By Ann Driscoll
Associate Editor
Harvey Milk was the first openly gay man elected to U.S. political office. He was charismatic and self-deprecating– a born leader who became a vessel into which gay activists poured their frustrations about injustice and their hopes for a better future. Though Milk’s life and political career have been brilliantly explored in the 1984 Oscar-winning documentary, The Times of Harvey Milk, Gus Van Sant’s recent Oscar-nominated biopic, Milk, has brought the leader and, furthermore, the subject of gay rights to a broader audience. The inherently political film serves as a reminder of the progress made since Milk’s assassination in 1978 and the inequality still afflicting the gay and lesbian community.
Gay rights activists have certainly made tremendous gains since 1978. In the past thirty years, gays and lesbians have achieved full marriage rights in Connecticut and Massachusetts, civil unions in Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey, and domestic partnership protections in Maine, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii. Hate crime statistics were not collected formally until the early 90s, so it is hard to concretely state that hate crimes since the 1970s have declined. Nevertheless, the atmosphere of fear and danger in which gay men had to wear whistles around their necks to signal violent threats seems to have dissipated, at least in large cities. Mainstream acceptance of homosexuality in pop culture has also increased, and Milk is an embodiment of that.
On the other hand, the startling parallels between the injustice of Milk’s day and the injustice of today remain sobering if not enraging. Archival footage of anti-gay demagogue Anita Bryant serves as a main antagonist in the film, and her contemporary parallels are clear: Focus on the Family’s James Dobson and The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins. What these two contemporary figures share with Bryant as well as bigoted California Senator John Briggs is an attempt to systematically detach gays of their rights in all spheres of public and private life.
In terms of legal protections, Congress has consistently failed to pass a law banning workplace discrimination against homosexuals. Though President Obama unequivocally promises to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) these unfair laws still exist. Most recently, California citizens passed Proposition 8 this past November, banning gay marriage.
By virtue of the example of Harvey Milk, the film also demonstrates the sad state of gay leadership in America. Out of 535 members, Congress only boasts two openly gay members (Rep. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Massachusetts’ own Rep. Barney Frank). Out entertainers like Melissa Etheridge, not civil servants, are the public voices for gay rights, and it’s a shame.
By inhabiting a specific historical era, Milk enables audiences to compare past and present, which a film about a contemporary subject could not do. By telling the story of an impressive, dynamic leader, Milk reminds us of the achievements possible when leadership is present. Hopefully, the men and women of our generation will fill the void, and achieve full civil rights for gays and lesbians while attaining a fairer society for minorities at large.
