A Gay Pride Day to remember

New York Daily News ^ | 6/29/03

[Jeff Chandler]

Isn't that special?!

[Jeff Chandler]

>>gays and lesbians were considered abnormal<<

As opposed to?

[DPB101]

The July 6, 1969 New York Daily News article is here.

[oceanperch]

Took them awhile as I remember they had Oral rights legalized in 1977 I remember that day as I was ditching afternoon classes and listening to the radio.

So what. Is changing the laws going to change hearts. No.

Shacking up or having an affair is still just that isn't it. Nothing to brag about.

Wearing socks with Pink flamingoes aglow will always be queer. No law will change how much it is.

Can we get back to important things now....

[Jeff Chandler]

You keep track of those things?

[RichInOC]

...and the day's events will conclude with a gerbil-pyrotechnics display over New York Harbor.

[JudgemAll]

But when their descendants

Descendants of gays? Frauds and Nazies who deny the true descendance of nation and manufacture it.

[Jeff Chandler]

>>...and the day's events will conclude with a gerbil-pyrotechnics display over New York Harbor.<<

Don't give them any ideas.

[DPB101]

You keep track of those things?

Of course. Younger people do not realize the media was ever different than it was today and that societal norms have been turned inside out.My favorite old article:

The Daily News
July 17, 1934

[dennisw]

Great link! Even has a "Bruce" in it.

[weegee]

Wasn't Stonewall a riot about a police bust of a bar that was operating illegally?

If homosexual sodomy is an act that occurs in the privacy of someone's bedroom, why take to the streets and declare that one participates in the act? Sort of negates that "privacy" I heard so much about.

[weegee]

The Supreme Court could have taken on this issue at any time. That they settled the matter just prior to many communities Gay Pride Parade makes one wonder.

I think that this is referred to as Gay Pride Month.

[ppaul]

If homosexual sodomy is an act that occurs in the privacy of someone's bedroom, why take to the streets and declare that one participates in the act?

That's the ticket, dude.
Today the bedroom - tomorrow the schoolroom!

[yankeedame]

When gays rose up against police during the Stonewall Riots in 1969, they were living in a country that considered them criminals..

Wrong. Their acts were (are?) considered criminal. The homosexuals themselves were (are?) considered mentally ill.

[aristeides]

Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times agrees with me that the Supreme Court vacated the Kansas court's conviction of Limon (for sodomizing a 14-year-old boy) and that it told the Kansas court to reconsider both the conviction and the sentence in light of Lawrence. Justices Extend Decision on Gay Rights and Equality.

[KantianBurke]

The man who aspires to be the next chief justice penned a dissenting opinion laden with intolerance. Scalia blasted the majority for eroding moral codes across the country, for imposing its views on the nation,

Scalia's intolerant? Seems like the Court's actions against Federalism and the state legislatures fit THAT bill.

[foreverfree]

bump

[AntiGuv]

Linda Greenhouse is wrong. Period. Which partly explains why she's a journalist and not a lawyer. As this Washington Post article makes clear:

Gay Rights Ruling Affects Kan. Case

The Supreme Court announced yesterday the first ripple effect of its landmark decision on gay rights, ordering a Kansas court to reconsider its approval of a 17-year sentence meted out to an 18-year-old man for having consensual sex with a 14-year-old boy.

Without comment or published dissent, the court vacated the Kansas Court of Appeals' ruling last year that Matthew Limon's sentence was constitutional even though the same conduct between two persons of different sexes would have received a far lighter penalty under Kansas law.

In fact, as that excerpt makes clear, there was never even a slightest question of vacating the original conviction, because the Kansas ruling under appeal itself only dealt with the constitutionality of the sentence disparity. To reiterate yet again, the conviction has not been vacated no matter how many ways you figure out to suggest otherwise.