This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ARNOLD FLEISCHMANN University of Georgia JASON HARDMAN University of Georgia
ABSTRACT: This study focuses on the gay and lesbian rights movement in America’s most conservative region, the South, and its major urban center, Atlanta. Gays and lesbians benefited from a changing political opportunity structure as they overcame severe pressures to develop their own neighborhoods, build a wide range of organizations, and become an important electoral bloc. The movement built upon the city’s civil rights legacy and benefited from the dissipation of it opponents, but it has not posed a major threat to what has been labeled Atlanta’s regime.
Research on social movements in the United States has expanded recently to include a
focus on new social movements and movements occurring at the local level. This article extends previous work by analyzing how the gay and lesbian movement in Atlanta compares to other US cities and theoretical models of social movements. THE GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT AND URBAN AMERICA D’Emilio (1998) has chronicled how World War II facilitated the development of gay identity in large American cities, particularly those that were major military staging areas on both coasts. As it developed, this subculture grew from social networks to include gay bars, social clubs, publications, and gay-themed literature. Organizations formed during the 1950s in New York and California in clandestine fashion due to fear of police harassment, public ostracism, and the loss of employment. One of the earliest organizations, the Mattachine Society, started in 1951 in order to ‘‘unify isolated homosexuals, educate homosexuals to see themselves as an oppressed minority, and lead them in a struggle for their own emancipation’’ (D’Emilio, 1998, p. 67). Early efforts also included publications, such as ONE, whose May 1954 issue had over 5,000 copies in circulation.
*Direct correspondence to: Arnold Fleischmann, Department of Political Science, School of Public and International Affairs, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-1615. E-mail: email@example.com JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS, Volume 26, Number 4, pages 407–426. Copyright # 2004 Urban Affairs Association All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0735-2166.
408 | JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS | Vol. 26/No. 4/2004
By the mid-1960s, homosexuals had mobilized in several major cities around the United States in what was called the Homophile movement. Mattachine Societies flourished in New York, Washington, and San Francisco. Los Angeles had One, Inc.; New York, Chicago, and San Francisco had chapters of the lesbian organization known as the Daughters of Bilitis, Inc. The Janus Society of Philadelphia had supporters in 27 states. There was a Homosexual Voters Advisory Council, a Homosexual League of New York, and the New York City League for Sexual Freedom. Also, the East Coast Homophile Organization (ECHO) held annual conventions and lobbied in the nation’s capital. Movement leaders made attempts to influence the clergy, physicians, social workers, and other professionals who treated homosexuals during the era. There were court cases related to government sanctions on publications, gathering places, and employment. In 1965, lesbians and gay men picketed the White House and the United Nations asking for an end to the purges of homosexuals from federal government employment and an end to general discrimination. There were debates, however, over the use of protest and the proper image of the movement (D’Emilio, 1998; Kaiser, 1997; Meeker, 2001). Following on the heels of the civil rights movement and the 1969 Stonewall riot in New York City, a gay power movement emerged by the early 1970s, based on liberation ideology and claiming that the system was an instigator of sexual conformity and oppression. The movement quickly built national organizations, including today’s National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (1973), Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (1973), the Human Rights Campaign (1981), and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (1985). The first national protest march in Washington occurred in 1979 and was followed by others in 1987, 1993, and 2000. The movement became more institutionalized by the 1990s, with money, campaign activity, and lobbying used to build political alliances, particularly within the Democratic Party. In the private sector, many firms adopted policies to cultivate gay workers, stimulate purchasing and investment, and shape corporate images (Bull, 2000; Cain, 2000; Clendinen & Nagourney, 1999). Within a generation, the movement had secured state government policy changes dealing with discrimination, hate crimes, domestic partnerships, sodomy repeal, and related issues (Human Rights Campaign, 2002). The Gay Rights Movement in Theoretical Perspective Button, Rienzo, and Wald (1997) classify the gay rights movement as one form of identity politics, in which ‘‘people may band together on the basis of some seemingly personal or private trait when that quality becomes the basis for the way they are treated by larger society’’ (p. 5). Many scholars label this activism of the late twentieth century New Social Movements (NSM), which are distinguished by new lines of political cleavage, broad goals, and a wide range of tactics. In terms of cleavages, organizing based on age, gender, sexual orientation, race, and ethnicity stands in contrast to traditional divisions such as economic classes, industries, and labor unions. Goals extend beyond the economic to include social treatment, symbols, public attitudes, and similar aims not readily measured by dollars or legislative enactments. Tactics, too, extend to many unconventional practices not often associated with interest groups (Button, Rienzo & Wald, 1997). Some scholars hypothesize that social movements progress through identifiable stages. Friedman and McAdam (1992), for example, argue that the first two stages involve using existing networks and organizations to launch a movement, then moving beyond this base to attract new members to build a new identity and new organizations. In the third stage, identity and cultural symbols often become public goods, a transition that poses a threat
| Hitting Below the Bible Belt | 409
to movement organizations. This is hardly a smooth process, however. Early efforts at building identity are often based on challenging stigmas, hostile laws, and mainstream culture (Bernstein, 1997). Moreover, as movements evolve, there are often internal disputes over membership, goals, strategies, and similar issues (see Gamson, 1995), all of which can undermine success. There are variants of the stages model. Many scholars identify an array of events that can occur as movements mobilize. For instance, if movement organizations perceive that working within the system (e.g., registering voters, lobbying public officials, campaigning for candidates) is significantly more effective than cultural self-expression alone, they can take advantage of their established networks to advocate change (Tarrow, 1994). Still, most scholars consider a movement’s life as dependent on its political opportunity structure, by which they normally mean its infrastructure, the attitudes and behavior of political elites, and mobilization by its opponents (see Tarrow, 1994; Bernstein, 1997; Button, Rienzo, & Wald, 1997). At the local level in particular, the relative size of the gay and lesbian population and their mobilization could affect the movement’s success (Bernstein, 1997; Rosenthal, 1996). Extant scholarship, particularly in sociology, seems to pay more attention to the formation and mobilization of movements than to their long-term status. The literature does trace several outcomes, however. Some movements collapse, for instance, while others become reform agents within the political mainstream (see Tarrow, 1994). Browing, Marshall, and Tabb (1984) argue further that movements will experience greater gains at the local level when they go beyond protest to be included in electoral coalitions. Some observers caution against drawing a sharp distinction between social movements and interest groups, however (Burstein, 1998). The Importance of Local Differences Theories of social movements run the risk of ignoring geographical variation, particularly in a country as diverse as the US. This is understandable given efforts to gauge the overall breadth and impact of various social movements. In the case of the gay rights movement, examining local variation is critical because of its origins in major cities where homosexuals were subject to social and police pressures (D’Emilio, 1998). As Bailey (1999, pp. 39–43) was careful to remind us, gay politics involves both a ‘‘deep agenda’’ that is the same everywhere and local agendas that differ (also see Rosenthal, 1996). This is consistent with studies indicating that variation in ideology or political culture can produce substantial differences in state and local policies (e.g., Erikson, Wright, & McIver, 1993; Lieske, 1993; Sharp, 2002). The gay rights movement grew well beyond major cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, and Washington. By the mid-1990s, more than 120 cities and counties had ordinances against discrimination based on sexual orientation (Button, Rienzo, & Wald, 1997), and more than 100 openly gay officials had been elected to local offices (Button, Wald, & Rienzo, 1999). If one looks at local adoption of policies promoted by gay and lesbian activists, a key pattern that emerges is the limited number of protections against discrimination in the South. Table 1 reports nondiscrimination ordinances covering sexual orientation in place in large cities by 1999. Such laws vary widely in scope, including whether they cover both the public sector (e.g., employment) and private sector (e.g., housing, public accommodations). The table includes ordinances that cover either; it omits protections that apply only to hate crimes, cable television franchises, or that were extended by executive order rather than by city council passage of an ordinance (van der Meide, 2000).
410 | JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS | Vol. 26/No. 4/2004 TABLE 1 Nondiscrimination Ordinances in Cities of 200,000 or More Residents, 1999 Southa (11 of 32) Austin Atlanta Raleigh New Orleans Tampa Dallas Virginia Beach Houston Miami Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky Louisville Non-South (34 of 56) Minneapolis Portland, Oregon Madison San Francisco Detroit Los Angeles Seattle Philadelphia Buffalo Rochester, New York Boston Columbus, Ohio Oakland Scaramento Long Beach Baltimore Chicago Honolulu Denver Milwaukee Pittsburgh St. Paul San Diego San Jose Phoenix St. Louis Kansas City, Missouri New York Cleveland San Jose Riverside, California Salt Lake City Toledo Tucson Year Adopted 1975 1986 1988 1991 1992 1995 1995 1998 1998 1999 1999 Year Adopted 1974 1974 1978 1978 1979 1979 1980 1982 1983 1983 1984 1984 1984 1986 1987 1988 1988 1988 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1992 1992 1993 1993 1994 1996 1997 1998 1998 1999
Note. Changing the population threshold from 200,000 to 100,000 in 2000 would raise the total number of cities from 88 to 239: 75 in the South and 164 elsewhere. This would add some central cities, but it would also add many suburbs, particularly in California. Washington, DC adopted an ordinance in 1977 but is omitted because of its peculiar legal status. Source. van der Meide, 2000. a The South is defined as the 11 states of the Confederacy (AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, TX, and VA) and two border states (KY, OK) included in the Census Bureau’s definition of the South.
| Hitting Below the Bible Belt | 411
In 2000, there were 88 US cities with a population of 200,000 or more, 32 in the South and 56 in the remaining 37 states. By the end of the 1990s, 11 of the 32 Southern cities (34%) had a nondiscrimination ordinance, as did 34 of the 56 (61%) outside the South. Several college towns in the South were in the forefront of passing nondiscrimination ordinances, including Austin and Chapel Hill in 1975 and Durham in 1986. Miami was also at the forefront, where a voter initiative repealed a 1977 law following a bitter campaign (Clendinen & Nagourney, 1999, pp. 291–311). Although not in the first wave in the 1970s, Atlanta was an early adopter, even compared to cities outside the region such as New York and San Diego. The South is usually characterized as the nation’s most conservative region, both in terms of residents’ attitudes and policies adopted by states (Erikson, Wright, & McIver, 1993). Thus, one would expect the political opportunity structure in the South to be hostile to the gay and lesbian movement. Wyman (2002) characterizes it as even more ominous:
just as the region resisted the civil rights movement and has given a lethargic response to feminism, the South has been a center of resistance to the changes sought by gay activists. Indeed, the counter-revolution to the gay movement began in the South (p. 168).
Empirical studies reinforce this Bible Belt image, with region and religion as significant predictors of opposition to several goals of the gay rights movement (Haeberle, 1999; Lewis & Rogers, 1999). The South is not monolithic, however. For some communities, such as Birmingham, it took AIDS to launch movement activity (Bailey, 1999, pp. 179–213). In others, policies favorable to the gay rights movement were enacted before 1990, although their scope and acceptance could be limited, as in Raleigh (Button, Rienzo, & Wald, 1997). Still, Atlanta’s unusual status as an early adopter of pro-gay policies deserves careful attention. Three questions thus arise about the gay and lesbian movement in Atlanta: (1) how it could achieve early policy success despite the region’s politics, (2) whether it passed through the stages suggested in the literature, and (3) what the movement’s development might portend for local politics in both Atlanta and other Southern cities. STUDYING THE ATLANTA CASE The Setting For much of its modern history, Atlanta has been the South’s preeminent urban center. It grew to more than 330,000 residents in 1950 and to over 485,000 in 1960. With virtually no growth during the 1960s, the city seemed to enter free fall, losing 100,000 residents between 1970 and 1990. Atlanta’s racial make-up also shifted dramatically, from 38% black in 1960 to 67% black in 1980. Meanwhile, the metropolitan area grew from 1.3 million people in 1960 to 3 million in 1990. The 1990s saw somewhat of a reversal of fortune for Atlanta, including the visibility of hosting the 1996 Olympic Games. The city actually gained residents during the decade (more than 22,000) to reach a 2000 population of 416,267. The Census Bureau estimated that Atlanta added another 8,000 residents by July 2002, essentially returning to its 1980 population level. Surprising to some was the accompanying racial change: blacks dropped from 67.1 to 61.4% of the population. The metropolitan population grew 39% during the 1990s and reached 4.1 million in 2000 (eleventh-largest MSA). This represents an addition
412 | JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS | Vol. 26/No. 4/2004
of 1.2 million residents; only the New York MSA added more. Several major corporations relocated to the Atlanta area during the 1990s, mainly in the suburbs, including United Parcel Service. Atlanta has long had an image of political and social moderation, cultivated in large part by the regime that formed between the city’s white business elite and black political leaders beginning in the 1940s (Stone, 1989). This governing coalition led to relatively tranquil desegregation in the 1960s and to working relationships following the transition to African American political control in the 1970s. Given its history as a seedbed for the civil rights movement (Bayor, 1996), Atlanta, particularly its elites, might be receptive to other social movements. Methodology The analysis below traces the evolution of the gay and lesbian movement in Atlanta over the last half of the twentieth century. It will concentrate on stages in the movement’s development suggested by the literature, including identity formation during the earliest period, the dynamics of mobilization, and a mature phase in which gays and lesbians have become regular political participants and have developed a wide-ranging set of organizations. The last stage is less commonly covered in the literature. Throughout, attention will be paid to internal conflicts and the movement’s relations with Atlanta’s political opportunity structure. The findings below are based on a qualitative and historical approach. We rely on extant scholarship, newspaper stories and editorials, published accounts by participants, and selected periodicals and web sites. Many of these resources are available in the Atlanta History Center’s archives on gay and lesbian history. Newspapers are of several types. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is a mainstream local newspaper owned by the Cox media firm. Although there are arguments about its historical and current biases, this newspaper is a valuable source of information, particularly regarding mainstream opinion. Until 2001, Cox published the liberal Constitution in the morning and the conservative Journal in the afternoon as separate dailies. Another local newspaper source is Southern Voice, which provides information on a wide range of lesbian and gay matters. Southern Voice has been published since 1988 and followed several failed efforts at developing a local gay press: The Barb (founded in 1974), The Gazette (1980), and The News (1984). The Advocate, one of the oldest lesbian and gay magazines in the US, contains articles about Atlanta dating back to the early 1970s. It also provides comparisons with other areas. In tracing the development of organizations, several sources have produced directories of Atlanta organizations intermittently since the 1970s, including the gay press and, more recently, on-line sites. THE ERA OF SUPPRESSION Bernstein (1997) suggests that oppressed groups are forced to devote the early stages of a movement to identity and community building. The first gay and lesbian political organizations were founded in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York, during the 1950s. These cities also had the first litigation against raids on gay bars and other police practices (D’Emilio, 1998; Kaiser, 1997; Meeker, 2001). Conditions in Atlanta, then a much smaller city, were quite hostile. Howard (1997) has argued that ‘‘a cultural configuration unique to the Bible Belt South’’ produced regular attacks from a daunting opposition of the police, political leaders, the media, and churches (p. 108).
| Hitting Below the Bible Belt | 413
Gay men and lesbians in Atlanta lived in fear of discovery due to the legal, social, and economic ramifications that could follow. What the press called the ‘‘Atlanta Public Library Perversion Case’’ of 1953 represented just one of the many police crackdowns on homosexuality. The case involved men who performed sexual acts in the bathroom of the Atlanta Public Library. Police caught these men by using a two-way mirror to spy on the occupants. Not only were the men arrested and taken to trial, their names and addresses were printed in the newspaper, almost assuring them of losing their jobs and social standing. Almost all were required by court order to leave the area (Howard, 1997). Well known in gay circles as a nighttime gathering place and rendezvous for casual sex, Piedmont Park in Midtown Atlanta was a target for police and their allies. According to the Atlanta Association of Baptist Churches, an organization of 128 area congregations, ‘‘fifteen hundred sex perverts . . . pursue their devilish designs’’ there. In fact, a news article titled ‘‘1,500 Sex Deviates Roam Streets Here,’’ told of ‘‘bulging files of secret police information . . . including names of more than 1,500 know perverts . . . big names and little names, from laborers to executive and professional men’’ (Howard, 1997, p. 116). Crackdowns extended elsewhere, including a 1957 raid on a newsstand:
Acting on a complaint filed by the Georgia Literature Commission, headed by Reverend James Wesberry of Morningside Baptist Church, solicitor general Paul Webb . . . took out a warrant to search the News Shop. As a result, the Fulton County Grand Jury indicted three men for selling a magazine seemingly aimed at the homosexual customer (Howard, 1997, p. 119).
Limited change occurred during the 1960s. An article in the Atlanta Constitution claimed,
Atlanta’s homosexuals are content to remain quiet [and] not militant about change. . . . They want society’s acceptance, they want change. They want to hold jobs without fear, but they usually don’t carry signs or wave banners about it (Herbert, 1966, p. A7).
In 1966, a small number of Atlanta vendors sold lesbian and gay books and pictorials, nudist magazines, and organizational publications. Atlanta had at least five bars that catered exclusively to homosexual patrons. These ‘‘free spaces’’ were the only public venues where lesbian and gay people could meet without having to hide their sexual identities. Even this small social network was targeted by police, who ‘‘want[ed] to close the ‘gay’ bars that cater exclusively to homosexuals [and] to convert homosexuals to ‘straight’ lives—by force, harassment, arrests, prosecutions’’ (Herbert, 1966, p. A7). On October 31, 1965, a large, after-hours gay Halloween celebration at a bar was raided. The police had five paddy wagons and arrested 97 people (Herbert, 1966). Beyond bar raids, plainclothes officers entrapped gay men in local theaters, parks, and other public areas. During an interview in 1966, a police sergeant told the press that his squad had ‘‘six men who know how to handle these cases’’ by dressing in casual clothes and frequenting known gay hangouts. Often, detectives parked their car at a distance and walked into Piedmont Park to ‘‘make themselves available to homosexuals.’’ The sergeant also noted other forms of police intimidation: ‘‘We keep a file on [them]. We have a pretty extensive file’’ (Herbert, 1966, p. A6). To discourage gay men from gathering, police would drive in ‘‘troubled’’ areas and take pictures of men whom they perceived to be homosexual. Such crackdowns were consistent with the severity of the sodomy law in place during this period and the long-serving prosecutor’s pursuit of things that might be considered
414 | JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS | Vol. 26/No. 4/2004
immoral (Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 1973). The media also joined such crusades. As Howard (1997) reports, ‘‘the Constitution editor . . . Ralph McGill, called for tougher sex crimes legislation as well as psychiatric treatments for offenders’’ in response to the growing number of complaints of ‘‘unnatural sexual acts,’’ especially in the Piedmont Park area (p. 117). This was in sharp contrast with McGill’s liberal views on race. THE MOVEMENT TAKES OFF Theories of social movements suggest that collective consciousness would need to be established prior to protest and the development of organizations. As was true in some other southern communities (Buring, 1997), Atlanta developed a small interpersonal web of bars, friendship networks, leftist political groups, and clandestine social events. Outside events also played a fundamental role in the take-off of the gay rights movement. The 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City were the genesis of the New York Gay Liberation Front (GLF), a self-proclaimed revolutionary organization in the style of the new left. It was also the beginning of similar organizations throughout the country, including Atlanta. Before any lesbian and gay organization was formed in Atlanta, in 1970 about 125 people marched down Peachtree Street on the first anniversary of the Stonewall riots (Brown, 1999). The first local political organization, the Atlanta Gay Liberation Front (AGLF), was created in February 1971 on the model of New York’s GLF. The AGLF was a ‘‘gay caucus organized by members of the nonsectarian leftist . . . staff’’ of The Great Speckled Bird, which was published from 1968 to 1978 by the Atlanta Cooperative News Project. ‘‘[A]lthough there were ‘big battles’ about it among the staff, the publication covered feminist and then gay issues and had feminist writers as well as some who came out as gay after the gay liberation movement had emerged nationally’’(Chesnut & Gable, 1997, p. 278). Without a permit, the Atlanta Gay Liberation Front held the first official Gay Pride march on June 27, 1971, with a turnout of around 250 people. The march included ‘‘gay liberationists, Socialist Workers, Bird writers, Young Socialist Alliance and National Organization for Women members, [and] a few women’s liberationists’’ (Clendinen & Nagourney, 1999, p. 80). Activists also mobilized to struggle with political elites, including the unexpected willingness of Mayor Sam Massell to meet with four of them in 1971.
They presented him with a list of demands—that he end police harassment of homosexuals, that he end all job discrimination against homosexuals and that he ‘exert the moral . . . influence of [his] office’ to end social discrimination against homosexuals in Atlanta. And he told them he would help in any way he could (Clendinen & Nagourney, 1999, p. 81).
No protests occurred after subsequent calls to the city personnel office revealed no policy against hiring homosexuals. The lesbian and gay community was also attempting to increase its collective consciousness and build its own organizations. AGLF ran weekly consciousness-raising groups for men and women (Hayward & Gough, 1991). Led by AGLF, the 1972 Gay Pride march drew a reported 250 to 300 people. At the Pride rally, speakers included representatives of the Georgia Women’s Abortion Coalition, AGLF, Socialist Workers Party, and the University of Georgia Committee on Gay Education. Other events included a dance, consciousness-raising groups, and open meetings (‘‘A first for famed,’’ 1972). The newly organized gay and lesbian community was represented on a local television and radio
| Hitting Below the Bible Belt | 415
show. The Great Speckled Bird’s center spread on Gay Pride discussed how AGLF was striving ‘‘towards integrating and harmonizing our sexuality’’ by establishing a community outside of the bar scene (Bryant, 1972, p. 14). This community-building represents a change from a loosely connected social network to an established organizational system. A major step occurred, both symbolically and politically, when Mayor Sam Massell made the first political appointment of an openly gay person in 1972 when he tapped the AGLF’s Charles St. John for the city’s Community Relations Commission. Ironically, St. John was fired by the Atlanta Journal the following year for distributing fliers for the Pride event (Brown, 2000, p. 32). All was not well internally, however, as tension grew between men and women. The height of this division occurred at the 1972 Pride march. Although lesbians participated, ‘‘many of them were fed up with the male domination of the GLF, symbolized for them by the omission of the word ‘lesbian’ from the name of the group and the celebration’’ (Chesnut & Gable, 1997, p. 254). A number of activists who also felt unwelcome in the women’s liberation movement formed a new, lesbian-feminist organization, the Atlanta Lesbian Feminist Alliance (ALFA). After coordinating the second Gay Pride Day in 1973, the Atlanta Gay Liberation Front folded due to the dissension among its members. ALFA continued to expand its social and political activities, including a newsletter entitled Atalanta and a local radio show, ‘‘Lesbian Woman,’’ on station WRFG. ALFA also sponsored ‘‘talks by visiting authors and speakers, poetry and fiction reading, and workshops or panel discussions on political issues; potlucks, parties, and dances; and of course, softball teams’’ (Chesnut & Gable, 1997, p. 255). Another organization, the Georgia State University Gay Liberation Front (GSU-GLF), formed in early 1973 with official recognition. Organizational development soon extended beyond the strictly political to include ‘‘in-house’’ media and religion. In 1974, two publications, The Barb and Cruise, hit the newsstands. The Barb served the Southeast and published gay news, issues, entertainment, editorials, and classifieds. Cruise was a gay bar guide that ran until 1983. A local congregation of the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) was established in 1972. MCC expanded social networks to include religious services within the gay community, but the congregation was also a platform for cultivating collective consciousness and instigating protest. In 1974, after a sit-in threat by Reverend Jim Snow, assistant pastor at MCC of Atlanta, ‘‘gay leaders finally achieved a face-to-face meeting with Mayor Maynard Jackson to discuss gay rights [and] continued allegations of police harassment against the gay community’’ (‘‘A little militancy,’’ 1974, p. 5). Proactive calls to action, such as Snow’s, were limited during the 1970s. Activists were frequently forced to respond to critical comments by politicians, the media, and religious leaders. In 1975, for instance, the Atlanta Journal published a three-day, front-page series titled ‘‘The Gay Life.’’ Gay leaders organized to respond, and critics blasted the series for its ‘‘general omission of the positive and constructive work being done by the gay people and gay organizations’’ in Atlanta, ‘‘while employing the more irascible stereotypes in the community’’ (‘‘Atlanta forms,’’ 1975, p. 1). They also created an ad hoc group, the Atlanta Gay Coalition, which was supplanted in 1976 by the Gay Rights Alliance (GRA). GRA reignited activism by organizing and sponsoring the 1976 Gay Pride Day (Brown, 2000), for which Mayor Maynard Jackson issued a proclamation. In response, a group created Citizens for a Decent Atlanta (CDA) and took out full-page newspaper ads accusing Jackson of ‘‘taking pride in perverted sex’’ (Clendinen & Nagourney, 1999, p.175). CDA stated in its ads that gays were performing acts ‘‘against the moral laws of the Judeo-Christian tradition’’ and also attempted to obtain a court order voiding Mayor Jackson’s proclamation. Lesbians and gays responded by picketing the leader of CDA, Rev. William Self, at his Wieuca Road Baptist Church (Hayward & Gough, 1991). In
416 | JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS | Vol. 26/No. 4/2004
1977, Mayor Jackson backpedaled in the face of CDA pressure and designated the last week of June ‘‘Human Rights Week’’ instead of recognizing Gay Pride Day. Nevertheless, the event draws about 1,500 participants (Brown, 2000, p. 32). Another major defensive action occurred in response to Anita Bryant, a former Miss America contestant, who campaigned against gay rights efforts in many cities, starting with Dade County, Florida’s anti-discrimination ordinance in 1977. Bryant formed Save Our Children, which contended that ordinances protecting homosexuals were ‘‘a religious abomination and a license for gays to molest children, asserting that ‘Homosexuals cannot reproduce so they must recruit’’’ (Button, Rienzo, & Wald, 1997, p. 68). When the Miss National Teenager Pageant was held in Atlanta in 1977, the event honored Bryant as America’s Greatest American. In response, 150 Atlantans picketed the pageant. A year later, on June 11, 1978, Atlanta saw ‘‘its most raucous and volatile gay rights demonstration when over 2,000 protestors marched on the World Congress Center when Bryant appeared as the keynote speaker at the Southern Baptist Convention’’ (Hayward & Gough, 1991, p. 6). The monies gathered from the Anita Bryant protest were used to fund the embryonic Atlanta Gay Center (Hayward & Gough, 1991). In 1977, Atlanta’s lesbian and gay community took a significant step by creating First Tuesday, its first political action committee and lobbying group. First Tuesday held its first candidate forum that year, although only one of the five candidates running to succeed Maynard Jackson showed up. As First Tuesday built support from the lesbian and gay community, however, it also gained the attention of politicians and media outlets (Ashkinaze, 1978, 1981). THE 1980S AND 1990S: DIVERSIFICATION AND POLITICAL GAINS Organizational Development The literature suggests that social movements often develop organizations that become more mainstream and promote reform. This ignores the degree to which identity becomes the basis for many nonpolitical organizations. Such a diverse pattern of growth occurred in metropolitan Atlanta during the 1980s. Figure 1 traces the growth of lesbian and gay organizations in metropolitan Atlanta. Files in the Atlanta History Center archives, along with more recent sources, allow one to use lists in the gay media to identify organizations
60 52 50 Number of Groups 42 40 30 20 10 1 0 2 3 1976 Political 2 18 12 4 4 1 3 2 3 1986 Health Social/Support 7 5 7 2 2 1991 Religion 7 12 3 1996 Arts/sports/recreation Student 2001 13 11 14 13 8 12 14
25 16 10 19 9
FIGURE 1 Types of Gay and Lesbian Groups in Atlanta, 1976–2001
Sources. Calander, 1976; Chestnut & Gable, 1997; Directory, 1986; ‘‘Gazette’s,’’ 1981; Hayward & Gough, 1991; ‘‘Lesbian/Gay,’’ 1991; ‘‘Organizations,’’ 1996; ‘‘Organizations Directory,’’ 2001.
| Hitting Below the Bible Belt | 417
at five-year intervals beginning in 1976. The figure excludes gay-identified businesses, as well as government agencies, telephone hotlines, college and university programs or alumni groups (e.g., the office for lesbian and gay students at Emory University), Atlanta offices of national gay and lesbian organizations (e.g., Human Rights Campaign), general organizations that did not originate to serve gay or lesbian clients (e.g., AIDS organizations for children), agencies that have added gays and lesbians among the target groups for their services (e.g., an Alcoholics Anonymous group for gays), and religious congregations that have developed a large gay and lesbian membership or outreach program. The excluded organizations may not have been founded by gay and lesbian activists, but they reflect the movement’s impact on mainstream society. Still, the overtly gay and lesbian organizations in Figure 1 depict the evolution of the movement in Atlanta. A variety of political organizations, many of them short-lived, formed during the 1980s, framing their demands primarily in terms of access to the larger society. In 1981, the Lesbian and Gay Rights Chapter of the ACLU opened its doors. The city police commissioner, Lee Brown, asked the chapter to have regular meetings with the city government. In its first year, the ACLU chapter, together with First Tuesday and the Gay Center, also addressed police harassment of gay men with the Atlanta City Council Public Safety Committee. First Tuesday expanded fund-raising and lobbying. When First Tuesday held a political forum in 1981, six out of seven Atlanta mayoral candidates attended—quite a contrast to one out of five in 1977 (Newman, 1981). In 1985, Georgia’s first lesbian and gay political action committee, the Greater Atlanta Political Awareness Coalition (GAPAC), was founded. It survives today as Georgia Equality, a statewide organization with a political action committee for candidate endorsements and contributions, as well as a nonprofit foundation for education and advocacy programs. Although political organizations engaged in many traditional strategies, AIDS was the basis for the renewed use of unconventional politics. In 1983, the annual Pride celebration had its first ‘‘Stop AIDS’’ banner and first candlelight AIDS vigil in Piedmont Park. In 1986, 350 gays, lesbians, and other advocates picketed the First Baptist Church of Atlanta over its pastor’s remark that AIDS is God’s judgment against sin. During the 1988 Democratic National Convention in Atlanta, a local chapter of the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT-UP) formed to push for more attention to AIDS within the Democratic Party. Other ACT-UP protests, including at the governor’s mansion, had the ultimate goal of increasing education and funding for the treatment and prevention of HIV and AIDS (Morris, 1991). By the mid-1990s, there were caucuses within both of the major political parties and a group aiming to keep the 1996 Olympic Games out of suburban Cobb County, whose board of commissioners had passed a resolution against the ‘‘gay lifestyle’’ (Teergardin & Alexander, 1994). A local chapter of Queer Nation began in 1991 to protest after a cook at a suburban Atlanta restaurant was fired for being a lesbian. Queer Nation, like ACT-UP, used tactics outside the mainstream. More conventional groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund set up southern offices in Atlanta, held events such as fund-raisers, and took on regional projects such as lawsuits. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) opened a southern branch in Atlanta in 1990. An Atlanta beachhead provided these groups with symbolic value and allowed them to expand their membership and become more involved in the local scene. Although there were occasional conflicts between national and local activists, expansion into the South coincided with the growing clout of gays and lesbians in Atlanta politics (Abel, 1998; Brown, 1999; Hinmon, 1991; Newcom, 1997; Parvin, 1999; Shepard, 1992). The growth of political organizations was paralleled by the founding of business and professional organizations. In June 1980, a group ‘‘of progressive bar owners became
418 | JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS | Vol. 26/No. 4/2004
concerned about licensing problems with a midtown neighborhood association’’ and formed a ‘‘gay chamber of commerce,’’ officially known as the Atlanta Business and Professional Guild (Newman, 1981, p. 20). With bars as a source of fund-raising, Guild members aided the Atlanta Gay Center, established a credit union, and organized a legal defense fund. By 1982, the Guild had grown from a handful of members to nearly 300 and had over 10,000 people on its mailing list. Other gay business organizations followed, including the Atlanta Executive Network in 1993. There were also affinity groups that are not included in Figure 1 because of their frequently unofficial status—organizations of lesbian and gay employees within firms such as Bell South, Turner Broadcasting, IBM, and American Express (Bond, 1982; Goldman, 1998b; Saporta, 1997). It bears repeating that Figure 1 does not include gay-oriented businesses, which continued to multiply. By the mid-1990s, for instance, there were more than two dozen bars listed in Southern Voice, which itself grew from being a publication by a lesbian and gay arts organization to a private company publishing weekly gay papers in several cities. Numerous social, health, religious, recreational, and student organizations also formed during the 1980s and 1990s, ranging from support groups for black lesbians to those dealing with ‘‘coming out’’ and AIDS. In many ways, the growth in specialized organizations threatened more general organizations such as the Gay and Lesbian Center, which faced extinction by 2004 (Yoo, 2004). In 1982, a group from the Atlanta Business and Professional Guild formed an organization called AID Atlanta to educate the community about AIDS, provide client services, and raise funds to support medical research. AID Atlanta gained support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in 1985, which helped it exert influence in Atlanta and the state of Georgia, especially compared to traditional public health departments. Vigils and memorials became regular events that not only allowed for personal and community support, but also made statements about the urgency of funding and education (Andriote, 1999; Brown, 1999). Over time, other health concerns also received attention, e.g., the founding of the Atlanta Lesbian Cancer Initiative. Religion was not only a force in opposing the gay rights movement in Atlanta; it was also a key part of the movement’s development. In the early 1980s, Atlanta had six gay Christian groups, and in 1981, Jewish lesbians and gays organized the Atlanta Congregation Bet Haverim (Newman, 1981). The spread of nonpolitical organizations also encompassed volleyball, bowling, softball, running, swimming, soccer, rugby, and other recreational activities. It also extended to performance groups like the Atlanta Gay Men’s Chorus, which began in the early 1980s. Atlanta’s Shifting Political Opportunity Structure The literature suggests (e.g., Bernstein, 1997; Button, Rienzo, & Wald, 1997) that policy changes will be associated with changes in a movement’s political opportunity structure. That appears to be the case, with the three most relevant factors being the geographical concentration of the movement’s base, the diminished presence of opponents, and elite changes. Gay and Lesbian Presence For gay Atlantans, the growth in organizations was accompanied by development of their own spaces (originally Midtown, with others added during the 1980s and 1990s) that could be considered gay ghettos or safe havens. These areas were more than cultural or
| Hitting Below the Bible Belt | 419
social settings; they also represented important voting blocs. However, there were not always easy neighborhood transitions when white gays moved into black neighborhoods or when young heterosexuals moved into areas after gay pioneers (Goldman, 1998a; O’Briant, 2001). There is no direct count of gay and lesbian residents in Atlanta. A close proxy is same-sex households, which were sampled in the 2000 Census (Summary File 4) and are available at the tract level. Obviously, these results understate the homosexual population by not including those who are single or chose not to identify as same-sex couples in the Census. Nationally, 0.6% of the nation’s 105.5 million households in 2000 self-identified as same-sex couples (roughly equal numbers of gay men and lesbians). The figure for the Atlanta MSA was slightly higher at 0.85%. The concentration was higher still in the Atlanta city limits at 1.65%. Figure 2 displays the concentration of same-sex households by census tracts, with city council districts overlaid. There are 25 tracts where at least 2.5% of the households are same-sex couples, all but two of them in council districts 1, 2, 5, 6, or 7. This area approximated 30 of the city’s 168 precincts and is extremely close to a list of neighborhoods
2 4 5
Voting Districts Percent < 0.5 0.5 – 1.0 1.1 – 2.5 2.5 – 4.0 > 4.0
FIGURE 2 Percentage of Households with Same-Sex Couples by Census Tract, City of Atlanta, 2000
Source. US Bureau of the Census, 2003.
420 | JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS | Vol. 26/No. 4/2004
identified by a prominent consultant as having a significant gay presence (B. Schapiro, personal communication, May 22, 2003). The highest incidence of same-sex households, 8.2%, was in a section of Morningside, which is an older area of expensive, single-family homes. One would expect the gay population to be higher in areas where singles occupied condominiums or apartments. Having areas with a concentrated gay and lesbian presence translated into political clout. By the mid-1990s, candidate forums were sponsored by several gay organizations, including Georgia Equality, which also made endorsements, as did gay groups associated with the two major political parties. Candidates campaigned for gay and lesbian donations, volunteers, and votes, including at the annual Pride Festival, which is held in Midtown. Several officials, particularly long-time council member Mary Davis, whose district included large numbers of gay voters, became major advocates for gay and lesbian issues. Gay and lesbian candidates also became more common. In 1997, Cathy Woolard defeated Davis in a runoff and became the first openly homosexual candidate elected to office in Georgia (Helton, 1997). When Woolard ran for city council president in 2001, she was finishing her first fouryear term in a relatively affluent district with a large gay population. Woolard may have benefited from being identified as lesbian in a general election with four other candidates. Of the 30 gay precincts, Woolard won 22, including 13 in her district; she had a plurality in another three. Overall, she racked up 46% of her citywide vote in those 30 precincts. Woolard made the runoff by finishing second with 25.8% of the vote in the November 6 general election, compared to Michael Bond’s 29.3%. No other candidate reached 20%. The runoff was held three weeks later on the Tuesday after Thanksgiving, and turnout dropped to 20.5% from 41.4% in the general election. Bond’s vote total was almost 6,000 less than in the general election. Woolard, however, attracted about 800 more supporters and won with 54% of the vote. The 30 gay precincts accounted for only 41% of her total votes. Another lesbian won the runoff in Woolard’s district, leaving two gays on the city council, although the city council president only votes to break ties on the 15-member council. In addition, gay men lost runoffs for a district seat and an at-large position in 2001 (Douglas-Brown, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c; Miller & Suggs, 2001). The Opposition The movement also benefited from the diminishing influence of its opponents in Atlanta politics. As with the 1976 attack on Mayor Maynard Jackson for his Gay Pride proclamation, much of the opposition to the gay rights movement came from conservative congregations and clergy. This dynamic existed through the early 1980s, when Mayor Andrew Young vacillated on whether to sign the annual Pride proclamation (Brown, 2000). Things changed during the subsequent two decades, however. Many in-town Protestant congregations welcomed gay and lesbian members. Thus, in addition to selfidentified gay and lesbian congregations, the weekly gay newspaper eventually listed more than three dozen spiritual resources, including several major, in-town congregations (‘‘Calendars,’’ 2003). Disputes between moderate and conservative factions within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) eventually led to the expulsion of some gay-welcoming Atlanta congregations by the Georgia and Southern Baptist Conventions. In addition, the relocation of the First Baptist Church of Atlanta from Midtown to the suburbs and the defection of other Atlanta congregations from the SBC resulted in a seeming polarization between city and suburban congregations over social issues, including homosexuality (Osinski, 2001; White, 2001a, 2001b).
| Hitting Below the Bible Belt | 421
In many ways, city-suburban religious differences paralleled the partisan split between Atlanta and its suburbs as the city became more reliably Democratic and the outer suburbs were considered Republican stalwarts. Although gays and lesbians held office in a handful of older suburbs, social conservatism is strong in suburban Atlanta and throughout much of the rest of Georgia. Indeed, the state’s attorney general staunchly defended the state’s sodomy law until it was ruled unconstitutional by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1998, one suburban government passed a resolution in the mid-1990s against the gay lifestyle, suburban Republican candidates became notorious for attacking gay-friendly policies, and a state constitutional amendment proposed in 2004 to ban samesex marriage was opposed in a House vote by only one of the 72 Republicans and a Democratic bloc of blacks and urban whites (Brown, 1998a; Powell v. State, 1998; Teegardin & Alexander, 1994; Tharpe & Suggs, 2004). Gays and Atlanta’s Regime What about the role of elites? As discussed above, the movement used protest during the Jackson and Massell administrations. During his 1981 mayoral campaign, Andrew Young ‘‘preached before the predominantly gay audience of the Atlanta Metropolitan Community Church and met privately with scores of gay activists’’ (Ashkinaze, 1981, p. 12A). After his election, the city council adopted the annual Pride Day proclamation in 1982 without the signature of Mayor Young, who claimed that approving of private sexual practice was inappropriate. During his 1985 reelection, however, Young changed his position and proclaimed the last week of June ‘‘Gay Pride Week’’ in Atlanta (Brown, 2000). By the late 1990s, the movement seemed to have had a major impact. Most citywide candidates sought gay and lesbian votes, Cathy Woolard was elected city council president in 2001, and Mayor Shirley Franklin included gays in her inner circle. Major Atlanta employers adopted a number of gay-friendly policies and became financial sponsors of the annual Pride Week. The media became more supportive of gay rights, including the daily newspaper’s call to remove suburban Cobb County, famous for its resolution against the gay lifestyle, as a venue for the 1996 Olympics (‘‘Move Olympics,’’ 1994; Brown, 1998a, 1998b; Douglas-Brown, 2003; Stafford, 2003). All of this was on top of Atlanta’s history in the civil rights movement and Coretta Scott King’s support on gay issues, such as lifting the military ban. For their part, gays also sought to tap into the legacy of the civil rights movement symbolically and rhetorically, as well as with actions like participation in the annual King Week celebrations (Morris, 1992, 1993a). Do all these seeming advances mean that Atlanta’s regime has changed? Stone (1993) asks scholars using regime theory to analyze how a governing coalition’s composition, relationships, and resources shape policy making. His political economy approach also concentrates on development decisions. Within such a framework, the gay rights movement in Atlanta has had limited impact. The coalition between black politicians and white business leaders is still key to development, which is little threatened by a local gay agenda that has been largely symbolic. Gays could threaten the regime with material demands, e.g., a requirement that firms doing business with the city provide domestic partner benefits. If one of the city’s long-time columnists Baxter (2001) is right that Atlanta is ‘‘a city where dynastic politics obviously works’’ (p. F4), then gay and lesbian influence could change as a new generation of African Americans enters politics. It is worth noting in this regard that Cathy Woolard encountered opposition from leaders of the civil rights generation in her runoff against Michael Bond, Julian Bond’s son (Tofit & Shelton, 2001).
422 | JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS | Vol. 26/No. 4/2004
These are the same leaders who backed Shirley Franklin’s mayoral campaign. As one columnist observed, it was Maynard Jackson’s ‘‘blessing that represented real muscle and influence’’ in backing Franklin (Baxter 2001, p. F4). Reinforcing the view that Woolard was outside the regime, a bivariate analysis using Atlanta’s 168 precincts revealed a Pearson correlation of À.754 (significant at the .01 level) between Woolard’s percentage of the vote in the city council presidency runoff and Franklin’s percentage of the vote in the mayor’s race. Still, gay voters have become a significant bloc in citywide offices and several districts. This influence could be magnified if Atlanta continues to attract white residents and whites once again become viable mayoral candidates. Policy Change On March 3, 1986, the Atlanta City Council overwhelmingly passed an amendment to the city charter to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, age, or handicap. This made Atlanta an early adopter of gay rights legislation (see Table 1). Among its supporters was Councilman (soon to be Congressman) John Lewis, an important figure in the civil rights movement. It is worth noting, however, that protections were essentially limited to public employment. Moreover, sexual orientation was included with several other characteristics rather than as a freestanding proposal (McCall, 1986; Teepen, 1986). In 2000, the city council adopted Cathy Woolard’s proposal to broaden coverage to prohibit discrimination in private employment and public accommodations (Shelton, 2001). An effort, mostly from outside the city limits, encouraged city council members to repeal the gay rights portion of the ordinance. Citizens for Public Awareness (CPA) was founded to obtain grassroots support to overturn the gay rights provision of the ordinance. Letters were sent to council members who voted for the gay rights ordinance, and letters of urgency were sent to those who voted against or abstained. CPA used advertisements in the Journal and Constitution to gain support and urged citizens to call on council members to repeal the measure. Although the CPA was able to bring enough pressure to have the council reexamine the ordinance, the repeal effort was defeated by a 12 to 4 vote (Van Keuren, 1986; Walter, 1986). In June 1993, the city of Atlanta established a domestic partnership registry for its residents and employees. That same year, the city council also established domestic partner benefits for city employees. The initial version of the plan was actually vetoed by Mayor Maynard Jackson, who cited financial concerns. Following protests, a new version of the legislation was adopted and signed by the mayor (Blackmon & Morris, 1993; Morris, 1993b). The benefit plan was invalidated by the Georgia Supreme Court in March 1995, however, in part because the city defined domestic partners as family rather than dependents (City of Atlanta v. McKinney, 1995). The city council passed a more narrowly constructed benefits ordinance in August 1996. Although the Georgia Supreme Court accepted the revised law, Georgia Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine refused to allow the city to implement it, arguing that it would encourage illegal sexual relationships. Gay rights groups joined the successful litigation to force Oxendine to stop hindering Atlanta’s domestic partner benefits plan (City of Atlanta v. Morgan, 1997; Goldman, 1999; Hairston, 1999). CONCLUSION The lesbian and gay movement in Atlanta comports with theories that see social movements going through stages, becoming more formally organized, and increasingly
| Hitting Below the Bible Belt | 423
bargaining with political elites (e.g., Friedman & McAdam, 1992; Tarrow, 1994). This was not a lockstep process, however. Largely because of the strength of the opposition during the 1950s and 1960s, gays and lesbians in Atlanta relied upon bars, friendship circles, and informal discussion groups in forming collective identity. Stonewall may have been the spark that ignited the movement in Atlanta during the 1970s, an era further fueled by reaction to Anita Bryant. Atlanta’s movement adopted the ideology and strategies found in gay liberation efforts in other US cities. The path of protest and the creation of organizations was comparable to the pattern described by Rosenthal (1996), although Atlanta activists did not attempt to influence political parties, which is understandable given the city’s nonpartisan elections and Georgia’s one-party rule by Democrats until recently. Atlanta also experienced the boundary disputes thought to be common in emerging social movements. These took the form of discord between gay men and lesbians, as well as between lesbians and heterosexuals within the women’s movement. Such rifts were common elsewhere (see Gamson, 1995, 1997). By the 1990s, the movement in Atlanta resembled more traditional politics. Several favorable policies were in place. Gays and lesbians ran for, and won, local offices. In the end, Atlanta’s gay and lesbian movement looks, in many ways, like cities in other regions. Nevertheless, this movement developed in the nation’s most conservative region and grew into a large community with visible political clout. This occurred for several reasons. First, Atlanta’s economy and progressive image made it an early magnet for gays and lesbians throughout the South. The gay population developed its own spaces and a wide range of organizations to serve its needs. Second, the gay and lesbian population became an important voting bloc in Atlanta. Third, the movement built upon the city’s civil rights legacy. Fourth, much of the religious opposition to the movement dissipated, although their strength in suburban and rural areas still makes them formidable foes in statewide politics. All of this reinforces the argument by Browning, Marshall, and Tabb (1984) that outsider groups achieve greater gains when they move beyond protest and are incorporated into local electoral coalitions. Three caveats are important in closing. First, the pattern in Atlanta might not be replicated in other southern cities, especially if the gay and lesbian population is not as large and where activism might not have developed until AIDS during the 1980s. Second, Atlanta’s regime seems little threatened at this point by the gay rights movement, mainly because the development decisions associated with the governing coalition have not overlapped the movement’s agenda. Finally, as Sharp (2002) and others have suggested, regime theory might be of limited value in understanding social issues in local politics.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Our thanks to Tom Beamish, Deb Martin, and the JUA reviewers for their
comments; and Mark Patterson and Carol Pierannunzi of Kennesaw State University for the preparation of Figure 2.
A first for famed Peachtree St. (1972, June 19). The Advocate, p. 12. A little militancy goes a long way as mayor bows to gay pressure. (1974, August 28). The Advocate, p. 5. Abel, C. L. (1998, May 14). When local and national gay rights groups compete for your dollar. Southern Voice, p. 15. Andriote, J. (1999). Victory deferred: How AIDS changed gay life in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
424 | JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS | Vol. 26/No. 4/2004
Ashkinaze, C. (1978, May 7). Atlanta gays gaining influence in politics, culture, business. Atlanta Constitution, pp. 1B, 18B–19B. Ashkinaze, C. (1981, September 30). Gay Atlantans’ political clout makes a quantum leap. Atlanta Constitution, pp. 12A, 14A. Atlanta forms gay coalition. (1975, June). The Barb, pp. 1, 10. Bailey, R. W. (1999). Gay politics, urban politics: Identity and economics in the urban setting. New York: Columbia University Press. Baxter, T. (2001, November 8). Election 2001: Franklin cleverly walked the city’s walk, talked the city’s talk. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. F4. Bayor, R. H. (1996). Race and the shaping of twentieth-century Atlanta. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Bureau of the Census. (2003). Census 2000 summary file 4 (SF4)–Sample data, PCT 21: Unmarried-partner households by sex of partners. Washington: US Bureau of the Census. Bernstein, M. (1997). Celebration and suppression: The strategic uses of identity by the lesbian and gay movement. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 531–565. Blackmon, D. A., & Morris, H. (1993, August 2). Council vote again on insuring domestic partners. Atlanta Constitution, p. D1. Bond, K. (1982, December 9). Southern exposure: Atlanta and its blossoming gay community. The Advocate, pp. 17–19. Brown, L. (1998a, June 11). Gay-baiting at the ballot box. Southern Voice, pp. 1, 17. Brown, L. (1998b, May 21). How gay-friendly are Atlanta’s top corporate citizens? Southern Voice, pp. 1, 19. Brown, L. (1999, May 6). Tutu, Cleland highlight $160,000 HRC dinner. Southern Voice, pp. 5, 24. Brown, L. (2000, June 22). 30 years of Atlanta Pride. Southern Voice, pp. 32–33. Browning, R. P., Marshall, D. R., & Tabb, D. H. (1984). Protest is not enough: The struggle of blacks and Hispanics for equality in urban politics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bryant, D. (1972, June 26). Sexism in the gay bars. Great Speckled Bird, p. 14. Bull, C. (2000, May 23). Firm partnerships. The Advocate, pp. 67–71. Buring, D. (1997). Lesbian and gay Memphis: Building communities behind the magnolia curtain. New York: Garland. Burstein, P. (1998). Interest organizations, political parties, and the study of democratic politics. In A. N. Costain & A. S. McFarland (Eds.), Social movements and American political institutions (pp. 39–56). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Button, J. W., Rienzo, B. A., & Wald, K. W. (1997). Private lives, public conflicts: Battles over gay rights in American communities. Washington: CQ Press. Button, J. W., Wald, K. W., & Rienzo, B. A. (1999). The election of openly gay public officials in American communities. Urban Affairs Review, 35, 188–209. Cain, P. A. (2000). Rainbow rights: The role of lawyers and courts in the lesbian and gay civil rights movement. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Calander [sic]. (1976, June). The Barb, p. 15. Calendars: Spiritual resources. (2003, September 5). Southern Voice. Available: http://www.sovo.com/2003/ 9-5/locallife/calendars/spiritcal.cfm [June 2004]. Chesnut, S., & Gable, A. C. (1997). ‘Women ran it’: Charis books and more and Atlanta’s lesbian-feminist community, 1971–1981. In J. H. Howard (Ed.), Carryin’ on in the gay and lesbian South (pp. 241–284). New York: New York University Press. City of Atlanta v. McKinney. (1995). 454 S.E. 2d 517. City of Atlanta v. Morgan. (1997). 492 S.E. 2d 193. Clendinen, D., & Nagourney, A. (1999). Out for good: The struggle to build a gay rights movement in America. New York: Simon and Schuster. D’Emilio, J. (1998). Sexual politics, sexual communities: The making of a homosexual minority in the United States, 1940–1970 (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Directory. (1986, February 28). The News, p. 4. Douglas-Brown, L. (2001a, November 23). ATL runoff features record five gays. Southern Voice, pp. 1, 7. Douglas-Brown, L. (2001b, November 2). Gay groups split on gay races. Southern Voice, p. 3.
| Hitting Below the Bible Belt | 425
Douglas-Brown, L. (2001c, November 23). Gay vote felt strongest citywide. Southern Voice, p. 7. Douglas-Brown, L. (2003, October 3). Anti-gay group touts city official’s arrest. Southern Voice. Available: www.sovo.com [June 2004]. Erikson, R. S., Wright, G. C., & McIver, J. P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American states. New York: Cambridge University Press. Friedman, D., & McAdam, D. (1992). Collective identity and activism. In A. D. Morris & C. M. Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 156–173). New Haven: Yale University Press. Gamson, J. (1995). Must identity movements self-destruct? A queer dilemma. Social Problems, 42, 390–407. Gamson, J. (1997). Messages of exclusion: Gender, movements, and symbolic boundaries. Gender & Society, 11, 178–199. Gazette’s Baedeker. (1981, February 19–25). The Gazette, p. 19. Goldman, D. (1998a, April 16). Can midtown stay gay? Southern Voice, pp. 1, 19, 21 Goldman, D. (1998b, March 26). Gay and lesbian chamber of commerce membership drive underway. Southern Voice, p. 25. Goldman, D. (1999, January 28). City inches closer to court fight with Oxendine over DP benefits denial. Southern Voice, p. 18. Haeberle, S. W. (1999). Gays and lesbian rights: Emerging trends in public opinion and voting behavior. In E. D. B. Riggle & B. L. Tadlock (Eds.), Gays and lesbians in the democratic process: Public policy, public opinion, and political representation (pp. 146–169). New York: Columbia University Press. Hairston, J. (1999, October 7). City hall notes: domestic partners victory celebrated. Atlanta JournalConstitution, p. A1. Hayward, D., & Gough, C. (1991, June 20–July 3). 20 years of Atlanta lesbian and gay history. Southern Voice (special insert), pp. 5–7. Helton, C. (1997, November 27). Incoming Atlanta city council shows shifts in minority seats. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. E5. Herbert, D. (1966, January 2). Atlanta’s lonely ‘gay’ world. Atlanta Constitution, p. A7. Hinmon, D. (1991, June 6). 18 arrested at restaurant over protest of gay firings. Atlanta JournalConstitution, p. C2. Howard, J. (1997). The library, the park, and the pervert: Public space and homosexual encounter in postWorld War II Atlanta. In J. Howard (Ed.), Carryin’ on in the gay and lesbian South (pp. 107–131). New York: New York University Press. Kaiser, C. (1997). The gay metropolis, 1940–1996. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Lesbian/gay community services for Atlanta, Georgia and the Southeast. (1991, December). The News, pp. 19, 22. Lewis, G. B., & Rogers, M. A. (1999). Does the public support equal employment rights for gays and lesbians? In E. D. B. Riggle & B. L. Tadlock (Eds.), Gays and lesbians in the democratic process: Public policy, public opinion, and political representation (pp. 118–145). New York: Columbia University Press. McCall, N. (1986, February 25). Council panel OKs measure on gay rights. Atlanta Journal, p. D2. Meeker, M. (2001). Behind the mask of respectability: Reconsidering the Mattachine Society and male homophile practice, 1950s and 1960s. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 10, 78–116. Miller, J. H., & Suggs, E. (2001, November 29). Big changes coming to Atlanta government. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, pp. C1, C4. Morris, H. (1991, March 30). Gay, lesbian activists wear multiple hats now: AIDS takes its toll politically. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. B1. Morris, H. (1992, January 18). Frank to join King march, restaurant protest. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. B4. Morris, H. (1993a, July 1). Civil rights leaders back end to military’s gay ban. Atlanta Constitution, p. C8. Morris, H. (1993b, July 4). Veto of partners’ benefits unifies gays. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. F1. Move Olympics out of Cobb. (1994, June 30). [Editorial]. Atlanta Constitution, p. A22. Newcom, J. (1997, July 23). Lambda opens Atlanta office to assist South. Atlanta Constitution, p. B4. Newman, B. (1981, January 22). What’s cookin’ in Atlanta–Southern style. The Advocate, pp. 20–23.
426 | JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS | Vol. 26/No. 4/2004
O’Briant, E. (2001, November 2). Gay groups oppose incumbent in city council district 5. Southern Voice, pp. 2–5. Organizations. (1996, January 4). Southern Voice, pp. 18, 20. Organizations Directory. (2001). Atlanta gay and lesbian visitor’s center. Available: www.ontapatlanta.com [November 2001]. Osinski, B. (2001, November 25). A faith that never waivers: Snellville pulpit became springboard for James Merritt’s biblical conservatism. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. E1. Available: www.ajc.com [May 2004]. Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton. (1973). 413 U.S. 49. Parvin, P. (1999, May 20). Local vs. national giving. Southern Voice, p. 30. Powell v. State. (1998). 510 S.E. 2d 18 (Ga.). Rosenthal, D. B. (1996). Gay and lesbian political mobilization and regime responsiveness in four New York cities. Urban Affairs Review, 32, 45–70. Saporta, M. (1997, April 22). Business association seeks equality for gays, lesbians. Atlanta Constitution, p. C3. Sharp, E. (2002). Culture, institutions, and urban officials’ responses to morality issues. Political Research Quarterly, 55, 861–883. Shelton, S. (2001, January 2). Atlanta protects gays from bias. Atlanta Constitution, p. B3. Shepard, B. (1992, March 29). Not just fired, but fired up: Cracker Barrel dismissal spurs lesbian to lead. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. D7. Stafford, L. (2003, March 13). Gay Pride reaches out to its sponsors. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, pp. F1, F4. Stone, C. N. (1989). Regime politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946–1988. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Stone, C. N. (1993). Urban regimes and the capacity to govern: A political economy approach. Journal of Urban Affairs, 15, 1–28. Tarrow, S. (1994). Power in movement: Social movements, collective action, and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Teegardin, C., & Alexander, K. (1994, July 29). People speak: Resolution still splitting county a year after passage, survey says. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, pp. A1, A8. Teepen, T. (1986, October 4). Ignorance threatens ‘gay rights.’ Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. A12. Tharpe, J., & Suggs, E. (2004, February 27). Gay marriage ban defeated in House. Atlanta JournalConstitution, pp. A1, A18. Tofit, D., & Shelton, S. (2001, November 25). Runoff election 2001: Atlanta council presidency. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. E4. Available: www.ajc.com [May 2004]. Van der Meide, W. (2000). Legislating equality: A review of laws affecting gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people in the United States. Washington: The Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Van Keuren, B. (1986, October 4). Abusive letters flood council members who voted for gay rights. Creative Loafing, p. 6A. Walter, D. (1986, November 11). Atlanta’s new activism. The Advocate, pp. 10–11, 20. White, G. (2001a, June 9). Caught in the cross fire: Local ministries ponder their future as Baptists split over gay issues. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. B1. Available: www.ajc.com [May 2004]. White, G. (2001b, June 28). Fellowship marks 10-year rift with Southern Baptists. Atlanta JournalConstitution, p. D5. Available: www.ajc.com [May 2004]. Wyman, H. (2002). Gay liberation comes to Dixie–Slowly. American Review of Politics, 23, 167–192. Yoo, C. (2004, July 30). Gay center seeks funds to stay open. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, pp. C1, C6.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.