your story
Rob Epstein
Posted November 21, 2008 | 10:00 AM (EST)
What Harvey Milk Tells Us About
Proposition 8
Thirty years ago on election night Harvey Milk gave an electrifying speech at the “No on Proposition 6″ headquarters in the Castro neighborhood of San Francisco. The results were in: Proposition 6 was going down to defeat.
In 1978, Proposition 6 ( “the Briggs Initiative”) was the California ballot measure aimed at preventing gay people and supporters from working as teachers in public schools. Harvey Milk was a San Francisco city council member who had been in office for a mere ten months. Through his role in this campaign he proved himself to be more than just an “elected gay official.” He was a leader at the height of his powers. When introduced to the crowd that night by Sally Gearhart (another important figure in the fight against Proposition 6), the response to Harvey was thunderous. He proceeded to give one of the greatest speeches of his relatively short political career.
Although there are many parallels to be made between Proposition 6 (1978) and Proposition 8 (2008) there are also many differences. Unlike Proposition 8, Proposition 6 had a name, a face, and a personality as its figurehead in the person of State Senator John Briggs. Briggs came across as a seemingly opportunistic and somewhat ineffectual politician, but regardless of his baboonery, the issue that he and his supporters tapped into — “gay teachers” — was volatile enough to find large-scale support among the electorate. Only one month before the election it looked as if it would be a very close vote, with the majority of California voters in favor of its passage.
On the other side, we had Harvey Milk as our figurehead, a “community organizer” who understood the value and importance of a well-coordinated grass-roots campaign. As a coordinated master plan, Harvey debated Briggs in high school gyms and on TV and radio, while an army of well-trained volunteers went about “canvassing” door-to-door, speaking with people on the streets and in the shopping centers about the potential consequences of the “anti-gay” Briggs Initiative. Eventually, enough voters were convinced that the measure was both unnecessary and a possible violation of constitutional rights. Proposition 6 went down by a resounding 59 to 42 percent.
On election night Harvey delivered his galvanizing speech with gale-wind force:
…to the gay community all over this state, my message to you is, so far a lot of people joined us and rejected Proposition 6, and we owe them something. We owe them to continue the education campaign that took place. We must destroy the myths once and for all, shatter them. We must continue to speak out, and most importantly, most importantly, every gay person must come out. As difficult as it is you must tell your immediate family, you must tell your relatives, you must tell your friends, if indeed they are your friends, you must tell your neighbors, you must tell the people you work with, you must tell the people in the stores you shop in (thunderous applause), and once they realize that we are indeed their children, that we are indeed everywhere, every myth, every lie, every innuendo will be destroyed once and for all. And once you do, you will feel so much better.
In light of the passage of Proposition 8, Harvey’s message of thirty years ago remains as vital today as it was then. It is our responsibility to let our loved ones, co-workers, friends, and neighbors know who we are, so that those who vote in favor of discrimination have our names and faces in their minds eye when doing so.
Although Proposition 8 wasn’t exactly a re-make of Proposition 6, it’s the same disaster movie storyline pitch: any recognition of constitutional rights for gay and lesbian citizens will somehow destroy the natural order and as a result America’s institutions — be they schools or marriage–will crumble.
Harvey pitched a different storyline: an accommodating democratic society based on constitutional principles, including the separation of church and state, and equality for all its citizens will make our country stronger and freer. But Harvey was more than just a good pitchman. He had an innate sense of history, and as a result he made his mark on history. Three weeks after his Proposition 6 victory speech Harvey was killed, and we’re still waiting for another leader of his ilk to emerge. While we may not be able to predict from where or when real leaders come, eventually they do. In the meantime, as we celebrate the election of a man whose own parents’ interracial marriage would not have been legal in sixteen states prior to 1967, Harvey we’re still waiting.
Rob Epstein is the director of the Oscar winning film The Times of Harvey Milk, and is this years’ recipient of the International Documentary Association’s Pioneer Award.
Dear Rob Epstein,
I went to a screening of Milk – the new Gus van Sant film yesterday which I found powerful and moving and hope it does really really well.
It reminded me that Vito Russo (who I met in London when he came to look at our collection) took me to a fundraiser/party event for the Times of Harvey Milk where I contributed some modest sum and ended up with a screen credit. From your website I see that this was 1980 when I was 25 – I couldn’t remember if it was 1980 or 1981 – and in a gymnasium – I probably have a record of exactly where it was. My memory is that it was an exciting and enjoyable event with Vito at his most charming and persuasive and the 20 minutes of footage stunning. It was exhilerating to be with a group of highly energised gay women and men – although I was engaged with gay politics in London I remember returning empowered and determined to do more. I think that resulted in the Gay Times Festival at Oval House a fringe theatre known for it’s lesbian and gay work.
I won’t rabbit on. You might enjoy taking a look at our website– http://www.cinemamuseum.org.uk
Martin Humphries, London
I just came from the film “Milk” and am embarrassed, as a gay man, that I knew so little of him. He was a true humanitarian, yes focusing on the gay community, but I also got the sense that he was looking after ALL minorities. Let’s have more of the support and revolution in our community and society.
Rob,
I recently saw “Milk” and was moved by the story and the performances. I recommend it to all. However, I couldn’t help but notice how the filmmaker lifted a pivitol moment right out of your “Life and Times…”. The scenes where friends of Harvey go to the memorial at City Hall and wonder where everybody is. They walk over to Market Street and then see the oncoming candlelight procession. It was a powerful sequence and image and you did it first!
Best,
JB
PS. Congrats on the award.
I was eight years old when Harvey was assassinated. I barely knew much about life, but I did know about my ’special’ cousin who was living in San Francisco. And I knew that I was going to be ’special’ too.
I never had a father. I never knew much about Harvey or the Castro or the ‘movement’ until this past decade. In fact, I made my first trip to San Francisco ten years ago with my first stop being the Plaza in the Castro. Harvey was only a name to me then. Seeing your film has allowed me to tap into something I’ve felt deeply alone with all my life. With all respect, if I had a father, I would have wanted him to be like Harvey. If I had been old enough and lived in the Castro during that time, I would have wanted to be his friend.
I’ve really begun to see Hope.
Rob,
We actually entered Hampshire College at the same time, Fall 1973. And I remember seeing you at Hampshire, speaking at graduation about 20 years later. I was glad to see you kept a connection with our alma mater.
As a fellow alum, I took some vicarious pride in your awards for your two fine films in the 80’s.
I persuaded a friend to see “The Times of Harvey Milk” with me in 1985, here in Seattle. Her politics were liberal—we had met working on a US Senate campaign in 1983—but she was more than a little homophobic. Not too uncommon for those days. But I convinced her to give it a try, arguing that it got great reviews.
After the film, which we saw in a tiny, “artsy” theatre near the University of Washington, we were both incredibly moved. But for my friend, it was more dramatic. It was almost as if she went through a complete transformation by the end of the film. She said “They made you care about him and really connect with him. It let me know him as a person.” I know that film changed her views about gay rights permanently.
I’m so happy to see the success of “Milk”. (I plan to see it this coming weekend with my wife and some friends.) But I’m also extremely pleased to see that the current film has focused renewed interest in your work from a generation ago. (Hard to believe it’s been that long.) So, I took the time today to watch it again, in between conference calls, emails, and spreadsheets, and sent the link off to various friends, advising them to do the same before they see the current dramatization. I’m certain they’ll be as moved as my friend and I, back in the mid-80’s.
It has stood the test of time well. And, if anything, it was even more moving to see for the second time, all these years later.
So thank you for the good work you’ve done, both as an artist and as someone who has done so much to advance the causes of equality, dignity and human rights. Best to you.
Steve Nesich
Seattle, WA
I recently went to see Milk, but a few weeks before doing that I re-watched Rob Epstein’;s documentary, The Times of Harvey Milk, which I hadn’t seen for years. There’s so much I think is wonderful, appealing and timely about Gus Van Sant’s feature, but now that new generations and mainstream America have been reminded of or awakened to Harvey Milk, I hope this new audience will capitalize on its experience by renting the documentary The Times of Harvey Milk, on which so much of this feature film relies; Rob Epstein’s documentary is so evocative of the spirit of that time, the real people on whom the milk characters are based so interesting (and if I were seeing these characters for the first time in the feature I would leap at the chance to spend more time with them) – I think the documentary is a must-see if you liked the feature at all. And what superb filmmaking – oddly enough, since documentaries are generally thought to be “drier” than fiction, I was more swept away and emotionally involved by the documentary than the feature.