View source for Community Stands Up Against Unfair Laws

Politically, even as AIDS was becoming an overwhelming issue, the lesbian and gay community saw some major reminders of their tenuous legal status.  On June 25, 1984, the Richmond City Council adopted new ordinance amending the solicitaiton ordinances.  The new ordinance doubled the maximum penalty if convicted of solicitation to a year in jail and/or a $1000 fine, and created an offense for "loitering for the purpose of soliciting for or engaging in prostitution, or other lewd, lascivious or indecent acts," or to "loiter, lurk, remain or wander around public places... in a manner or under circumstances manifesting the purpose of or soliciting or engaging in any other act which is lewd, lascivious or indecent." This new loitering offense also carried up to a penalty of up to a year in jail and/or $1000 fine.  In effect it allowed the police to arrest an individual if he or she evidences a desire and predisposition to an act, evidenced in loitering about the area, even if the police suggest the act.  <ref> Our Own Community Press, August 1984</ref>

The Richmond Virginia Gay Alliance sponsored a dialogue with a panel of lawyers in September; this meeting was attended by about 50 people.  Four lawyers, John McGarvey, Bessida White, Mike Marchtower and David Whaley, discussed issues significant to the lesbian and gay community, including the recently adopted solicitation and loitering ordinances, wills and contracts, and custody rights.  Whaley talked about challenging the ordinances that had already been declared unconstitutional by at least one judge in Richmond because it was vague, overly broad, infringed upon the 1st Amendment rights of freedom of assembly, shifted the burden of proof to the defendant, violated Miranda rights and used a persons status as a determinant of guilt (i.e. he is gay, it is a gay pick up area, he was in the area, therfore he shows a propensity towards a lewd act and if he responds positively to an officers suggestion, he is guilty of committing a lewd act).  <ref> Our Own Community Press, October 1984</ref>

The Richmond Commission on Human Relations commissioned a study “A Survey of perceptions of Civil Opportunity Among Gays and Lesbians in Richmond, Virginia” which was presented to the commission in the fall of 1985; the study was done to assess the needs of the community and the need for adding sexual orientation to the Human Rights Ordinance.  “The survey revealed that not only was their considerable evidence for discrimination against the City’s gays and lesbians, but that the quality of life for Richmond’s homosexual community was not on par with its heterosexual counterpart.” Some of the statistics were:  31% had been attacked or abused because of being gay/lesbian, 36 % had difficulty renting an apartment, and 24 % had had trouble with restaurant service.  <ref>The Richmond Pride, September 1986</ref>  

The Richmond Virginia Gay Alliance was instrumental in getting respondents to the survey.  The article encouraged lesbian and gay citizens to stand up and contact their representatives because no action will take place unless there is pressure from the community.  In the January 1987 issue of The Richmond Pride, it was reported that no action had been taken by the RCHR committee in regards to the study.  In the July 1987 issue it was reported that “they could not determine from the Survey whether there were actual acts of discrimination or just “disapproving glances.”  An individual stood up at this meeting and told of a physical attack that he had endured because of being and effeminate gay male, and the commission just wanted to know why he was talking to them, not acknowledging that here in front of them was at least one concrete example of discrimination. <ref>The Richmond Pride, January 1987</ref>


The Hardwick v. Bowers decision in June 1986 was also a discouraging set back.  The local Richmond group RVGA (Richmond Virginia Gay Alliance) released the following statement: “The recent ruling by the US Supreme Court in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick is a gross insult to the gay and lesbian people of the United States and a serious threat to the liberties of all Americans.  It upholds the Georgia sodomy law as well as the sodomy laws still on the books in 23 states including Virginia.  It denied the wholeness and humanity of gay and lesbian persons and sets a dangerous precedent for the denial of the basic human rights of all minority groups not in favor with the majority.  It sets a dangerous precedent for government interference into the most private aspects – nonsexual as well as sexual – in the lives of all Americans…”  Dissenting Judge Harry Blackmun wrote an eloquent and unusually long dissent stating that the case wasn’t about the “fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy,” as the majority had tried to frame it, but instead was about the most “comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by me, namely the right to be left alone.” <ref>The Richmond Pride, August 1986</ref>

On the state level, a state mandated Family Life Education Curriculum was being debated.  In June 1987 issue of The Richmond Pride, Guy Kinman urges all lesbian and gay people to step up and comment on the proposed Family Life Education Curriculum that is being proposed in the General Assembly, to make sure that lesbian and gay people are visible and presented in a positive light.  He especially challenged closeted teachers to speak out.  Guy was the former chair of RVGLA and led the “billboard project.”  In October 1987, gay and lesbian Richmonders were encouraged to come out to public hearing on the proposed Family Life Curriculum which did not include gays and lesbians and emphasizes a “just say ‘no’” approach to sexuality.  <ref>The Richmond Pride, June 1987</ref>

In the fall of 1987, the Richmond City library attempted to deny meeting space to Richmond Lesbian and Gay Pride Coalition, despite this group and others being able to use the spaces in the past.  The new library board had decided to issue a blanket denial for space stating that the group meetings did not comply with their guidelines which stated in part “…rooms are available for public gatherings of a civic, cultural or community welfare nature.”  After engaging David Pugh, a lawyer on the board of the RVGLA, to help, the library board decided, without discussing why the initial decision to deny the group space was made, that the blanket denial would be lifted and the group would be able to apply for space just as any other civic group. <ref>The Richmond Pride, September 1987</ref>  This was a small victory, in a sea of discouraging legal decisions that was to continue into the 1990s,

The community's energy was directed more inwardly for the most part in Richmond, but these are obvious examples that we were still "paying attention."  There are indications that there was a perception that the community was not engaged.  In March 1987, the editor of The Richmond Pride, Beverly Rainey, lamented the lack of engagement and interest in the lesbian and gay community in Richmond.  “What’s wrong with the gay community in the State of Virginia?  Have we become so apathetic that we don’t give a damn anymore?  Are with content with the way things are?  Have our ‘closets’ become so comfortable that we like keeping the doors shut?”  In trying to organize a statewide conference to plan for the 1987 March on Washington, only 2 people had responded from a mailing to 65 organizations.

In spite of this perceived inaction in the community, or perhaps because of it, several new organizations developed in the late 1980s:  Virginians for Justice and OUT! Richmond.

References

<references/>