, in spite of tensions and prejudices within both groups. The Janus Society, Philadephia’s main gay and lesbian organization at the time, issued the following statement in its newsletter following the events of May 2, 1965:
All too often, there is a tendency to be concerned with the rights of homosexuals as long as they somehow appear to be heterosexual, whatever that is. The masculine woman and the feminine man often are looked down upon . . . but the Janus Society is concerned with the worth of an individual and the manner in which she or he comports himself. What is offensive today we have seen become the style of tomorrow, and even if what is offensive today remains offensive tomorrow to some persons, there is no reason to penalize non-conformist behavior unless there is direct anti-social behavior connected with it.
The Dewey’s incident further illustrates the extent to which the tactics of minority rights activism cross-fertilized different movements. Lunch counter sit-ins had been developed as a form of protest to oppose racial segregation in the South but proved equally effective when used to promote the interests of sexual and gender minorities.
It would be a mistake, however, to think that the African American civil rights struggle simply “influenced” early gay and transgender activism at Dewey’s, for to do so would be to assume that all the gay and transgender people involved were white. Many of the queer people who patronized Dewey’s were themselves people of color, and they were not “borrowing” a tactic developed by another movement.
By the middle of the 1960s, life in the United States was being transformed by several large-scale social movements. The postWorld War II baby boom generation was coming into young adulthood at the very moment the U.S. war in Vietnam was beginning to escalate. A youth-oriented cultural rebellion began to unfold, where countercultural styles in music and fashion — rock music, psychedelic drugs, mod clothing, free love — offered significant challenges to an older generation’s notion of acceptable gender and sexual expression. Long hair on men and button-fly blue jeans on women actually made political statements about the war, the military draft and the general drift of mainstream society.
The African American civil rights movement was reaching a crescendo, buoyed by passage in 1964 of the Voting Rights Act and other milestone legislation, as well as by the birth of a radical new Black Power movement. Similar ethnic pride and liberation movements were beginning to vitalize Chicano and Native American people.
To a certain extent, the simultaneous white gay liberation and radical feminist movements modeled themselves on these ethnic movements, conceptualizing homosexual people and women as oppressed social minority groups. National political life, which had been thrown into turmoil following the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, reached a tragic low point with the 1968 assassinations of his brother, Robert F. Kennedy, and the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.
The 1966 Compton’s Cafeteria Riot in San Francisco’s Tenderloin neighborhood was similar to earlier incidents at Cooper’s and Dewey’s. For the first time, however, direct action in the streets by transgender people resulted in lasting institutional change.
One weekend night in August — the precise date is unknown — Compton’s, a 24-hour cafeteria, was buzzing with its usual late-night crowd of drag queens, hustlers, slummers, cruisers, runaway teens and down-and-out neighborhood regulars. The restaurant’s management became annoyed by a noisy young crowd of queens at one table who seemed to be spending a lot of time without spending a lot of money, and they called in the police to roust them — as they had been doing with increasing frequency throughout the summer.
A surly police officer, accustomed to manhandling Compton’s clientele with impunity, grabbed the arm of one of the queens and tried to drag her away. She unexpectedly threw her coffee in his face, however, and a melee erupted: Plates, trays, cups and silverware flew through the air at the startled police officers, who ran outside and called for backup. Compton’s customers turned over the tables and smashed the plate glass windows, then poured out of the restaurant and into the streets.
The paddy wagons arrived, and street fighting broke out in Compton’s vicinity. Drag queens beat the police with their heavy purses and kicked them with their high-heeled shoes. A police car was vandalized, a newspaper stand was burned to the ground and — in the words of the best available source on what happened that night, a retrospective account by gay liberation activist
The small restaurant had been packed when the fighting broke out, so the riot probably involved fifty or sixty patrons, plus police officers and any neighborhood residents or late-night passersby who jumped into the fray.
Several important developments for the transgender movement took place in San Francisco in the months after the 1966 Compton’s Cafeteria Riot. The Central City Anti-Poverty Program Office opened that fall as a result of the Tenderloin neighborhood organizing campaign. This multiservice agency included an office for the Police Community Relations liaison officer to the homophile community, a police sergeant by the name of Elliot Blackstone.
One afternoon shortly after the agency opened, a transgender neighborhood resident named Louise Ergestrasse came into Blackstone’s office, threw a copy of Benjamin’s Transsexual Phenomenon on his desk and demanded that Blackstone do something for “her people.”
Blackstone was willing to be educated on the matter, and soon took a leading role in changing police treatment of transgender people. Another group of transgender Tenderloin activists, led by Wendy Kohler, started working with activist doctor Joel Fort at a unit of the San Francisco Public Health Department called the Center for Special Problems. A few months later, in early 1967, a group of transgender people began meeting at Glide Memorial United Methodist Church in the Tenderloin, where they formed a COG, “Conversion Our Goal,” the first known transsexual peer support group in the United States.
The “Stonewall Riots” have been mythologized as the “origin of the gay liberation movement” and there is a great deal of truth in that characterization, but as we have seen, gay, transgender and gender-variant people had been engaging in violent protest and direct actions against social oppression for at least a decade by that time. Stonewall stands out as the biggest and most consequential example of a kind of event that was becoming increasingly common, rather than as a unique occurrence.
By 1969, as a result of many years of social upheaval and political agitation, large numbers of people who were socially marginalized because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, especially younger people who were part of the Baby Boom generation, were drawn to the idea of “gay revolution” and were primed for any event that would set such a movement off. The Stonewall Riots provided that very spark, and inspired the formation of Gay Liberation Front cells in big cities, progressive towns and college campuses all across the United States.
Ever since the summer of 1969, various groups of people who identify with those who participated in the rioting have argued about what actually happened, what the riot’s underlying causes were, who was most affected and what the movements that point back to Stonewall as an important part of their own history have in common with one another.
Although Greenwich Village was not as economically down-and-out as San Francisco’s Tenderloin, it was nevertheless a part of the city that appealed to the same sorts of people who resisted at Cooper’s, Dewey’s and Compton’s: drag queens, hustlers, gender nonconformists of many varieties, gay men, a smattering of lesbians and countercultural types who simply “dug the scene.”
The Stonewall Inn was a small, shabby, Mafia-run bar (as were many of the gay-oriented bars in New York back in the days when homosexuality and cross-dressing were crimes). It drew a racially mixed crowd and was popular mainly for its location on Christopher Street near Sheridan Square, where many gay men “cruised” for casual sex, and because it featured go-go boys, cheap beer, a good jukebox and a crowded dance floor.
Police raids were relatively frequent (usually when a bar was slow to make its payoffs to corrupt cops), and relatively routine and uneventful. Once the bribes were sorted out, the bar would reopen, often on the same night. But in the muggy, early morning hours of Saturday, June 28, 1968, events departed from the familiar script when the squad cars pulled up outside the Stonewall Inn.
A large crowd of people gathered on the street as police began arresting workers and patrons and escorting them out of the bar and into the waiting paddy wagons. Some people started throwing coins at the police officers, taunting them for taking “payola.” Eyewitness accounts of what happened next differ in their particulars, but some witnesses claim a butch lesbian resisted police attempts to put her in the paddy wagon, while others noted that African American and Puerto Rican members of the crowd — many of them queens, feminine gay men, or transgender women — grew increasingly angry as they watched their “sisters” being arrested, and escalated the level of opposition to the police.
Sylvia Rivera, a transgender woman who came to play an important role in subsequent transgender political history, long maintained that she threw the beer bottle that tipped the crowd’s mood from playful mockery to violent resistance, after she was jabbed by a police baton. In any case, the targeting of gender-variant people, people of color and poor people during a police action would fit the usual patterns of police hostility in such situations.
Bottles, rocks, and other heavy objects were soon being hurled at the police, who began grabbing people in the crowd and beating them in retaliation. Weekend partiers and residents in the heavily gay neighborhood quickly swelled the ranks of the crowd to more than 2,000 people, and the outnumbered police barricaded themselves inside the Stonewall Inn and called for reinforcements. Outside, rioters used an uprooted parking meter as a battering ram to try to break down the bar’s door, while other members of the crowd attempted to throw a Molotov cocktail inside to drive the police back into the streets.
Tactical Patrol Force officers arrived on the scene in an attempt to contain the growing disturbance, which nevertheless continued for hours until dissipating before dawn. That night, thousands of people re-gathered at the Stonewall Inn to protest; when the police arrived to break up the assembled crowd, street-fighting even more violent that the night before ensued.
One particularly memorable sight amidst the melee was a line of drag queens, arms linked, dancing a can-can and singing campy, improvised songs that mocked the police and their inability to regain control of the situation. Minor skirmishes and protest rallies continued throughout the next several days before finally dying down.
By that time, however, untold thousands of people had been galvanized into political action.
What Our Readers Are Saying
Other books you might like
Gay and Lesbian » Fiction and Poetry » General