1. Title quote from Leo Laurence, co-chairman of the Committee for Homosexual Freedom, in “Pink Panthers Gay Revolution Toughening Up,” Berkeley Barb, April 18–24, 1969, 11, folder 44, box 1, Charles Thorpe Papers, James C. Hormel Gay and Lesbian Center, San Francisco Public Library San Francisco, CA (hereafter CTP).

2. “Ma Bell Zapped in San Francisco,” The Advocate, May 23, 1973, 5.

3. Progressive religion was a crucial ideological engine of many social movements in the 1960s and 1970s. See Chappell, David L., A Stone of Hope: Prophetic Religion and the Death of Jim Crow (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Curtis, Edward E., Black Muslim Religion in the Nation of Islam, 1960–1975 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marsh, Charles, The Beloved Community: How Faith Shapes Social Justice from the Civil Rights Movement to Today (Basic Books: New York, 2006)Google Scholar; Rossinow, Doug, The Politics of Authenticity: Liberalism, Christianity, and the New Left in America (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; and Williams, Johnny E., African American Religion and the Civil Rights Movement in Arkansas (Oxford, MS: University Press of Mississippi, 2003)Google Scholar.

4. Herr, Lois Kathryn, Women, Power, and AT&T: Winning Rights in the Workplace (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2003)Google Scholar; and Harvey D. Shapiro, “Women on the Line, Men at the Switchboard: Equal Employment Opportunity Comes to the Bell System,” New York Times Magazine May 20, 1973, 280. Marjorie Stockford, The Bell Women: The Story of the Landmark AT&T Sex Discrimination Case (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2004), 189.

5. “Ma Bell Zapped.” On debates about gender presentation within San Francisco's gay liberation movement at this time, see Hillman, Betty Luther, “‘The Most Profoundly Revolutionary Act a Homosexual Can Engage In’: Drag and the Politics of Gender Presentation in the San Francisco Gay Liberation Movement, 1964–1972,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 20 (2011): 153–181Google ScholarPubMed.

6. “Ma Bell Zapped.”

7. At the time of the 1973 PT&T protest, many workplaces explicitly banned known or suspected homosexuals from employment. See Clendinen, Dudley and Nagourney, Adam, Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999)Google Scholar; D'Emilio, John, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States, 1940–1970 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983)Google Scholar; and Johnson, David K., The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006)Google Scholar. To employers such as PT&T, gender nonconformity (i.e., men who were feminine or women who were masculine) and homosexuality were intertwined and, therefore, equally objectionable; specifically, one's outward gender nonconformity was thought to denote one's deviant internal sexual desires. Of course, gender and sexuality are not perfect proxies––many lesbian women are also feminine, for example. However, these activists saw the right not to conceal one's homosexuality and the right to express a range of gender characteristics as interrelated and equally significant objectives.

8. Herr, Women, Power, and AT&T; Shapiro, “Women on the Line, Men at the Switchoard.”

9. Faderman, Lillian, Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers: A History of Lesbian Life in Twentieth-Century America (New York: Penguin, 1991)Google Scholar; Gallo, Marcia M., Different Daughters: A History of the Daughters of Bilitis and the Rise of the Lesbian Rights Movement (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gilmore, Stephanie and Kaminski, Elizabeth, “A Part and Apart: Lesbian and Straight Feminist Activists Negotiate Identity in a Second-Wave Organization,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 16 (2007): 95–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Levine, Martin P. and Leonard, Robin, “Discrimination Against Lesbians in the Work Force,” Signs 9 (Summer 1984): 700–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rivera, Rhonda R., “Queer Law: Sexual Orientation Law in the Mid-Eighties,” University of Dayton Law Review 10 (1984–1985): 459–540Google Scholar; and Ann Rostow, “NCLR Earns Its Stripes,” The Advocate, June 7, 2005, 33–36.

10. Scholars have observed that expression and communication have been crucial to the formation of gay identities and communities. D'Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities; Enke, Anne, Finding the Movement: Sexuality, Contested Space, and Feminist Activism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; and Meeker, Martin, Contacts Desired: Gay and Lesbian Communications and Community, 1940s–1970s (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006)Google Scholar. Janet E. Halley has argued that unlike other forms of identity, sexuality must be enacted in order to be embodied. Halley, “Gay Rights and Identity Imitation: Issues of the Ethics of Representation,” in The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique, 3rd ed., ed. Kairys, David (New York: Basic Books, 1998), 115–46Google Scholar.

11. See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) and Reich, Charles A., “The New Property,” Yale Law Journal 73 (1964): 733–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Androite, Jean-Manuel, Victory Deferred: How AIDS Changed Gay Life in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Feldblum, Chai R., “Workplace Issues: HIV and Discrimination,” in Aids Agenda: Emerging Issues in Civil Rights, ed. Hunter, Nan and Rubenstein, William (New York: Norton, 1992), 271–330Google Scholar; Hunter, Nan D., Epidemic of Fear: A Survey of AIDS Discrimination in the 1980s and Policy Recommendations for the 1990s (New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 1990)Google Scholar; McGirr, Lisa, Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002)Google Scholar; Mello, Jeffrey A., AIDS and the Law of Workplace Discrimination (Boulder: Westview, 1995)Google Scholar; Nickerson, Michelle, “Politically Desperate Housewives: Women and Conservatism in Postwar Los Angeles,” California History 86 (2009): 4–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rimmerman, Craig, From Identity to Politics: The Lesbian and Gay Movements in the United States (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001)Google Scholar; and Vaid, Urvashi, Virtual Equality: The Mainstreaming of Gay and Lesbian Liberation (New York: Anchor Books, 1995)Google Scholar.

13. Clendenin, Dudley and Nagourney, Adam, Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999)Google Scholar; D'Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities, 150–57; Johnson, The Lavender Scare; Meeker, Martin, “Behind the Mask of Respectability: Reconsidering the Mattachine Society and Male Homophile Practice, 1950s and 1960s,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 10 (2001): 78–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marotta, Toby, The Politics of Homosexuality (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1981)Google Scholar; Rimmerman, From Identity to Politics, 2; and Rupp, Leila J., “The Persistence of Transnational Organizing: The Case of the Homophile Movement,” American Historical Review 116 (2011): 1014–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. DeSantis v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph, 608 F.2d 327 (9th Cir. 1979) and Gay Law Students v. Pacific Telephone, 24 Cal. 3d 458 (1979); Armstrong, Elizabeth, Forging Gay Identities: Organizing Sexuality in San Francisco, 1950–1994 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002)Google Scholar; Bernstein, Mary, “Identities and Politics: Toward a Historical Understanding of the Lesbian and Gay Movement,” Social Science History 26 (2002): 531–81Google Scholar; Enke, Finding the Movement; Kissack, Terence, “Freaking Fag Revolutionaries: New York's Gay Liberation Front, 1961–1971,” Radical History Review 62 (1995): 104–34Google Scholar; Meeker, “Behind the Mask of Respectability”; Meeker, Contacts Desired; Mumford, Kevin J., “The Trouble With Gay Rights: Race and the Politics of Sexual Orientation in Philadelphia, 1969–1982,” Journal of American History 98 (2011): 49–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Stein, Marc, City of Sisterly and Brotherly Loves: Lesbian and Gay Philadelphia, 1945–1972 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2004)Google Scholar. Margot Canaday argues that as the American bureaucratic state expanded, it increasingly and systematically stigmatized homosexuals; however, gays and lesbians also found ways to make explicit demands upon the state. See Canaday, The Straight State: Sex and Citizenship in Twentieth Century America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009)Google Scholar. Further, many types of gay rights struggles ultimately yielded workplace discrimination claims. On librarian Mike McConnell's 1971 legal struggle to retain his appointment as a librarian at the University of Minnesota amidst his public struggle to marry law student Jack Baker, see Clendinen and Nagourney, Out for Good, 56–57, 226.

15. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (Pub. L. No. 88–38, 77 Stat. 56) outlawed wage discrimination on account of sex. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241) banned discrimination by private employers, labor unions, and employment agencies on the basis of race, religion, sex, national origin, and color. Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 24, 1965, outlawed similar discrimination in workplaces holding government contracts surpassing $10,000 annually.

16. Evans, Sara, Tidal Wave: How Women Changed America at Century's End (New York: Free Press, 2003)Google Scholar; Kessler–Harris, Alice, In Pursuit of Equity: Women, Men, and the Quest for Economic Citizenship in 20^th-Century America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; MacLean, Nancy, Freedom is Not Enough: The Opening of the American Workplace (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006)Google Scholar; and Skrentny, John David, The Minority Rights Revolution (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 2004)Google Scholar. Landmark court decisions that enabled Title VII to bring about substantive gains to working women included Weeks v. Southern Bell, 408 F. 2d 228 (5th Cir. 1969), which held that employers could not deny employment to women based on stereotypes about their physical weakness compared with men; Bowe v. Colgate–Palmolive, 416 F.2d 711 (7th Cir. 1969), which held that employers could not classify employees based on sex, and must enforce weight-lifting limits on a gender-neutral basis; Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 401 U.S. 424 (1971), which legitimated the disparate impact theory that facially neutral employment policies can be discriminatory if they adversely affect members of protected classes; Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977), in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that height and weight requirements must bear a close relationship to job performance and cannot serve as a pretext for excluding female employees; Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), in which the United States Supreme Court established sexual harassment as a violation of Title VII; and massive settlements brokered by the EEOC in the 1970s and early 1980s against AT&T, General Electric, General Motors, Ford, and the nation's nine largest steel producers. See Warren Brown, “Ford Agrees to $23 Million Settlement of Sex, Race Discrimination Complaint,” Washington Post, November 2, 1980, A6; “Discrimination Suits Hit More Companies,” Business Week, July 8, 1972, 20; “GE To Pay $32 Million in Job Bias Settlement,” Chicago Tribune, June 16, 1978, 1; Herr, Women, Power and AT&T; “Job Bias Agency Pushes Law Suits: Unit Says it Has Begun Era of Increased Enforcement,” New York Times, April 7, 1973, 21; Tim O'Brien, “Firms, Unions Charged With Job Bias,” Washington Post, September 18, 1973, A8; Philip Shabecoff, “Steel and Union to Adopt a Plan on Job Equality,” New York Times, April 14, 1974, 1; Shapiro, “Women on the Line, Men at the Switchboard;” and Donald Woutat, “GM Settles Sex, Race Bias Case for $42 Million,” Los Angeles Times, October 19, 1983, 1.

17. On claims-making and legal strategizing by women and racial minorities, see Brown–Nagin, Tomiko, Courage to Dissent: Atlanta and the Long History of the Civil Rights Movement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dinner, Deborah, “The Universal Childcare Debate: Rights Mobilization, Social Policy and the Dynamics of Feminist Activism, 1966–1974,” Law and History Review 28 (2010): 577–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goluboff, Risa, The Lost Promise of Civil Rights (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Kornbluh, Felicia, The Battle for Welfare Rights: Politics and Poverty in Modern America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007)Google Scholar; MacLean, Freedom is Not Enough; Mayeri, Serena, Reasoning From Race: Feminism, Law and the Civil Rights Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Orleck, Annelise, Storming Caesar's Palace: How Black Mothers Fought Their Own War on Poverty (Boston: Beacon Press, 2005)Google Scholar. Craig J. Konnoth argues that homophile attempts to analogize gay rights with the rights of racial minorities transformed gays’ perceptions of their own group identity and minority status. Konnoth, “Created in Its Image: The Race Analogy, Gay Identity, and Gay Litigation in the 1950s–1970s,” Yale Law Journal 119 (2009): 316–72Google Scholar. Like gay rights activists, women analogized their rights claims to African Americans’––engaging a strategy whose historical antecedents dated to antebellum America. See Mayeri, Serena, “‘A Common Fate of Discrimination’: Race/Gender Analogies in Legal and Historical Perspective,” Yale Law Journal 110 (2001): 1045–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On constitutional rights claims as context dependent, see Hartog, Hendrik, “The Constitution of Aspiration and ‘The Rights that Belong to Us All,’” Journal of American History 74 (1987): 1013–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18. Legal scholar Kenneth Mack and historian Nancy MacLean and have debated whether Title VII's promise to workers was self-evident. See Mack, “Bringing the Law Back into the History of the Civil Rights Movement: Legal History Dialogue with Nancy MacLean,” Law and History Review 27 (2009): 657–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and MacLean, “Response to Ken Mack––and New Questions for the History of African American Legal Liberalism in the Age of Obama,” Law and History Review 27 (2009): 671–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Many scholars suggest that the sex equality laws were always assumed to address workplace discrimination solely across the male/female binary. See Barry, Kathleen M., Femininity in Flight: A History of Flight Attendants (Durham: Duke University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Cobble, Dorothy Sue, The Other Women's Movement: Workplace Justice and Social Rights in Modern America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Evans, Tidal Wave; Kessler–Harris, In Pursuit of Equity; MacLean, Freedom is Not Enough; and Wandersee, Winifred, On the Move: American Women in the 1970s (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1988)Google Scholar.

19. DeSantis v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph, 327; and Gay Law Students v. Pacific Telephone, 458. If the courts had ruled on behalf of the gay plaintiffs, they would have forced federal and state agencies to reverse their policies of denying relief to victims of sexual orientation discrimination. The EEOC never investigated sexual orientation discrimination claims despite receiving such complaints as early as 1965. In response to growing activist pressure to reexamine the issue, the EEOC issued a public statement in 1976. It claimed that Congress intended sex discrimination to refer only to “disparities in employment opportunities between males and females;” that homosexuality was “a condition which relates to a person's sexual proclivities or practices, not to his or her gender;” and that “concepts of sexual proclivity and gender are in no way synonymous.” The California State FEPC, the sole California agency charged with protecting employees from discrimination by private sector employers, issued a similar statement that same year. See Compliance Director to Executive Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, re: “Summary of Complaints Received from Men Alleging Discrimination Based on Sex,” December 20, 1965, Compliance: Summary of Investigative Reports folder, box 1, EEOC Compliance Division Files, 1965–1966, Record Group 403, National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD; “EEOC Rejects Charges Filed by Gays,” Sexual Law Reporter 2 (1976): 21Google Scholar; “EEOC Ruling: Commission Refuses to Protect Gays,” It's Time: Newsletter of the National Gay Task Force, March 1976, folder 12, box 1, Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center Records, ONE National Gay and Lesbian Archives, Los Angeles, CA (hereafter LAGLC); William Parker, “Homosexuals and Employment,” 1970, folder 39, box 1, CTP; and “Employment Commission Disclaims Jurisdiction for Gays,” Sexual Law Reporter 2 (1976): 65Google Scholar. Scholars currently understand the terms “sex” and “gender” to have distinct meanings; sex refers to one's biological status, and gender refers to the cultural meanings and behaviors ascribed to that status. However, these terms were used fairly interchangeably in the early years of sex discrimination law. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then a pioneering litigator in the field, began to substitute “gender” for “sex” in her legal writings in order to “ward off distracting associations” in her readers’ minds. See Case, Mary Anne, “Disaggregating Gender from Sex and Sexual Orientation: The Effeminate Man in the Law and Feminist Jurisprudence,” Yale Law Journal 105 (1995): 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20. Rosenberg, Gerald N., The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21. In 1981, Wisconsin passed the nation's first state law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation; however, legislators were careful to differentiate sexual orientation discrimination from sex and race discrimination by explicitly banning affirmative action based on sexual orientation. No other state passed a comparable law until 1990. Turner, William, “The Gay Rights State: Wisconsin's Pioneering Legislation to Prohibit Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation,” Wisconsin Women's Law Journal 22 (2007): 94Google Scholar.

22. Recent scholarship has examined the interrelationships among sex, gender, and sexual orientation and the uneven application of sex equality law across these categories. Case, “Disaggregating Gender from Sex and Sexual Orientation”; Fajer, Marc A., “Can Two Real Men Eat Quiche Together? Storytelling, Gender-Role Stereotypes, and Legal Protections for Lesbians and Gay Men,” University of Miami Law Review 46 (1992): 511–652Google Scholar; Flynn, Taylor, “‘Transforming’ The Debate: Why We Need to Include Transgender Rights in the Struggles for Sex and Sexual Orientation Equality,” Columbia Law Review 101 (2001): 392–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Karst, Kenneth A., “Constitutional Equality as a Cultural Form: The Courts and the Meanings of Sex and Gender,” Wake Forest Law Review 38 (2003): 513–52Google Scholar; Law, Sylvia A., “Homosexuality and the Social Meaning of Gender,” Wisconsin Law Review 187 (1988): 187–236Google Scholar; Leonard, Leigh Megan, “A Missing Choice in Feminist Legal Theory: The Heterosexual Presumption,” Women's Rights Law Reporter 12 (1990): 39–49Google Scholar; Littleton, Christine A., “Reconstructing Sexual Equality,” California Law Review 7 (July 1987): 1279–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schilt, Kristen, Just One of the Guys?: Transgender Men and the Persistence of Gender Inequality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Valdes, Francisco, “Queers, Sissies, Dykes, and Tomboys: Deconstructing the Conflation of ‘Sex,’ ‘Gender,’ and ‘Sexual Orientation’ in Euro-American Law and Society,” California Law Review 83 (1995): 1–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On how attempts to eradicate sexual expression and diversity harm female and gay workers, see Schultz, Vicki, “The Sanitized Workplace,” Yale Law Journal 112 (2003), 2061–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Yoshino, Kenji, Covering: The Hidden Assault on our Civil Rights (New York: Random House, 2006)Google Scholar. Other scholars argue that Title VII should be reinterpreted to include sexual orientation because sexual orientation discrimination represents the kind of sex stereotyping that Title VII was designed to combat. Capers, I. Bennett, “Sex(ual Orientation) and Title VII,” Columbia Law Review 91 (1991): 1158–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Koppelman, Andrew, The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cary Franklin argues that prominent opponents of sex discrimination in the 1970s conceptualized Title VII as a weapon against sex role stereotyping. Franklin, “The Anti-Stereotyping Principle in Constitutional Sex Discrimination Law,” NYU Law Review 85 (2010): 83–173Google Scholar.

23. Canaday, The Straight State; Chauncey, George, Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World 1890–1940 (New York: Basic Books, 1994)Google Scholar; D'Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities; and Eisenbach, Gay Power: An American Revolution (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2006)Google Scholar.

24. D'Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities, esp. 109; Faderman, Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers; Gallo, Different Daughters; Stein, City of Sisterly and Brotherly Loves, esp. 308–9; Marotta, The Politics of Homosexuality, esp. 42–43. Men's struggles to become flight attendants in the 1960s demonstrate that airlines appealed to homophobic fears as a business strategy in seeking to limit that labor force to sexy young women. See Tiemeyer, Phil, “‘Male Stewardesses’: Male Flight Attendants as a Queer Miscarriage of Justice,” Genders 45 (2007)Google Scholar.

25. Boggan, E. Carrington, Haft, Marilyn G., Lister, Charles and Rupp, John P., The Rights of Gay People: The Basic ACLU Guide to a Gay Person's Rights (New York: Discus, 1975), 24Google Scholar.

26. Berube, Allan, Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War Two (New York: Free Press, 2000)Google Scholar; D'Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities, 42–43; Faderman, Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers, 190; and David K. Johnson, The Lavender Scare, 9.

27. Boggan, Haft, Lister and Rupp, The Rights of Gay People, 25.

28. William Parker, “Homosexuals and Employment,” 1970, folder 39, box 1, CTP.

29. Ammiano, Tom, “My Adventures as a Gay Teacher,” in Smash the Church, Smash the State!: The Early Years of Gay Liberation, ed. Mecca, Tommi Avicolli (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2009), 40–42Google Scholar. For more such anecdotes, see “Hearings of the Police, Fire and Safety Committee of San Francisco Board of Supervisors,” March 9, 1978, “Gay Rights Ordinance” folder, box 8, Harvey Milk–Scott Smith Collection, James C. Hormel Gay and Lesbian Center, San Francisco Public Library (hereafter HM-SS).

30. Beginning at mid-century, a number of federal court decisions and dissents discerned a right to privacy emanating from the “penumbras” of the Bill of Rights. See Skinner v. Oklahoma ex. Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

31. “ACLU Official Hails Gays,” The Advocate, March 31–April 13, 1971, 14; “ACLU Position on Homosexuality,” January 7, 1967, folder 7, box 1127, American Civil Liberties Union Archives, 1950–1990, Series 3 (hereafter ACLU); Garey, Diane, Defending Everybody: A History of the American Civil Liberties Union (New York: TV Books, 1998)Google Scholar; and Kutulas, Judy, The American Civil Liberties Union and the Making of Modern Liberalism, 1930–1960 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

32. “ACLU Position on Homosexuality.”

33. Scott v. Macy, 121 U.S. App. D.C. 205, 349 F 2d 182 (1965); and Norton v. Macy, 135 U.S. App. D.C. 214, 417 F 2d 1161 (1969). Further, in 1975, the United States Civil Service Regulations were amended to state that employees could not be fired because of their homosexuality alone, other workers’ real or anticipated reactions, or the fear that gay employees would “bring public service into contempt.” 5 C.F.R. 731.202(b). This regulation modified the existing de facto ban on openly gay federal employees because of their “infamous, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful conduct.” See also Cain, Patricia A., “Litigating for Lesbian and Gay Rights: A Legal History,” Virginia Law Review 79 (1993), 1576–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; D'Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities, 150–57; and Johnson, David K., “Homosexual Citizens: Washington's Gay Community Confronts the Civil Service,” Washington History (Fall–Winter 1994–95): 44–63Google Scholar. However, these gains did not represent blanket protection for gay workers. In 1972, John Singer, an employee of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, was fired for “flaunting and broadcasting” his homosexuality at work. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his dismissal. Singer v. U.S. Civil Service Commission, 530 F 2d 247 (9th Cir. 1977). The Supreme Court later vacated the decision because of the 1975 changes in the Civil Service Regulations, 429 U.S. 1034 (1977).

34. See “Introduction,” Smash the Church! Smash the State!, ix–xvi.

35. Terence Kissack, “Freaking Fag Revolutionaries”; Eisenbach, Gay Power; Clendin and Nagourney, Out for Good; and Marotta, The Politics of Homosexuality.

36. On workplace discrimination against lesbians in this era, see Brooks, Virginia, Minority Stress and Lesbian Women (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1981)Google Scholar; Chafetz, Janet S., Sampson, Patricia, Beck, Paula and West, Joyce, “A Study of Homosexual Women,” Social Work 19 (1974): 714–23Google Scholar; and Levine and Leonard, “Discrimination Against Lesbians in the Work Force”.

37. On the primacy of ideology rather than impartial markets in determining women's wages, see Kessler–Harris, Alice, A Woman's Wage: Historical Meanings and Social Consequences (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

38. Gallo, Different Daughters, 154–56.

39. Faderman, Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers, 209.

40. Gilmore and Kaminski, “A Part and Apart,” 103; Faderman, Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers, 211–220; and Gallo, Different Daughters, 186.

41. Faderman, Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers, 198.

42. In Re Kreps, N-14221, Civil Service Commission, Contra Costa County, California, March 3, 1980. See also Rivera, “Queer Law,” 459–540; and Ann Rostow, “NCLR Earns Its Stripes,” The Advocate, June 7, 2005, 33. The Lesbian Rights Project was renamed the National Center for Lesbian Rights in 1989. See National Center for Lesbian Rights, “NCLR Timeline: A Glimpse at Our History,” http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_timeline (March 2, 2012).

43. Protesters in New York City, led by the Gay Activist Alliance, held a public struggle for employment rights in city jobs in the early 1970s. However, in terms of the amount and significance of activism, the epicenter of gay employment rights activism was California. See “Employment Discrimination Against Homosexuals,” presented by Gay Activist Alliance to New York City Commission on Human Rights, July 14, 1970, “Employment Discrimination–2002 and Before” subject file, ONE National Gay and Lesbian Archives, Los Angeles, CA (hereafter ONE); and Marotta, The Politics of Homosexuality.

44. Boyd, Nan Alamilla, Wide Open Town: A History of Queer San Francisco to 1965 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 5, 7.

45. Armstrong, Forging Gay Identities; Berube, Coming Out Under Fire; Boyd, Wide Open Town; D'Emilio, John, “Gay Politics and Community in San Francisco Since World War II,” in Hidden from History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past, eds. Duberman, Martin, Vicinus, Martha, and Chauncey, George (New York: Penguin, 1989), 456–73Google Scholar; Hillman, “‘The Most Profoundly Revolutionary Act a Homosexual Can Engage In’”; and White, C. Todd, Pre-Gay LA: A Social History of the Movement for Homosexual Rights (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2009), 1–7Google Scholar.

46. D'Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities; McGirr, Suburban Warriors; Self, Robert O., “Sex in the City: The Politics of Sexual Liberalism in Los Angeles, 1963–79,” Gender and History 20 (2008): 288–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nickerson, Michelle, “Politically Desperate Housewives: Women and Conservatism in Postwar Los Angeles,” California History 86 (June 2009): 4–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and White, Pre-Gay LA.

47. San Francisco was also a frequent destination for gay individuals such as Harvey Milk and Tom Ammiano, who moved west in search of a freer social climate and became leaders of the gay community there. Milk was one of the most visible and iconic figures of the gay rights movement and the first openly gay elected public official in the United States. Ammiano became the first public school teacher in San Francisco to publicize his homosexuality. He founded the campaign to defeat the Briggs Initiative, which would have banned gay people from teaching in California, and went on to serve on the San Francisco Board of Education, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and in the California State Assembly. See Tom Ammiano, “My Adventures as a Gay Teacher,” in Smash the Church, Smash the State!, 40–42; D'Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities, 117; Gallo, Different Daughters; Schilts, Randy, The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2008)Google Scholar; and White, Pre-Gay LA.

48. Stoumen v. Reilly, 234 P. 2d 69 (Cal. 1951). After Stoueman, the California legislature passed a new provision enabling authorities to revoke the liquor license of an establishment if it catered to “illegal possessors or users of narcotics, prostitutes, pimps, panderers or sexual perverts.” (1953 Cal. Stat. 986). The California Supreme Court overturned the provision in Vallegra v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 347 F. 2d 909 (Cal. 1959). See Cain, “Litigating for Lesbian and Gay Rights,” 1567–69.

49. Jay Murley, Chairman, ACLU-SC, to Gay Rights Committee, May–June 1973, folder 1, box 5, Rob Cole Papers, ONE National Gay and Lesbian Archives, Los Angeles, CA (hereafter RCP); “A History: The Los Angeles Gay Rights Movement,” ACLU Human Rights Award Dinner, June 1, 1979, folder 11, box 2, RCP; and Undated memo re: Chapter History, folder 1, box 1, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California Lesbian and Gay Rights Chapter Records, ONE National Gay and Lesbian Archives, Los Angeles, CA (hereafter ACLU-GRC).

50. First among the GRC's initial six long-term goals was to improve employment rights by extending antidiscrimination provisions to include sexual orientation. Press Release, ca. May 1973, folder 12, box 4, ACLU-GRC. The other founding principles included pursuing the revision of criminal codes that penalized sexuality, assisting imprisoned gays, aiding gay college students, fighting for tax exempt status for gay institutions, and promoting lesbian mothers’ rights. “Possible Areas of Attack: Gay Military Discharges,” April 2, 1973, folder 1, box 5, RCP.

51. By 1979, with 1200 members, the GRC was the largest gay rights organization in Southern California. Aslan Heindorn to John David Loren, November 23, 1979, folder 3, box 8, ACLU-GRC; “First Gay Complaint Filed in LA Job Equality Office,” The Advocate, May 26–June 8, 1971, 14; Douglas Sarff, “Police Testimony Stalls LA Employment Bill,” The Advocate, January 1, 1975, 14; Erwin Baker, “Council OK's Gay Rights Ordinance,” Los Angeles Times, May 30, 1979, A1; and “Los Angeles Passes Strong Gay Ordinance,” The Advocate, July 12, 1979, 8.

52. “Gay Community Services Center Acquires Site,” 1971 Press Release, Gay Community Services Center (GCSC), folder 5, box 4, LAGLC; GCSC Press Release, March 15, 1978, folder 10, box 4, LAGLC; Helen McElroy to Jerry Gold, July 5, 1974, folder 59, box 7, LAGLC; and Joan Johnson, Employment Counselor at Metropolitan Community Church of Los Angeles, to Jerry Gold, undated, folder 59, box 7, LAGLC.

53. Job Announcement from Employment Department at GLCS, undated, folder 27, box 11, LAGLC.

54. In one instance, LAGLC counselors sought legal assistance from the GRC for a cosmetologist threatened with losing his professional license because of his arrest record. He had endured “eight or nine arrests over a several year span largely relating to cross-dressing.” Memo to the Rights of Homosexuals Committee re: Proposed Attack Strategy on State Professional Licensing Discriminatory to Gays, ca. 1973, folder 12, box 4, ACLU-GRC.

55. “Rev Perry Leads 250 in LA March for Rights,” The Advocate, March 1970, 1; and Perry, Troy D. and Swicegood, Thomas L.P., Don't Be Afraid Anymore: The Story of Reverend Troy Perry and the Metropolitan Community Churches (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992)Google Scholar.

56. Douglas Brown to The Advocate, August 13, 1971, folder 4, box 5, RCP.

57. For the MCC, which endured public threats by the Ku Klux Klan and myriad acts of arson against church buildings, protesting for gay rights was also a survival strategy. “MCC Speaking Up,” Metropolitan Community Church of San Francisco Newsletter 2, October 10, 1971, folder 12, box 1, RCP; “Dear Friends,” September 1972, ibid.; “Fair Employment Feb. 1975,” in “Employment Discrimination III” subject file, ONE; “UFMCC 9/2/72,” folder 12, box 1, RCP; and Perry and Swicegood, Don't Be Afraid Anymore. On gay rights theology, see also Comstock, Gary David, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1993)Google Scholar; and Wilson, Nancy, Our Tribe: Queer Folks, God, Jesus and the Bible (Estancia, NM: Alamo Square Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

58. D'Emilio, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities, 117; and Schilts, The Mayor of Castro Street.

59. Leo Laurence, “Glide Boycotts SF Firms that Won't Hire Homosexuals,” The Advocate, November 1967, 2; “A Guide to Revolutionary Homosexual Draft Resistance,” folder 1, box 9, Records of the Pacific Counseling Service and Military Records, Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA (hereafter PCS). “Homo Revolt: Don't Hide It,” Berkeley Barb March 28–April 3, 1969, 5, folder 1, box 1, CTP.

60. Cain, “Litigating for Lesbian and Gay Rights,” 1564; Society for Individual Rights, “In Case of Arrest: The Pocket Lawyer” (San Francisco: P.R.I.D.E., ca. 1970); Roxanna Thayer Sweet, “Political and Social Action in Homophile Organizations” (PhD diss., University of California, 1968), 207; “S.F. Commission Backs Gay Job Rights,” The Advocate, April 29–May 12, 1970, 1; and “Gay, Straight Leaders Push SF Hiring Law,” The Advocate, September 15–28, 1971, 14.

61. “Class Suit Challenges Federal Hiring Bias,” The Advocate, February 28, 1973, 21.

62. “ABC's of Love,” Berkeley Tribe, January 9–15, 1970, 8, folder 48, box 1, CTP; “Fact Sheet: Gay Liberation vs. American Broadcast Companies, Inc.,” January 1970, folder 17, reel 28, carton 8, Gay Movement 1969–1982 Collection, Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley.

63. Leo Laurence, “Don't Hide It,” Berkeley Barb, April 1–9, 1969, 9, folder 45, box 1, CTP.

64. “Homo Revolt: Don't Hide It,” Berkeley Barb, March 28–April 3, 1969, 5, folder 1, box 1, CTP.

65. “Homo Revolt Blasting Off On Two Fronts,” Berkeley Barb, April 11–17, 1969, 11, folder 3, box 1, CTP.

66. “Leo Wins!”, Berkeley Tribe, February 13–20, 1970, 14, folder 48, box 1, CTP.

67. “Gay Rebel Gets Shafted by Uptight Boss,” Berkeley Barb, April 4–10, 1969, 11, folder 44, box 1, CTP.

68. “Homo Revolt Blasting Off On Two Fronts.”

69. Committee for Homosexual Freedom Newsletter, April 22, 1969, folder 3, box 1, CTP; Leo Laurence, “Don't Hide It.”

70. “Homo Revolt Blasting Off On Two Fronts.”

71. “Spirited Line Downtown,” Committee for Homosexual Freedom Newsletter, May 20, 1969, folder 3, box 1, CTP.

72. “Pink Panthers Gay Revolution Toughening Up.”

73. Although CHF did not publish its membership numbers, 2000 leaflets had been distributed after 6 weeks of lunchtime protests. Dal McIntire and Ed Jackson, “States Lines Picketing Spreads to Los Angeles,” The Advocate, June 1969, 1.

74. Untitled Committee for Homosexual Freedom flyer, folder 4, box 1, CTP.

75. “What's All the Fuss About?,” undated, folder 4, box 1, CTP.

76. “Pink Panthers Gay Revolution Toughening Up.”

77. Leo Laurence, “An Historic Battle,” Committee for Homosexual Freedom Newsletter, May 13, 1969, folder 3, box 1, CTP.

78. “Escalation in the Campaign Begins,” Committee for Homosexual Freedom Newsletter, May 6, 1969, folder 3, box 1, CTP.

79. Committee for Homosexual Freedom Newsletter, April 22, 1969, ibid.

80. “Pickets Win: Tower Records Rehires Boy,” The Advocate, August 1969, 6.

81. “Second Front Opens at Tower,” Committee for Homosexual Freedom Newsletter, May 20, 1969, folder 3, box 1, CTP.

82. “Don't Buy at Tower!” folder 6, box 1, CTP.

83. “Give a Damn, Don't Buy at Tower!” folder 6, box 1, CTP.

84. “Second Front Opens at Tower.”

85. “Pickets Win: Tower Records Rehires Boy;” “V-T Day: Victory Scored at Tower Records,” Committee for Homosexual Freedom Newsletter, June 5, 1969, folder 3, box 1, CTP.

86. “Fair Employment Proposition,” Committee for Homosexual Freedom Newsletter, August 25, 1969, folder 3, box 1, CTP; CHF; and “A New Movement: Homosexual Liberation,” folder 50, box 2, CTP.

87. CHF, “Press Statement,” September 18, 1969, folder 7, box 1, CTP.

88. “ABC's of Love.”

89. Throughout the summer of 1969, CHF targeted discriminatory employers in similar smaller campaigns. CHF held demonstrations at the San Francisco Federal Building, ABC-KGO, and a stretch of Market Street referred to as “Funland.” “CHF Pickets Federal Building,” Committee for Homosexual Freedom Newsletter, July 8, 1969, folder 3, box 1, CTP; “CHF to Begin Picketing Funland,” Committee for Homosexual Freedom Newsletter, July 8, 1969, folder 3, box 1, CTP; “Fair Employment Proposition,” Committee for Homosexual Freedom Newsletter, August 25, 1969, folder 3, box 1, CTP.

90. “Federal Building ‘Work-In’ Protests US Hiring Policy,” The Advocate, July 7–20, 1969, 4.

91. “Gay, Straight Leaders Push SF Hiring Law,” The Advocate, September 15–28, 1971, 14.

92. “Big Battle Looms,” Berkeley Barb, January 16–22, 1970, 7, folder 45, box 1, CTP.

93. Untitled Speech by Harvey Milk, January 8, 1974, Speeches, Articles folder, box 9, HM–SS.

94. Press Release, Supervisor Harvey Milk, February 9, 1978, Gay Rights Ordinance folder, box 8, HM-SS; and “Legislative Update,” The Advocate, May 3, 1978, 8.

95. “S.F. Outlaws Bias Against Gays in Jobs and Housing,” Los Angeles Times, March 22, 1978, B3.

96. Osborne, Duncan, “Lavender Labor: A Brief History,” in Homo Economics: Capitalism, Community, and Lesbian and Gay Life, eds. Gluckman, Amy and Reed, Betsy (New York and London: Routledge, 1997), 223–28Google Scholar.

97. Bay Area Gay Liberation, “A Call for Labor Leadership and Action on Human Rights,” October 2, 1975, Howard Wallace Papers, unprocessed, James C. Hormel Gay and Lesbian Center, San Francisco Public Library, San Francisco, CA (hereafter HWP); and Ammiano, “My Adventures as a Gay Teacher.”

98. “Time to Organize! Time to Fight Back!” HWP.

99. “Labor Unions Join Gay Movement,” Bay Area Reporter, October 28, 1976, ibid.; “A New Breakthrough,” ibid.

100. “Gay to Join Teamsters,” San Francisco Bay Guardian, April 19–May 2, 1975, HWP. Kitty Krupat argues that as women and minorities brought identity-based concerns to the bargaining table in the 1960s and 1970s, organized labor's gay advocates successfully framed gay rights within the established “dialectic of right and wrong” because activists could easily analogize homophobia to racism and sexism. Krupat, “Out of Labor's Dark Age: Sexual Politics Comes to the Workplace,” in Out at Work: Building a Gay-Labor Alliance, Krupat and McCreery, Patrick, eds., (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), 32–34, 39Google Scholar.

101. Gay Action/Bar Committee, “Bill of Rights for Patrons and Employees of Gay Establishments,” Gay Rights I folder, box 7, HM-SS.

102. California State Senator Art Agnos, Sixteenth District Assemblyman, May 5, 1977, folder 2, box 7, ACLU–GRC.

103. Paul D. Hardman, California Committee for Equal Rights, to John Monzakis, ACLU Legislative Committee, May 5, 1977, folder 2, box 7, ACLU-GRC.

104. “It's Your Job That's On The Line!” folder 10, box 20, ACLU–GRC; “News Flash,” folder 5, box 4, ACLU–GRC.

105. ACLU of Southern California Gay Rights Newsletter, February 1978, folder 2, box 17, ACLU-GRC. The national legislative arena also saw efforts to include sexual orientation as a protected category within workplace discrimination laws. Congressperson Bella Abzug introduced the Equality Act of 1974, which would amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include “sexual orientation, sex or marital status” to the list of antidiscrimination provisions. Indebted to the sizeable gay and lesbian constituency in her New York district, Abzug advocated for gay rights as part of a broad progressive agenda. Abzug also championed women's rights and environmental protection, and she was the first member of Congress to call for Richard Nixon's impeachment––because of his part in perpetuating alleged human rights abuses in Vietnam, not due to the Watergate scandal. She declared gays and lesbians to be “a very extensive minority who have suffered discrimination and who have the right to participation in the promise and the fruits of society at as every other individual.” Abzug introduced the Equality Act every year from 1974 until she left Congress in 1977, when Manhattan Democratic Representative Ed Koch took up the mantle. Koch amended the bill to clarify that it would not require employers to fill hiring quotas of homosexuals. The bill was never passed, but some version of Abzug's Equality Act has been introduced in Congress every year since 1974. In 1994, the bill was renamed the “Employment Non-Discrimination Act.” In 1996, the law missed passage in the United States Senate by a single vote. “Rights Struggle Shifts to Capitol Hill,” The Advocate, July 31, 1974, 1; David L. Aiken, “Bella's Bill: ‘Time to Enjoy the Fruits,’” The Advocate, April 23, 1975, 4; Doug Ireland, “Lessons from the ENDA Mess,” in Smash the Church, Smash the State!, 263–68; “Koch Says ‘No Quotas,’” The Advocate, September 17, 1977, 10; Levine, Suzanne Braun and Thom, Mary, Bella Abzug: How One Tough Broad from the Bronx Fought Jim Crow and Joe McCarthy, Pissed Off Jimmy Carter, Battled for the Rights of Women and Workers, Railed Against War and For the Planet, and Shook Up Politics Along the Way (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007), 109, 149Google Scholar; McCreery, Patrick, “Beyond Gay: ‘Deviant’ Sex and the Politics of the ENDA Workplace,” in Krupat and McCreery, eds., Out at Work, 32–34Google Scholar; and Vaid, Virtual Equality.

106. Richard Gayer, Employment Rights Committee, ACLU of Northern California, to Roger Taylor, Assistant to the Chief, Fair Employment Practices Commission, July 25, 1973, re: Appearance Before Commission, August 2, 1973, “Fair Employment Practices Commission (California)” subject file, ONE; and PT&T Anti Gay Policy, “Fair Employment Practices Commission (California)” subject file, ONE.

107. Brooks, John, Telephone: The First Hundred Years (New York: Harper and Row, 1975), 10Google Scholar.

108. “Openly Gay at AT&T?” The Advocate, October 20, 1976, 9; “Northwestern Settles Past Bias as Ma Bell Decrees: No More!” The Advocate, August 28, 1974, 2; and George Mendenhall, “Ma Bell Clings to Anti-Gay Policy in Liberated SF,” The Advocate, January 3, 1973, 6.

109. Mendenhall, “Ma Bell Clings to Anti-Gay Policy in Liberated SF”; “State Agency Upholds Pacific Telephone's Rejection of SIR Ad,” The Advocate, January 6–19, 1971, 1; and “Ma Bell Gives In to SIR–But Gays Want It To Be Legal,” The Advocate, September 1–14, 1971, 6.

110. Herr, Women, Power, and AT&T; and Shapiro, “Women on the Line, Men at the Switchboard.”

111. “Won't Hire Gay, Says Ma Bell, But…” The Advocate, November 10, 1971, 5; and Mendenhall, “Ma Bell Clings to Anti-Gay Policy in Liberated SF.”

112. Letter from Don to Rob Coleman, July 31, 1972, “Telephone-Gay Issues” subject file, ONE; Mark Vandervelden, “Pacific Bell to Pay $3 Million to Gays: Company Settles Out of Court in Antigay Discrimination Suit,” The Advocate, January 6, 1987, 13; and “Won't Hire Gay, Says Ma Bell, But…”; “Ma Bell Clings to Anti-Gay Policy in Liberated SF.”

113. “PT&T Eyes Hiring Policy,” The Advocate, July 5, 1972, 13.

114. George Mendenhall, “S.F. Rights Commission Takes on Ma Bell,” The Advocate, July 30, 1975, 4.

115. “Pacific Telephone Challenged,” The Advocate, March 13, 1974, 5; and “Equal Opportunity Breakthroughs and Setbacks,” The Advocate, March 9, 1977, 17.

116. Human Rights Commission of the City and County of San Francisco, 12th Annual Report, January 1976–January 1977, Human Rights Commission 12th Annual Report folder, box 8, HM-SS.

117. Richard Gayer, Employment Rights Committee, ACLU of Northern California, to Roger Taylor, Assistant to the Chief, Fair Employment Practices Commission, July 25, 1973, re: Appearance Before Commission, August 2, 1973, re: PT&T Anti-Gay Policy, “Fair Employment Practices Commission (California)” subject file, ONE.

118. “Utility Officials Agree: Employment Equality ‘Just Goal,’” The Advocate, August 15, 1973, 5.

119. “Dear Friend,” Hastings College of Law Gay Law Students Association, January 26, 1976, “Attorneys” subject file, ONE. Several months later, the ACLU filed similar charges against Northwestern Bell, headquartered in Minnesota. In 1974, Northwestern Bell promised to comply with the Minneapolis city ban against homosexual discrimination. “Battle of Ma Bell Spreads to Minnesota,” The Advocate, August 29, 1973, 13; and “Ma Bell Will Switch, Not Fight Law,” The Advocate, May 8, 1974, 12.

120. Don to Rob Coleman, July 31, 1972, “Telephone-Gay Issues” subject file, ONE.

121. “Minister's Personal Data Sheet,” August 7, 1974, Personal and MCC Professional Correspondence folder, box 1, Robert DeSantis Papers, The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Historical Society, San Francisco, California (hereafter RDP); “Second Application to Become a Licensed Minister,” June 23, 1974, Personal and MCC Professional Correspondence folder, box 1, RDP.

122. Robert DeSantis, “With Unity,” MCC Newsletter, April 16, 1972, Personal and MCC Professional Correspondence folder, box 1, RDP.

123. “Class Action Suit Filed Against Ma Bell,” The Advocate, November 1975, 15; Chew, Wayne, “Title VII Rights of Homosexuals,” Golden Gate Law Review 10 (1980): 53Google Scholar; and Leonard, Arthur S., Sexuality and the Law: an Encyclopedia of Major Legal Cases (New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1993), 406–9Google Scholar. To address the question of homosexuality under Title VII, the Ninth Circuit consolidated under the aegis of DeSantis a number of related cases that turned on the question of sexual orientation and Title VII. In Lundin v. Pacific Telephone, PT&T employees Judy Lundin and Barbara Buckley asserted that they were fired because they were in a lesbian relationship. In Strailey v. Happy Times Nursery, Donald Strailey was allegedly discharged for wearing an earring to school, presumed to be gay, and fired. See DeSantis v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph, 327.

124. Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corporation, 400 U.S. 542 (1971); and Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 424.

125. DeSantis v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph, 330. See also Holloway v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 566 F 2d 659, 662–3 (9th Cir. 1977). The “traditional notions of sex” interpretation was upheld in the 2002 case Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, 305 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2002), in which the Ninth Circuit held that “sex” and “gender” may be interchangeable, but that neither encompassed sexual orientation. See “Employment Law. Title VII. Sex Discrimination. Ninth Circuit Extends Title VII Protection to Employee Alleging Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation. Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc), Petition for Cert. Filed, 71 U. S. L. W. 3444 (U. S. December 23, 2002) (No. 02-970),” Harvard Law Review 116 (2003): 1889–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

126. EEOC Decision No. 76–75, 1976 Empl. Prac. Guide CCH EEOC Decisions (1983), 6495; and EEOC Decision No. 76–67; 1976 Empl. Prac. Guide CCH EEOC Decisions (1983), 6493.

127. DeSantis v. PT&T, 331.

128. DeSantis followed a line of decisions permitting sanctions against workers who revealed their homosexuality on the job. See Gaylord v. Tacoma School District No. 10, 88 Wash. 2d (1977); Safransky v. State Personnel Board, 62 Wisconsin 2d 464 215 N.W. 2d 379 (1979); and McConnell v. Anderson, 451 F.2d 193 (8th Cir. 1971).

129. One of the student-attorneys on the case was Dick Gayer. His homosexuality had disqualified him from receiving a government security clearance several years earlier; therefore, he would have been summarily rejected from employment at PT&T. The Gay Law Students Association was one of an estimated between 200 and 250 gay student groups on university campuses in 1974. That same year, the California State Department of Health gave a $30,000 grant to the Gay People's Union at Stanford University to enable the group to expand mental health services for gay students. Other such groups on campuses nationwide served as social and intellectual outlets for gay students. Iver Peterson, “Homosexuals Gain Support on Campus,” New York Times, June 5, 1974, 1.

130. Gay Law Students v. PT&T, 458; Gay Law Students Association, UC-Hastings College of Law, “Dear Friend,” January 26, 1976, “Attorneys” subject file, ONE; “Landmark California Court Ruling,” The Advocate, July 12, 1979, 7; Leonard, Sexuality and the Law, 410–17.

131. The California Supreme Court ruled that the GLSA had three causes of action against PT&T: the Equal Protection Clause of the state Constitution barred PT&T from arbitrary employment discrimination; the state Public Utilities Code prohibited employment discrimination by a public utility; and sections 1101 and 1102 of the state Labor Code barred employers from interfering with workers’ political activities. Section 1101 of the California Labor Code stated: “No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation or policy: a. forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics…b. controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.” Section 1102 states: “No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.” quoted in Warner, Douglas, “Homophobia, Manifest Homosexuals and Political Activity,” Golden Gate Law Review 11 (1981): 641Google Scholar.

132. Gay Law Students v. Pacific Telephone, 488.

133. Eugene Robinson, “Gays Win in High Court on Job Bias,” San Francisco Chronicle, June 1, 1979; and Don Knutson, “Landmark Rights Case for Gays: An Analysis,” The Advocate, July 12, 1979, 9.

134. In the settlement, PT&T admitted no wrongdoing, but covered the plaintiffs’ legal fees and created a $3,000,000 fund to compensate the aggrieved individuals. Mark Vandervelden, “Pacific Bell to Pay $3 Million to Gays: Company Settles Out of Court in Antigay Discrimination Suit,” The Advocate, January 6, 1987, 13; Advocate.com Editors, “LGBT Journalists Honored for Pioneering Work,” August 3, 2010, http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/08/03/LGBT_Journalists_Honored_for_Pioneering_Work/ (March 2, 2012); and Leonard, Sexuality and the Law, 410, 417. In 1992, the California legislature amended its state labor code to include an explicit ban on employment discrimination against homosexuals in all public and private employment, except nonprofit organizations. See Cal. Lab. Code 1102.1.

135. See Parfitt v. D. L. Auld Co., No. 74–437 (S.D. Ohio 1975); and Blum v. Gulf Oil Co., 597 f 2d 936 (5th Cir. 1979). Courts adjudicating Title VII cases based on gender nonconformity and transsexuality reached similar conclusions. In Smith v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 569 f 2d 325 (5th Cir. 1978), the Fifth Circuit Court held that Title VII did not apply to discrimination against effeminate men. In Holloway v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 566 F 2d 659 (9th Cir. 1977), the Ninth Circuit Court held that Title VII did not ban discrimination against transsexuals. See also Ulane v. Eastern Air Lines Inc., 742 f 2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1984). However, in 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that discrimination against a transsexual librarian did constitute sex discrimination under Title VII. Schroer v. Billington, 577 F.Supp.2d 293 (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2008). See also John Cloud, “A Transsexual vs. the Government,” Time, September 12, 2008, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1840754,00.html (March 3, 2012).

136. Rivera, “Queer Law,” 471.

137. Don Knutson, “Landmark Rights Case for Gays: An Analysis,” The Advocate, July 12, 1979, 9.

138. In Re Kreps; County of Orange v. Orange County Employees Association, No. 72-30-0201-81, July 27, 1981; Rivera, “Queer Law,” 508–14; National Center for Lesbian Rights, “NCLR: Celebrating 35 Years of Making History,” On the Docket (2011): 1 http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/NCLR_Newsletter_Fall2011.pdf?docID=9101 (February 2, 2012).

139. MacLean, Freedom Is Not Enough; Skrentny, The Minority Right Revolution; and see note xvi above.

140. Bryant, Anita, The Anita Bryant Story: The Survival of Our Nation's Families and the Threat of Militant Homosexuality (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1977)Google Scholar; Clendinen and Nagourney, Out for Good; Rimmerman, From Identity to Politics; and Vaid, Virtual Equality.

141. In some cities, such provisions held broad public and political support; in Los Angeles, the ordinance was passed by a vote of thirteen to two. In 1975, such laws existed in fifteen cities in the United States and Canada, including Seattle, Ithaca, Ann Arbor, and Toronto. “ACLU-Southern California Gay Rights Guardian,” July 1979, folder 3, box 17, ACLU-GRC; and “Employment Rights Round-Up––Where We Are, Where We're Going,” The Advocate, January 29, 1975, 9.

142. “Sexual Orientation and Employment Discrimination,” ca. 1980, folder 12, box 3, Jim Long Papers, ONE National Gay and Lesbian Archives, Los Angeles, CA; Philip Hager, “SF Police Going After Gays…To Join the Force,” Los Angeles Times, April 1, 1979, 1; “New Protections For Homosexuals,” Los Angeles Times, June 21, 1983, C4; “ACLU-Southern California Gay Rights Guardian,” August 1979, folder 3, box 17, ACLU-GRC.

143. Philip Haver, “San Jose Area Voters Reject 2 Gay Rights Ordinances,” Los Angeles Times, June 5, 1980, B21. Similar ordinances in Dade County, Florida and St. Paul, Minnesota, were either repealed or rejected at the polls. In Eugene, Oregon, Catholic organizers attempting to repeal a gay rights ordinance collected 10,000 signatures in a week. Eugene voters repealed the ordinance by a two-to-one margin. In Wichita, Kansas, a similar petition, which called for both the repeal of the provision and the ousting of the city commissioners who had supported the law, gathered 30,000 signatures. Gay rights advocates also raised concerns that existing local provisions were ineffective because they were often not publicized and did not effectively deter discrimination. Randy Schilts, “City Rights Laws–Are They Just Toothless Paper Tigers?” The Advocate, March 10, 1976, 6; “Rights Repeal Attempts,” The Advocate, January 25, 1978, 8; and “Eugene, Ore. Residents Vote to Repeal Gay Rights Ordinance,” Washington Post, May 24, 1978, A3.

144. From the 1970s to the 1990s, California state legislators struggled to pass sexual orientation discrimination protections. In January 1980, AB 1 remained in committee for lack of one vote. In 1982, a new articulation of the bill suggested adding sexual orientation to the existing categories of “race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex or age.” This bill passed both Houses of the state legislature in 1984, only to be vetoed by California's governor. Text of AB 1, Introduced December 4, 1978, “AB-1 1983” subject file, ONE; Text of AB 1, introduced December 6, 1982, “AB-1 1983” subject file, ONE; David G. Moore, “Looking Back: A Chronology,” folder 10, box 3, in ONE Institute 30th Anniversary Program, RCP; and Douglas Schuit, “Gay Job Rights Bill Vetoed by Deukmejian,” Los Angeles Times, March 14, 1984, OC1.

145. As of 2009, 21 states and the District of Columbia prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and twelve states and the District of Columbia prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-10-135R, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Employment Discrimination: Overview of State Statutes and Complaint Data 1 (Oct. 7, 2009). Government employment provides another example of uneven and halting steps toward protections from discrimination for gays and lesbians. After Norton v. Macy and the 1975 amendments to the United States Civil Service Regulations, homosexual civilian employees of the federal government have significant protections from discrimination, particularly if their sexuality can be proven to have no detrimental effect upon their job performance. However, in 1981, the United States Army passed regulations mandating the discharge of all homosexuals, regardless of rank or merit. In addition, gays could not obtain the security clearances that were required for many high-ranking government jobs until the early 1990s. President Barack Obama certified the repeal of “don't ask, don't tell,” which required members of the military to hide their homosexuality or face dismissal, in 2011. Elisabeth Buhmiller, “A Final Phase for Ending ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell,’” New York Times, July 22, 2011, A13; Nan D. Hunter, Sherryl E. Michaelson, and Stoddard, Thomas B., The Rights of Lesbians, Gay Men, Bisexuals, and Transgender People: The Basic ACLU Guide to a Gay Person's Rights, 3rd ed. (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992), 16Google Scholar; and Schilts, Randy, Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the United States Military (New York: Ballantine Books, 1994), 376–80Google Scholar.

146. cad, “gays battle briggotry,” off our backs 8 (1978): 7Google Scholar; Cruikshank, Margaret, “Reflection,” The Radical Teacher 7 (2003), 15Google Scholar; Al Martinez, “Snubs, Name-Calling Greet Gay Working to Defeat Prop. 6,” Los Angeles Times, October 9, 1978, A3; and Judith Michaelson, “Briggs Submits Signatures for Anti-Gay Initiative,” Los Angeles Times, May 2, 1978, B22. On Anita Bryant and the Dade County Campaign that inspired Briggs to introduce Proposition 6, see “Battle Over Gay Rights,” Newsweek, June 6, 1977, 16–20.

147. “Boycott Carl's Jr.!” Briggs folder, box 6, HM-SS.

148. “A Self-Serving Politician Has Dreamed up a Moral Crusade. And He Wants You to Pay for It,” box 6, HM-SS.

149. Dennis J. Opatrny, “Briggs–Mondanaro Showdown,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 17, 1978. Josette Mondanaro was a physician and public official who conducted pioneering research and advocacy on behalf of drug addicted pregnant women and their offspring. Described as “the only self-avowed gay person” in California state government, Mondanaro was fired from her position as director of the Drug Abuse Division of the California Department of Health in 1977 because of the governor's thinly veiled fears about the potential threat she could pose to his political future. A 1978 public hearing forced her reinstatement, and her book became a classic in the field. Mondanaro, Chemically Dependent Women: Assessment and Treatment (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1989)Google Scholar. See also Mondanaro, Eden E., “A Pioneer of Chemical Dependency Treatment: Dr. Mondanaro Takes No Prisoners,” American Journal of Public Health 94 (2004): 1300–1303CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Murray Olderman, “A Public Servant Has Some Private Battles,” Merced [CA] Sun-Star, August 31, 1978, 7; and Perrone, Bobette, Stockel, H. Henrietta, and Krueger, Victoria, Medicine Women, Curanderas and Women Doctors (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1993): 159–65Google Scholar.

150. Ammiano, “My Adventures as a Gay Teacher”; William Endicott, “Gay Teacher and Antismoking Initiatives Lose,” Los Angeles Times, November 8, 1978, A6; and Jeffrey Perlman, “‘Battle Is Not Over,’ Briggs Vows to Prop. 6 Supporters,” Los Angeles Times, November 9, 1978, OC_A1.

151. On such a campaign at the Village Voice newspaper in New York, see the interview of Jeff Weinstein, Interviews, Notes re: Domestic Partnership folder, box 1, Lesbian and Gay Labor Network Records, Wagner Archives, Tamiment Library, New York University; and Krupak, “Out of Labor's Dark Age,” 10–12. On this internal mobilization process, see Raeburn, Nicole, Changing Corporate America From Inside Out: Lesbian and Gay Workplace Rights (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004).Google Scholar

152. Bob Levering, “The Boys in the Barracks,” San Francisco Bay Guardian, May 14–26, 1976, 8–9, folder 1, box 9, PCS.

153. Gaines Hollingsworth, “Corporate Gay Bashing: Which Companies Discriminate Against Gays and Lesbians, and How to Fight Back,” The Advocate, September 11, 1990, 28.

154. Warner, “Homophobia, Manifest Homosexuals and Political Activity,” 635.

155. “Corporate Policies on Gay Rights,” The Advocate, May 31, 1978, 12; and Human Rights Campaign, “Corporate Equality Index,” http://www.hrc.org/issues/workplace/cei.htm (March 31, 2010).

156. Raeburn, Changing Corporate America from the Inside Out, esp. 2.

157. John Gallagher, “American Airlines Says it Wants to Repair its Contentious Relationship with Gays and Lesbians, But is it Sincere?” The Advocate, September 6, 1994, 29.

158. George Raine, “Policy Change Benefits United: Gays Applaud Airline's Shift on Domestic Partners,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 3, 1999; “Gay Activists Launch TV Ad Campaign Boycotting United Airlines,” Business Wire, March 31, 1999, http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing-advertising/marketing-advertising-overview/6776468-1.html (May 14, 2010); and Michael Arndt, “United Tries for Gay-Friendly Skies,” Business Week, May 24, 2000, http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2000/nf00524b.htm (May 14, 2010).

159. However, other businesses have perceived explicitly denouncing homosexuals to be a key business advantage. The problem of gay workers’ lack of legal protections is especially evident in the case of Cracker Barrel, which has faced charges of sex, race, and sexual orientation discrimination in the past two decades. A 1991 personnel policy required workers to display “normal heterosexual values which have been the foundation of families in our society.” At least eleven employees were immediately fired. For 12 years, activists boycotted, occupied, and otherwise protested Cracker Barrel. However, only pressure by a major stockholder, the New York City Employees Retirement System, convinced corporate leaders to rescind the policy. The fired workers were never compensated or rehired. Peter T. Kilborn, “Gay Rights Groups Take Aim at Restaurant Chain That's Hot on Wall Street,” New York Times, April 9, 1992, A12; M.V. Lee Badgett, “A Win at Cracker Barrel,” The Nation, January 23, 2003, 7; and Jeremy Quittner, “Cracker Barrel Buckles,” The Advocate, February 4, 2003, 24–25. A 2006 EEOC suit compelled Cracker Barrel to pay $2,000,000 to fifty-one aggrieved employees, provide sensitivity training to all employees, and submit to years of EEOC monitoring. Similar sexual harassment settlements in New Mexico and Tennessee awarded thousands of dollars in back pay and attorneys’ fees to aggrieved workers and forced Cracker Barrel to modify employment practices and retrain employees. “Cracker Barrel To Pay $2 Million for Race and Sexual Harassment at Three Illinois Restaurants: EEOC Settles Major Suit for 51 Employees in Bloomington, Mattoon and Matteson,” LawMemo, March 10, 2006, http://www.lawmemo.com/eeoc/press/3-10-06b.htm (March 31, 2010); EEOC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc., (D.N.M., No. CIV-06-0920), consent decree approved August 24, 2007; and EEOC Press Release, “Cracker Barrel To Pay $255,000 for Sex Harassment And Retaliation; Settlement Includes Training,” April 10, 2009, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-9-09.cfm (March 30, 2010).

160. William B. Ruenstein, Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Law; Memo to all state agencies and employee organizations from California State Personnel Board re: AIDS and Employment Discrimination, April 8, 1987, folder 8, box 102, AIDS History Project Collection, ONE National Gay and Lesbian Archives, Los Angeles, CA (hereafter AHC); and Scott Harris, “AIDS Ruled No Basis for Firing,” Los Angeles Times, February 11, 1987, B1.

161. Terence Roth, “Many Firms Fire AIDS Victims, Citing Health Risk to Co-Workers,” Wall Street Journal, August 12, 1985, 1; Feldblum, “Workplace Issues: HIV and Discrimination”; Mello, Jeffrey A., AIDS and the Law of Workplace Discrimination (Boulder: Westview, 1995)Google Scholar; and Michael Daly, “Aids Anxiety,” New York Times Magazine, June 20, 1983, 23–29.

162. Hunter, Nan D., Epidemic of Fear: A Survey of AIDS Discrimination in the 1980s and Policy Recommendations for the 1990s (New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 1990), 1Google Scholar.

163. “City of Los Angeles Policy on the HIV/AIDS Epidemic,” folder 8, box 2, AHC.

164. Hunter, Nan D., “AIDS Discrimination,” in Liberty at Work: Expanding the Rights of Employees in America (American Civil Liberties Union Public Policy Report, 1988), 31–32Google Scholar; Hunter, Michaelson, and Stoddard, The Rights of Lesbians, Gay Men, Bisexuals, and Transgender People; Ray O'Loughlin, “SF Judge Closes Ten Gay Baths, Sex Clubs,” The Advocate, November 13, 1984, 8; Vaid, Virtual Equality, 74; and Androite, Jean–Manuel, Victory Deferred: How AIDS Changed Gay Life in America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 2Google Scholar.

165. They framed their claims as positive, affirmative rights rather than negative rights. By contrast, the 1986 and 2003 cases that upheld, then denied, states’ rights to penalize sodomy hinged on protections for private acts rather than the affirmative freedom to signal one's essential identity. Richards, David A.J., The Sodomy Cases: Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2009)Google Scholar.

166. Theorist Judith Butler conceptualizes gender as an identity that must be enacted, in the sense that “it is real only to the extent that it is performed.” She argues that bodies become gendered “through a series of acts which are renewed, revised, and consolidated through time.” Butler, Judith, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge Classics, 2006), 278Google Scholar; and Butler, “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory,” in Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre, ed. Case, Sue-Ellen (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), 274Google Scholar. Numerous scholars have argued that employees are expected to embody their race and gender at work. See Thomas Jessen Adams, “The Servicing of America: Political Economy and Service Work in Postwar Southern California,” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2009), esp. 145–79; and Boris, Eileen, “Desirable Dress: Rosies, Sky Girls, and the Politics of Appearance,” International Labor and Working Class History 69 (2006): 123–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Workers can also manipulate customers’ gendered stereotypes. For example, Dorothy Sue Cobble describes waitresses who draw upon the stereotype of the sexy mistress, the doting mother, or the sweet daughter to raise their tips. Cobble, Dishing it Out: Waitresses and their Unions in the Twentieth Century (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1992)Google Scholar. Further, manipulating gender stereotypes is essential to the work of drag queens. See Rupp, Leila J. and Taylor, Verta, Drag Queens at the 801 Cabaret (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Questions such as whether women could wear pants, whether they could gain weight, and how they should style their hair became heated as working women strived to detach ideas of femaleness from assumptions about servility and subordination. Kathleen Barry describes the incredibly restrictive conditions under which flight attendants toiled—arguing that the creation of the perception of luxury through attentive service by a sexy female was central to flight attendants’ labor. Barry, Femininity in Flight. On women's fight to wear pants to work, see Herr, Women, Power, and AT&T, 1–3. On Betsy Wade's efforts to “look unsexy” by cutting her hair and wearing “austere” clothes when she became a copy editor at the New York Times in 1956, see Robertson, Nan, The Girls in the Balcony: Women, Men, and the New York Times (New York: Random House, 1992), 84–85Google Scholar. Employers may still require female employees to do more primping than men in order to display the employer's preferred image. See Pizer, Jennifer C., “Facial Discrimination: Darlene Jespersen's Fight Against the Barbie-Fication of Bartenders,” Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy 14 (January 2007): 285–319Google Scholar.

167. Although the second wave sought and won women's access to many jobs that were previously closed to them, women have had to “act like men” in the workplace while continuing to shoulder domestic responsibilities––all the while remaining silent about those home-based tasks at work, lest they seem like disloyal employees. See Crittenden, Ann, The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World is Still the Least Valued (New York: Holt, 2002)Google Scholar; Maureen Dowd, “Blue is the New Black,” New York Times, September 19, 2009, WK9; Williams, Joan, Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do About It (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)Google Scholar; and Yoshino, Covering.

168. In the 1989 case Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), an employer that discriminated against a female worker because of her masculine qualities was found to violate Title VII. By contrast, the effeminate man remains “doubly despised,” argues legal scholar Mary Ann Case, because he has seemingly voluntarily repudiated the masculine privilege that is his birthright. This state of affairs reinforces the assumption that workers who behave in a masculine way, whether male or female, are rewarded and expected to advance. Effeminacy, whether embodied by men or women, is constructed as inherently supportive and incapable of leadership. Case, “Disaggregating Gender from Sex and Sexual Orientation.”

169. Gary J. Gates, ”Sexual Minorities In the 2008 General Social Survey: Coming Out and Demographic Characteristics,” i, October 2010, Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, http://wiwp.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-Sexual-Minorities-2008-GSS-Oct-2010.pdf (November 2011).

170. Badgett, M.V. Lee, Money, Myths and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), esp. 34–38Google Scholar.

171. The history and debates over gay activists’ pursuit of marriage equality in California illustrates this. See Salas, Richard, “In Re Marriage Cases: The Fundamental Right to Marry and Equal Protection Under the California Constitution and the Effects of Proposition 8,” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 36 (2009): 545–62Google Scholar; Washington Post Editorial Board, “Proposition 8 Ruling Was Just But Wobbly,” Washington Post Online, February 8 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/proposition-8-decision-was-just-but-wobbly/2012/02/08/gIQApOh1zQ_story.html (March 2, 2012); David Cole, “Gambling with Gay Marriage,” NYR Blog, February 9 2012, http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/feb/09/gambling-gay-marriage/, March 2, 2012; and Eskridge, William N. Jr., “The Ninth Circuit's Perry Decision and the Constitutional Politics of Marriage Equality,” Stanford Law Review Online 93 (February 22, 2012)Google Scholar, http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/perry-marriage-equality (March 2, 2012).