Harvey Milk called "predator, sex addict"

[JamesSavik]

'Harvey Milk Day' heads to Calif. gov's desk

 

Sep 9, 2009

Michael Foust

Source Link

 

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (BP)--A bill that would encourage California public schools to observe "Harvey Milk Day" and to remember the deceased homosexual leader with "commemorative exercises" passed the state Senate Tuesday and is heading to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who hasn't taken a position on it.

 

Schwarzenegger actually vetoed a similar bill last year but is under more pressure this year in light of President Obama recently awarding a Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously to Milk, the nation's first openly homosexual person elected to public office. Milk was a San Francisco city supervisor who was assassinated in 1978 by another supervisor. The fact that the biographical movie "Milk" was released last year only adds to the pressure on the governor.

 

The bill (S.B. 572) would commemorate Milk with what the state calendar calls a day of "significance." The only other such days are the Day of the Teacher (second Wednesday of May), John Muir Day (April 21) and California Poppy Day (April 6). Harvey Milk Day would be his birthday, May 22.

 

Schwarzenegger actually referenced the bill on his Twitter account days ago, writing, "Give me your thoughts on the water package, Harvey Milk Day, and the prison reform bill."

 

It passed the Senate, 22-14, and the House, 46-28, along party-line votes with Democrats in the majority.

 

The California Family Council is urging Schwarzenegger to veto the bill and is warning it "would promote the controversial subject of sexual orientation in public school classrooms with children as young as five years of age."

 

"It is expected that thousands of individuals will again seek the governor's veto," California Family Council director Ron Prentice said in a statement. "Commemorating Harvey Milk in public schools, primarily because of his sexual orientation, will go against the values of the majority of California's parents."

 

Individual schools and teachers could decide on their own whether to mark the day, although many certainly would. The text of the bill says "all public schools and educational institutions are encouraged to observe." The bill says it would be appropriate to have "exercises remembering the life of Harvey Milk, recognizing his accomplishments, and familiarizing pupils with the contributions he made to this state."

 

State Sen. Mark Leno, a Democrat and the bill's sponsor, told The San Francisco Chronicle, "It should be kept in mind that he [Milk] literally gave his life so I and others can serve in public office and that every generation of LGBT Californians can pursue their every hope, dream and aspiration."

 

But Randy Thomasson, an opponent of the bill and the president of SaveCalifornia.com, said Milk's sexual escapades make him unfit to be pushed as a role model. For weeks, Thomasson's press releases have quoted from "The Mayor of Castro Street," a popular biography about Milk. Milk was 48 when he died but always had a desire for teen boys and men in their early 20s, the book says. He also advocated having multiple partners, it says.

 

"For the sake of impressionable children, the governor now has abundant reason to veto 'Harvey Milk Day' like he did last year," Thomasson said in a statement. "Reputable biographies demonstrate that Milk was a sexual predator of teens, a homosexual sex addict who advocated polygamous relationships, and a public liar who justified his deceit. Harvey Milk was and is a terrible role model for kids, including kindergarteners who would be affected by this very bad bill."

[Benji]

.............I'm afraid I know very little about Harvey Milk to even try and reply back. I do hope someone can refute most of this.

[Drewbie]

I looked up Randy Thomasson website he seems to be a far right wing, family values type, He's for prop 8 as well, I don't think I'd be far off to say anything with gay he's against.

 

 

I would take what he says with a grain of salt, remember randy has a agenda as well.

 

Thanks to James to show who our opposition is.

Edited September 17, 2009 by Drewbie

[Phantom]

*I'm one to refute the erros in someone's argument like that of Mr. Thomasson, but it would be to easy in this case*

 

All I have to say is that I'm sorry that someone can be as blind as Mr. Thomasson can still serve in the public like him and that like minded people cannot see past their own fears and shortcomings. As someone who's argued both sides of this, I can say that Harvey Milk isn't perfect, but he's still one of the main LGBTQ Role Models that I look up to and draw inspiration from because of how passionate he was and how strong he was when it came to governing like he did.

 

I think the purpose of this bill isn't to talk about his 'Personal Philosophies' but that he listened to the people and represented his constituents to the best of his ability. He was a man of the people and helped as best he could, and that's the idea behind it. THe other idea isn't about being gay, but that anyone can rise to the position he had and further also that if you believe you can succeed.

 

I hope this measure passes because of all the good it will do.

 

Eric

[JamesSavik]

One of the ways that you might try to discredit a movement is to attack its founders.

 

This also happened to Martin Luther King and Medger Evers.

 

To have Harvey Milk acknowledged by the state as a Civil Rights pioneer would be a very powerful blow against anti-gay activists- one that they can't answer without looking foolish and petty.

[Zeoanne]

 

The California Family Council is urging Schwarzenegger to veto the bill and is warning it "would promote the controversial subject of sexual orientation in public school classrooms with children as young as five years of age."

 

 

Perhaps if Children "as young as five" were taught about homosexuality the right way there wouldn't be the amount of homophobia we see today!! If my own daughter accepted it when I explained it to her, why not the rest of them?

[Mark Arbour]

.............I'm afraid I know very little about Harvey Milk to even try and reply back. I do hope someone can refute most of this.

 

Refuting the errors means identifying factual points or reliable sources to show he wasn't a predator. Anyone seen anything like that? In any event, I'm not sure it can even be done. If Milk had a fling with a 19 year old guy, we'd all think that was, well, what it was, while this bozo's group would hype it as the act of a sexual predator.

[BlueSoxSWJ]

Note that the article never once uses the term "gay," instead always "homosexual" or "sexual orientation." This is a common subtle practice by homophobes to keep the readers' minds subconsciously on the sex aspect of homosexuality.

[NightOwl88]

Perhaps if Children "as young as five" were taught about homosexuality the right way there wouldn't be the amount of homophobia we see today!! If my own daughter accepted it when I explained it to her, why not the rest of them?

 

 

See I couldnt't agree more with this statement. Don't get me wrong I don't think little Susie and little Johnny should be given details on the mechanics but explination at an earlier age of the difference beftwen heterosexuals and homosexuals could be an invalueable way of teaching the next generation. Don't get me wrong at a younger age children are very impressionable and that can be used for all the wrong reasons. But at that age their also more open, its easier to instil concepts of acceptance and compassion; more so then when their 13 or 14 and have been plugged into a universe of negative programing involving rasicim, homophobia, and inequality.

 

The problem is very few parents, even open minded and accepting ones, want their children to be taught anything even remotely sexual at that age.

[Zeoanne]

See I couldn't agree more with this statement. Don't get me wrong I don't think little Susie and little Johnny should be given details on the mechanics but explanation at an earlier age of the difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals could be an invaluable way of teaching the next generation. Don't get me wrong at a younger age children are very impressionable and that can be used for all the wrong reasons. But at that age their also more open, its easier to instill concepts of acceptance and compassion; more so then when their 13 or 14 and have been plugged into a universe of negative programing involving racism, homophobia, and inequality.

 

The problem is very few parents, even open minded and accepting ones, want their children to be taught anything even remotely sexual at that age.

 

When I taught D about homosexuality I didn't go into the sexual part, I'd be ignorant to put my daughter through all that. She's 9 now and I'm sweating just thinking I have to get ready to have "the talk" with her!!! What I explained to her was the fact that some girls like girls and some boys like boys as well as boy and girl which is not going to cause any emotional trauma. C lives here now with her partner and D knows they are together and that they love each other.

[KJames]

See I couldnt't agree more with this statement. Don't get me wrong I don't think little Susie and little Johnny should be given details on the mechanics but explination at an earlier age of the difference beftwen heterosexuals and homosexuals could be an invalueable way of teaching the next generation. Don't get me wrong at a younger age children are very impressionable and that can be used for all the wrong reasons. But at that age their also more open, its easier to instil concepts of acceptance and compassion; more so then when their 13 or 14 and have been plugged into a universe of negative programing involving rasicim, homophobia, and inequality.

 

The problem is very few parents, even open minded and accepting ones, want their children to be taught anything even remotely sexual at that age.

 

Then the deeper problem becomes the fact that they won't even teach their own kids about being sexually active in any form at all, so where does that leave everyone?

Edited September 18, 2009 by kjames

[rknapp]

So they don't want an upstanding politician who lost his life in the fight for equality at a time when equal rights was a very volatile issue. Okay, I guess Britney and Lindsay are better role models.

[Benji]

So they don't want an upstanding politician who lost his life in the fight for equality at a time when equal rights was a very volatile issue. Okay, I guess Britney and Lindsay are better role models.

 

............Applauds answer, yet the recognition will take just as long. Stopping the hate at the kindergarten level is a fine idea to me.

[KJames]

So they don't want an upstanding politician who lost his life in the fight for equality at a time when equal rights was a very volatile issue. Okay, I guess Britney and Lindsay are better role models.

 

Yeah, I guess it's better to have a 45 minute marriage to a person of the opposite sex than it is to have a 19 year strong relationship with someone you truly love.

[NightOwl88]

Yeah, I guess it's better to have a 45 minute marriage to a person of the opposite sex than it is to have a 19 year strong relationship with someone you truly love.

 

 

Thats what always gotten me about the "sanctity of marriage" crap that their always throwing around. If the legal union between man and woman is so sacred then they need to abolish divorce. I mean think about it logically, what could be a bigger threat to the "sanctity of marriage" then a legal means of abolishing the union itself.

[Zeoanne]

then they need to abolish divorce.

 

OK chiild, let them abolish it AFTER I get my divorce!! Sheesh, wouldn't want to stay stuck with HIM for the rest of my life! UGH!

[KJames]

OK chiild, let them abolish it AFTER I get my divorce!! Sheesh, wouldn't want to stay stuck with HIM for the rest of my life! UGH!

 

Sorry, figured with your handle you'd be done already...

[gardentuber]

It's important to acknowledge the humanity of our heroes. It's important to separate the public from the private lives of our models. It's important to judge historical characters in relation to historical mores in addition to contemporary ones. The US is a great deal more conservative today than it was in the 70's. The gay community is more conservative as well. After all, on this website, many stories encourage life long monogamy (sometimes starting as early as high school). The "free love" of Harvey Milk's day is now considered cheap and slutty.

 

My recollection of the word on the SF street in the late 70's and early 80's was that MIlk was a pretty randy guy. It's accepted historical fact that he was enamored of young men. I suppose folks who have an agenda that attempts to marginalize homosexual rights would focus on those aspects of the man, ignoring the remarkable force for humanism and liberal activism that Milk was. Milk really did push homosexual rights forward by years, maybe even decades. Thank you, Harvey!

 

Still, conservatives aren't the only ones who've used a person's personal life (ie: peccadillos) to discredit their opponent's accomplishments. In the Senate hearings on the Judge Thomas Supreme Court nomination, the reports that he behaved in a disgustingly sexist manner had more impact than the questions of his aptitude on the bench. OK, maybe that's not a good example because his (alleged) sexual harassment occurred on the job while he headed the federal office of equal rights. But you get my point.

 

Oh, and on another issue, to quote:

 

"Note that the article never once uses the term "gay," instead always "homosexual" or "sexual orientation." This is a common subtle practice by homophobes to keep the readers' minds subconsciously on the sex aspect of homosexuality."

 

In my lexicon, "gay" is a lifestyle. It implies materialism and looks-ism. It refers to men more than women. It describes the upper middle class professional and those who try to appear "successful". "Homosexual" describes a sexual orientation, refers to women as well as men, isn't limited by class and is a broader, more inclusive discriptor. To me, the word "gay", which in the popular lexicon is now synonymous with "lame" or "half-assed", might be perceived as more homophobic than the term "homosexual". I may be splitting hairs here, but I want to include my perspective on this question.

[C James]

I should probably keep my big mouth shut... but...

 

Could somebody please explain to me WHY a Harvy Milk Day is not one of the dumbest ideas ever?

 

This, folks, it a tailor-made issue for the right to bash us over the head with; we're pressing for something irrational, something that also involves kids. Can't anybody see why that's a political disaster in the making?

 

Let's be clear on the actual history: how did Harvey Milk die? Hint: his sexuality didn't have anything to do with it. He was assassinated, along with the mayor (who was the prime target) by a political enemy of Milk's; fellow supervisor Dan White. I've never seen any evidence that Milk's sexuality was a factor. (which kind of makes the whole "he died for the cause" thing preposterous). Framing "Harvey Milk Day" as an ode to someone who "died for gay rights" is irrational in the extreme, and hands out opponents a wonderful weapon to use against us.

 

Edit to add: This certainly does not mean I agree with the homophobic types who are also against this bill. Just because one side is wrong does not make another side right.

 

I have a deep and abiding dislike of the whole "commemorative day" movement, for any subject. It long ago reach absurdity, with awareness month for this, history week for that, and commemorative days for everything and everyone.

 

However, if a commemorative day for a gay man is a good idea, why on earth not Matthew Shepard?

[JamesSavik]

I should probably keep my big mouth shut... but...

 

Could somebody please explain to me WHY a Harvy Milk Day is not one of the dumbest ideas ever?

 

This, folks, it a tailor-made issue for the right to bash us over the head with; we're pressing for something irrational, something that also involves kids. Can't anybody see why that's a political disaster in the making?

 

 

While you are probably right (CJ usually is) Milk is still an important figure simply because he got there first.

 

Apparently our detractors see his importance as well. Otherwise they wouldn't see the need to "make news" crapping on him.