# data[].attributes.body
Police raided a stonewall inn at New York City. The Inn was a gay club/safe space for members of the LGBTQ+ community.

# data[].attributes.body
The raid caused a riot including patrons and people who lived in the neighborhood.

# data[].attributes.body
The riot led to protests that took place outside of the bar for the next 6 days.

# data[].attributes.body
After the stonewall riots the month of June became the month of pride. June is the month that we commemorate the stonewall riots and recognize the impact LGBT people have had in the world.

# data[].attributes.body
Many parades and festivals are now held during June to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community.

# data[].attributes.body
From the 1940's through the 1960's thousands of gay employees were fired or forced to resign from the federal workforce because of their sexuality.

# data[].attributes.body
After world war 2, young people poured into cities, where density and anonymity made pursuit of same-sex relationships more possible than ever.

# data[].attributes.body
Protect the United States and Americans
Advance democracy, human rights, and other global interests
Promote international understanding of American values and policies.

# data[].attributes.body
There are still many injustices and instances of discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community. However, the government has made laws in favor of LGBTQ individuals over the past 60 years. There are still problems that need to be fixed but we have come a long way since the stonewall riots.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction and summary

Survey findings

More than 1 in 3 LGBTQ Americans faced discrimination in the past year

At a basic level, this study finds many LGBTQ individuals reporting mistreatment in their public, work, and personal lives. Asked, "In the past year, have you experienced discrimination of any kind based on your race or ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, disability, economic status, immigration status, or age?" more than one-third of LGBTQ people-36 percent of respondents-said they had. Among transgender individuals, this number increases dramatically, with 62 percent reporting discrimination in the past year.

As seen in Figure 1, reported discrimination is higher than average among transgender and nonbinary people, those with a disability, and individuals of color, particularly Hispanic individuals. Forty-three percent of respondents of color reported experiencing discrimination in some form in the past year, compared with 31 percent of white LGBTQ respondents. Among individuals specifically identifying as nonbinary, genderqueer, agender, or gender nonconforming, nearly 7 in 10 (69 percent) reported discrimination in the past year. Similarly, 45 percent of disabled respondents reported discrimination in the year prior. Generational differences within the LGBTQ community are also prominent: 57 percent of Generation Z adults and 42 percent of Millennials reported discrimination of some kind in the past year, compared with 30 percent of Generation Xers and about one-fifth of Baby Boomers.

In terms of where or how these incidents of discrimination occurred, more than half (51 percent) of LGBTQ respondents overall said they experienced harassment or discrimination in a public place such as a store, public transportation, or a restroom; 36 percent in the workplace; 21 percent at school; 20 percent in an apartment community; 15 percent through interactions with law enforcement; and 14 percent somewhere else. (Multiple responses were allowed.)

Among Gen Z adults in the community, school was the likeliest place to encounter discrimination, at 46 percent, compared with 41 percent in public places.

Respondents were asked to rate the degree to which discrimination affected their life, with the options "not at all," "slightly," "moderately," and "to a significant degree." Transgender respondents were among those facing particularly high levels of discrimination in everyday life. More than half (56 percent) reported that discrimination had a moderate or significant negative impact on their school environment. More than one-third (37 percent) said that discrimination had a moderate or significant impact on their ability to rent or buy a home; 28 percent of LGBTQ respondents overall reported the same. More than half (51 percent) experienced moderate or significant impacts of discrimination in trying to obtain accurate ID documents, an issue especially prominent among transgender individuals seeking documents that accurately reflect their name and gender identity.

Discrimination harms LGBTQ Americans' psychological and economic well-being

The experience of discrimination clearly takes its toll on the psychological and physical well-being of many LGBTQ people as well as on their income and job opportunities.

The study presented respondents with a series of areas and asked them to assess to what degree discrimination has negatively affected them in each area. At the top of the list of negative consequences, 52 percent of LGBTQ people said that their "psychological well-being" has been negatively affected to a moderate or significant degree in the past year. Another 36 percent of respondents reported moderate to significant negative impacts from discrimination on their "spiritual well-being," and 32 percent reported similarly for their "physical well-being." The definitions of these categories were open to the personal interpretation of the respondents.

Transgender individuals experienced noticeably high rates of physical, psychological, and spiritual harm due to discrimination. Two-thirds (66 percent) reported that discrimination moderately or significantly affected their psychological well-being, with nearly half (46 percent) reporting moderate or significant physical impacts and 47 percent reporting moderate or significant impacts on spiritual well-being.

The effect of discrimination on multiple dimensions had significant impacts on Black respondents. Nearly 4 in 5 Black individuals (77 percent) reported moderate or significant impacts to their psychological well-being, while nearly two-thirds (65 percent) reported moderate or significant impacts to their physical well-being.

More than half of Gen Z and Millennial respondents reported moderate or significant negative impacts on their psychological well-being from discrimination, compared with less than half of Gen Xers and about 4 in 10 Baby Boomers.

Discrimination also appears to affect the economic security of LGBTQ individuals. Nearly one-third of respondents (29 percent) reported that discrimination moderately or significantly affected their financial well-being-including 37 percent of Black respondents and more than half (54 percent) of transgender respondents.

Respondents also reported troubles at work. More than one-third of LGBTQ Americans (35 percent) said their ability "to be hired" has been negatively affected to a moderate or significant degree in the past year due to discrimination, along with about 3 in 10 people (31 percent) who have faced negative impacts on their "salary or ability to be promoted" or their "ability to retain employment."

Transgender individuals expressed the greatest difficulty in employment discrimination. More than half (53 percent) of transgender individuals expressed that discrimination moderately or significantly affected their capacity to be hired, with 4 in 10 saying that their ability to be hired was negatively affected to a significant degree. Nearly half (47 percent) of transgender respondents reported that discrimination had a moderate or significant impact on their ability to retain employment. Fifty-one percent of Black respondents reported that discrimination moderately or significantly affected their ability to be hired, compared with 33 percent of white respondents, and 41 percent reported that it had a moderate or significant impact on their ability to retain employment, compared with 31 percent of white respondents. While Baby Boomers reported lower rates of negative impacts from discrimination on their psychological or physical well-being, they were the most likely generation to report that discrimination negatively affected their ability to be hired, their ability to retain employment, and their financial well-being to a significant degree.

These effects appear larger among lower-income LGBTQ Americans than among higher-income ones: Nearly half (47 percent) of those earning less than $25,000 per year reported negative impacts from discrimination on their ability to be hired, compared with around one-quarter (26 percent) of those making more than $100,000 annually.

Many LGBTQ Americans hide their relationships or alter their personal or work lives to avoid discrimination

The survey asked respondents, "Which of the following things have you done in order to avoid experiencing discrimination because of your sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or some other characteristic?" As seen in Table 1, a full 54 percent of LGBTQ Americans say that they have "hid a personal relationship"-by far the most widespread action taken to avoid experiencing discrimination.

College-educated and younger LGBTQ individuals are more likely than noncollege-educated and older ones to report hiding a personal relationship from others. Sixty-two percent of college-educated LGBTQ Americans and two-thirds of Gen Zers say they have hidden a relationship, compared with less than half of noncollege-educated ones and about half of Gen Xers or Baby Boomers.

The next tier of actions taken by about one-third of LGBTQ people to avoid discrimination includes a range of steps, from avoiding public places or houses of worship, to moving away from family, to deciding where to work, to changing individual dress or mannerisms. For example, 35 percent of LGBTQ people say they have "made specific decisions about where to work" in order to avoid discrimination, with one-third also reporting having "avoided public places like stores or restaurants." Transgender and college-educated individuals are more likely than others to have avoided potentially discriminatory workplaces. Three in 10 respondents also reported avoiding law enforcement to prevent discrimination, including 50 percent of transgender respondents and 40 percent of Black respondents.

Likewise, approximately one-third of LGBTQ people say they have "moved away from family," and just more than one-fifth have "moved away from a rural area" to avoid discrimination. In terms of demographic differences, Black and transgender respondents were more likely than others to have moved away from family to avoid discrimination, while those living in nonmetro areas were more likely than those living in metro areas to have changed their dress or mannerisms to avoid discrimination.

About one-fifth of LGBTQ people have taken a third tier of steps to avoid discrimination, including "avoiding travel" (18 percent); "avoiding getting services" (19 percent); "avoiding doctor's offices" (20 percent); and making "specific decisions about where to go to school" (21 percent). These avoidance behaviors were even more common among respondents who experienced discrimination in the past year.

As seen in Figure 8, in terms of the personal characteristics that may have caused people to alter their behaviors, nearly two-thirds of respondents say their "sexual orientation" has led to changed behavior. Thirty-seven percent of respondents selected "sex" as well, including 55 percent of transgender respondents and 38 percent of women versus 24 percent of men. "Race" was chosen by 31 percent of respondents overall, nearly 6 in 10 Black respondents, and more than 4 in 10 Hispanic respondents. Sixty-eight percent of transgender respondents listed "gender identity." "Age" was selected by about one-quarter of respondents, with about one-fifth listing "religion" or "economic status" as personal characteristics that have led LGBTQ people to change their behaviors.

The study also asked respondents to gauge how difficult it would be for them to find a different location if they were denied service in a range of areas. As shown in Figure 9, more than 4 in 10 LGBTQ Americans overall said that finding a different homeless shelter or adoption agency would be very difficult if not impossible if they faced a denial of service. Reported difficulties in finding alternative services in these two areas are even higher for transgender people.

Additionally, approximately one-third of respondents said that it would be very difficult or impossible to find different places to rent an apartment or to get daycare, with around one-fifth of LGBTQ people saying it would be very difficult or impossible to find alternative hospitals, therapists, or wedding vendors if they were denied service.

Due to cost, many LGBTQ Americans found it hard to get necessary medical care in the past year

The study also assessed whether LGBTQ people have experienced any difficulties when trying to access medical care or preventive screenings in the past year. As seen in Figure 10, cost issues affect the largest percentage of LGBTQ individuals. Twenty-nine percent of respondents said that in the past year, "I have postponed or not tried to get medical care when I was sick or injured because I could not afford it," with another one-quarter saying they have postponed preventive screenings due to costs. Among transgender respondents, 51 percent have postponed or avoided care due to cost, and 40 percent have avoided or postponed preventive screenings due to cost.

Although 88 percent of LGBTQ Americans overall say they have health insurance, mostly through an employer or government sponsored exchange or Medicaid, cost pressures pose a particular challenge for younger generations in the community. For example, Gen Z LGBTQ adults are three times more likely than Baby Boomers to have postponed necessary medical care in the past year due to costs (37 percent versus 14 percent, respectively).

Even though costs are a primary challenge, there is a strong desire for equal treatment and good training among health care professionals. Sixty-eight percent of LGBTQ respondents said that it is very important to them that health care providers they see have nondiscrimination policies and specific training in working with LGBTQ people.

Many LGBTQ Americans did not pursue medical treatment due to discrimination

Although costs appear to be a more widespread barrier, discriminatory experiences have also prevented LGBTQ Americans from seeking medical assistance: 15 percent of respondents overall, including 28 percent of transgender respondents, reported postponing or avoiding needed medical care when they were sick or injured due to disrespect or discrimination. Sixteen percent of respondents overall, including 40 percent of transgender respondents, reported postponing or avoiding preventive screenings due to discrimination. Among LGBTQ people who specifically reported experiencing some form of discrimination in the year prior, 36 percent reported avoiding doctor's offices to avoid discrimination compared with 20 percent of respondents overall-a sign that facing discrimination makes one less likely to seek out necessary services.

Exploring the issue in more depth, the study asked respondents whether they have experienced a series of specific challenges with doctors or other health care providers. Twelve percent of respondents overall say they have had to teach their doctors or other providers about their community in order to get adequate treatment. And as seen in Figure 12, anywhere from 7 percent to 14 percent of LGBTQ people have had other negative experiences, including a doctor or provider being visibly uncomfortable due to their actual or perceived sexual orientation (14 percent); harsh or abusive language (8 percent); doctors or providers intentionally refusing to recognize their family members (8 percent); or unwanted physical contact (7 percent).

In general, younger generations across the LGBTQ community are more likely to report specific negative experiences with doctors or health care providers than are those of older generations.

Transgender individuals face unique obstacles when accessing health care

Transgender people, in particular, express more problems in health care than any other segment of the community. Thirty-three percent of respondents reported having to teach their doctor or provider about transgender people in order to get appropriate care. Thirty-eight percent of transgender Americans said that their doctors or other providers have been visibly uncomfortable with them because of their gender identity, and 25 percent said that health care professionals refused to give them medical treatment related to their gender transition. Thirty-two percent of respondents noted that a doctor or provider had intentionally misgendered them or used the wrong name. Nineteen percent reported that their doctor or provider used harsh or abusive language while treating them; 20 percent reported doctors or providers had been physically rough or abusive; and 18 percent reported that their doctor or provider refused to see them at all because of their actual or perceived gender identity.

These concerns are even more prominent among transgender respondents of color. Twenty-eight percent reported that a doctor or provider refused to see them because of actual or perceived gender identity. Twenty-nine percent reported a doctor or other provider used harsh or abusive language when treating them. Thirty-four percent reported doctors or providers refused to provide health care related to gender transition. Thirty-eight percent reported a doctor or provider was physically rough or abusive when treating them. Nearly half (49 percent) reported that their doctor or provider was visibly uncomfortable while treating them, with a similar share (46 percent) reporting that they were intentionally misgendered.

Likewise, 43 percent of transgender people said their health insurance company denied them surgery for their transition, and another 38 percent-including 52 percent of transgender respondents of color-said that their insurance company denied them hormone therapy for their transition. Thirty-four percent reported that an insurance company would not change their records to reflect their current name or gender.

LGBTQ Americans have experienced significant mental health issues related to COVID-19

Overall, two-thirds of LGBTQ Americans say they are anxious about the possibility that they or one of their loved ones will get the coronavirus. Retired individuals, disabled individuals, and Hispanic individuals express more anxiety than others about contracting COVID-19, but concern crosses the entire community.

More specifically, as seen in Table 2, 69 percent of LGBTQ people reported problems in the past two weeks with feeling nervous or anxious when thinking about the coronavirus. Thirty-five percent of these respondents said they felt nervous or anxious for several days, and another 34 percent felt this way for more than half of the days or nearly every day over a two-week period.

Slightly smaller proportions of respondents reported mental health challenges on other measures. For example, roughly 6 in 10 felt down, depressed, or hopeless or reported having trouble falling or staying asleep due to thinking about the coronavirus. Fifty-four percent of LGBTQ people experienced not being able to stop or control their worrying, and 58 percent felt little interest or pleasure in doing things for at least several days over a two-week period. As on other measures, transgender people reported higher levels of mental health issues than most other groups when thinking about the coronavirus.

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The State of the LGBTQ Community in 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A comprehensive new study from the Center for American Progress finds that many LGBTQ people continue to face discrimination in their personal lives, in the workplace and the public sphere, and in their access to critical health care.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Congressional Investigations and the Lavender Scare

Summer 2016, Vol. 48, No. 2

By Judith Adkins

The Red Scare, the congressional witch-hunt against Communists during the early years of the Cold War, is a well-known chapter of American history. A second scare of the same era has been much slower to make its way into public consciousness, even though it lasted far longer and directly impacted many more lives.

Beginning in the late 1940s and continuing through the 1960s, thousands of gay employees were fired or forced to resign from the federal workforce because of their sexuality. Dubbed the Lavender Scare, this wave of repression was also bound up with anti-Communism and fueled by the power of congressional investigation.

The purge followed an era in which gay people were increasingly finding each other and forming communities in urban America. During World War II, many men and women left behind the restrictions of rural or small-town life for the first time. After the war, young people poured into cities, where density and anonymity made pursuit of same-sex relationships more possible than ever.

By the late 1940s, even the general public was becoming more aware of homosexuality. Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, published in 1948, became a bestseller and drew attention for its claim that same-sex experiences were relatively common.

This publicity did not, however, make homosexuality more acceptable, in part because virtually no gay people were open about their sexuality. Also, the country was in the midst of a more general sex-crime panic, stirred up by a few highly publicized cases. In this context, greater public awareness of homosexuality coincided with growing unease and, in many parts of the country, an increase in official repression. Certainly this was true in Washington, DC.

In 1947 the U.S. Park Police initiated in the city a "Sex Perversion Elimination Program," targeting gay men for arrest and intimidation. A year later, Congress passed an act "for the treatment of sexual psychopaths" in the nation's capital. That law facilitated the arrest and punishment of people who acted on same-sex desire and also labeled them mentally ill. Homosexuality was perceived as a lurking subversive threat at a time when the country was coping with tremendous social change as well as rising anxiety about another lurking subversive threat: Communism.

Enter Senator Joseph McCarthy, whose rhetoric explicitly associated Communists and gay people, turning the slow burn of repression into a firestorm. On February 9, 1950, McCarthy delivered his now-famous speech in which he claimed to have a list of 205 known Communists working at the State Department.

On February 20, McCarthy spoke at length on the Senate floor, offering more specifics about some of these individuals, this time characterizing them more broadly as "unsafe risks." Two cases concerned homosexuality.

"Case 14" was, according to McCarthy, a known homosexual who had been ousted by the State Department but then rehired. In his discussion of that man and of "Case 62," McCarthy directly linked homosexuality and Communism. A top intelligence official had reportedly told him that "practically every active Communist is twisted mentally or physically in some way." McCarthy implied that the men in these two cases were susceptible to Communist recruitment because as homosexuals they had what he called "peculiar mental twists."

Just over a week later, Deputy Undersecretary of State John Peurifoy, testifying before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, revealed that the State Department had ousted 91 homosexual employees as security risks.

This was not a complete surprise to the Senate. In 1946, its Appropriations Committee had expressed concern about security risks in the State Department and even attached to that year's appropriations bill a rider giving the secretary of state broad discretion to dismiss employees for the sake of national security. In response, the State Department had put in place more stringent security checks and begun rooting out homosexuals. This purge, specific to State, had been proceeding with relatively little publicity.

However, Peurifoy's statement about the 91, coming as it did right after McCarthy's two speeches, sparked a press frenzy and public outcry.

Political rhetoric increasingly linked "Communists and queers." Many assumptions about Communists mirrored common beliefs about homosexuals. Both were thought to be morally weak or psychologically disturbed, both were seen as godless, both purportedly undermined the traditional family, both were assumed to recruit, and both were shadowy figures with a secret subculture.

Unlike Communists, however, homosexuals were being uncovered-a fact that encouraged further pursuit.

Shortly after Peurifoy's revelation about the 91, a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee looked into McCarthy's charges about Communists in the State Department. Known as the Tydings committee after its chair, Senator Millard Tydings, this committee focused on loyalty risks rather than the broader category of security risks, largely skirting the issue of homosexuality.

Disputes broke out over this scope. Critics deemed the committee's narrow inquiry a whitewash orchestrated to shield President Harry Truman's administration from criticism about subversives in government.

Some members of Congress-driven by partisanship, political opportunism, concern about national security, alarm over "perversion," general suspicion towards the federal bureaucracy, or some combination of factors-pressed for further action. Two congressional investigations into homosexuality in the federal workforce followed.
A Committee of Two: The Wherry-Hill Investigation
From late March to May of 1950, Senator Kenneth Wherry, a Republican, and Senator J. Lister Hill, a Democrat, undertook the first investigation. The two men alone made up a subcommittee of the Subcommittee on Appropriations for the District of Columbia. No records from this investigation survive, beyond press coverage and two published reports, one from Hill and a longer one from Wherry.

The senators heard testimony from Lt. Roy Blick, head of the DC Metropolitan Police Department's vice squad. Blick claimed that 5,000 homosexuals lived in DC and that about 3,700 of them were federal employees. These figures were highly speculative but dramatic and widely reported by the press.

Wherry and Hill also questioned government officials, including representatives from the State Department, the Defense Department, military intelligence, and the Civil Service Commission, the agency that oversaw civilian employees of the federal government.

In particular, Wherry wanted to know whether any of the "91 moral weaklings" fired from State had made their way back into government service. The CSC looked into the matter, determined that 13 had indeed been rehired, and outlined the steps it was taking to remove them. Wherry concluded that no coordinated system existed to guarantee that the files of personnel separated for homosexuality were appropriately flagged.

Commissioner Harry Mitchell of the CSC sent the committee suggestions for a "routine procedure to rid the offices of Government of moral perverts and guard against their admission." Henceforth, arresting authorities would report the real nature of each arrest to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which would alert the CSC, which would in turn take appropriate action to pursue removal.

To remedy the rehiring problem, the commission was also distributing to all federal departments and agencies a letter emphasizing the necessity of reporting promptly "the actual reasons" for all separations or resignations.

The CSC was not alone in springing into action once Congress took an interest in the issue. "Since your subcommittee . . . began their investigation," Wherry boasted in his report, "there has been increased activity on the part of Government departments and agencies . . . to take off their payrolls alleged moral perverts." Lieutenant Blick asserted that the congressional investigation had prompted nearly every agency of the government to send an official to see him.

"From what I can learn and by my own personal observation," Blick claimed, "between 90 and 100 moral perverts have recently resigned." If such a small-scale congressional inquiry had prompted the agencies to root out 100, Wherry reasoned, an extensive investigation would accomplish even more and was clearly in the public interest.

Wherry also emphasized the Communist connection: "Only the most naïve could believe that the Communists' fifth column in the United States would neglect to propagate and use homosexuals to gain their treacherous ends." Indeed, one special investigator told the committee that many homosexuals could be spotted at the Communist meetings routinely monitored by DC police.

The Senate was convinced. In response to Wherry and Hill's recommendations, it resolved on June 7, 1950, to undertake a thorough, comprehensive investigation of "the alleged employment by the departments and agencies of the Government of homosexuals and other moral perverts."
A Wider Net: The Hoey Committee Investigation
This second, larger investigation was assigned to the investigations subcommittee of the Senate's Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. Also known as the Hoey committee after its chairman, Senator Clyde Hoey, the subcommittee included three additional Democrats (Senators James Eastland, John McClellan, and Herbert O'Conor) and three Republicans (Senators Karl Mundt, Andrew Schoeppel, and Margaret Chase Smith).

Senator McCarthy was also on the subcommittee but excluded himself from this particular investigation, resigning his seat temporarily on June 14. He still occasionally forwarded information about suspected homosexuals and likely had the ear of the subcommittee's chief counsel, Francis Flanagan. (In an interview conducted in 1996, Flanagan described himself as a "close personal friend" of McCarthy's and recalled extended hunting trips the two men took together.) In addition to Flanagan, the committee staff included an assistant counsel, five investigators, and a chief clerk.

That team gathered information from federal agencies, law enforcement, judicial authorities, and the medical community. In July and September, the committee also held five days of "executive session" hearings, closed to the public, at which a subset of these officials and authorities testified before the committee's members and staff. No gay men or lesbians spoke.

Ruth Young, the committee's chief clerk, suggested in an oral history years later that the presence of Senator Smith, the only woman in the Senate, constrained discussion. "You could have been talking about the weather," Young recollected. "You never heard a bunch of hearings with so little sex." (Indeed, Flanagan later recalled Senator Hoey asking him to advise Smith to skip the hearings. She insisted on attending. Hoey complained that he had wanted to ask more questions but could not do so with her there.)

The documents gathered and generated by the Hoey committee during its six months in operation are held at the Center for Legislative Archives, the permanent home within the National Archives for the records of Congress. These documents illuminate the committee's work processes and many details of this particular chapter of history.

Memoranda and index cards in the records show the committee's initial intent to create a central name index of known or suspected homosexuals. However, President Truman had previously issued a directive closing government personnel files to congressional committees, and the Hoey committee quickly refocused its efforts.

The staff first contacted a wide range of federal agencies to ascertain the number of suspected homosexuals investigated or removed from employment and to inquire about the agency's related policies and procedures and its general stance on the suitability of gay employees. A questionnaire went out to all branches of the military plus 53 civilian departments and agencies, ranging from the large and prominent, like State, Treasury, and Justice, to the small and obscure, like the American Battle Monument Commission and the Philippine War Damage Commission. Committee investigators then interviewed agency officials and summarized these conversations in memoranda.

Most agencies came out strongly against the suitability of homosexual employees. The response of Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer was typical. In a July 24 letter to the committee, he declared:

"The privilege of working for the United States Government should not be extended to persons of dubious moral character, such as homosexuals or sex perverts. The confidence of our citizenry in their Government would be severely taxed if we looked with tolerance upon the employment of such persons."

Not all agency officials were equally damning, however.

For example, in his July 31 reply to the committee, Howard Colvin, acting director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, asserted that homosexuals could make good employees:

"Since it is possible, according to our understanding of medical and psychiatric opinion on the subject, for a homosexual to lead a normal, well-adjusted life, we do not consider that such a person necessarily constitutes a bad security risk. We believe that each such case would have to be decided on its own merits."

Certain agencies may have been more concerned about homosexuality, and others more inclined to turn a blind eye. It is impossible to know whether the subtle distinctions in these letters reflect the particular agency's culture, the attitude of the individual writing the response, or some combination of factors, but there is at least evidence here of a range of opinion.

The Hoey committee records also show that a small number of agency officials were initially not entirely forthcoming. Investigator James Thomas grew exasperated with John Shover, director of personnel at the National Labor Relations Board. "His attitude at the time," Thomas writes in a July 20 memorandum summarizing a telephone interview, "did not appear to be too cooperative." When Thomas proposed an in-person meeting to discuss two cases of homosexuality in the department, Shover balked. According to Thomas, "he more or less refused to receive me for this purpose and said rather bluntly: 'I am not going to let you see any of our files.'" This occasional resistance and the subtle variations of opinion evident in the committee's records suggest that, at least at the start of the scare, each agency may have had its own nuanced stance toward homosexuality.

At the committee's formal hearings, the intelligence community was especially well-represented. The senators seemed particularly eager for advice from that sector. Senator McClellan asked Adm. Roscoe Hillenkoetter, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, for input into possible legislation to establish a master database of identified homosexuals. Senator Smith invited the admiral to think about whether "a special agency" should be created to deal with the problem. Senator Mundt praised him for making it clear "why it is dangerous to put a homosexual in an unimportant, non-sensitive position." Mundt summed up his new understanding:

"This clandestine comraderie [ sic] they establish necessitously brings to Government people of homosexual tendencies. Even though you hire him as a janitor, he tends to bring in a fellow who might become chief of the division."

The committee also gathered data from law enforcement and judicial authorities. The DC Metropolitan Police Department shared its arrest records related to homosexuality. The U.S. Park Police provided its "Pervert Records" in two separate documents, one for government employees and the other for everybody else.

Officials of both forces testified about the challenges of policing homosexuality in the capital city. Lieutenant Blick rued the difficulty of eliminating cruising from the public parks-especially the restrooms: "We have been out there, Mr. Chairman, from 4:30 p.m. on around until 4:30 or 5:00 a.m. in the morning, and . . . I do not believe a half a dozen legitimate persons go in there to answer Nature's call."

In addition, the committee took testimony from DC judges and prosecutors. Much of the conversation centered on the inadequacies of the forfeiture system. Men arrested for seeking same-sex contact were typically charged with disorderly conduct and allowed to forfeit a $25 collateral without appearing in court.

To survey how these offenses were being handled elsewhere, the Hoey committee sent questionnaires to police and prosecutors in 10 of the nation's largest cities. It also held conferences with police officials in Baltimore, New York City, and Philadelphia.

Finally, the committee investigated what it called the "medical aspects" of the problem. Staff investigators wrote to and interviewed prominent psychiatrists and other medical authorities to ascertain whether homosexuals could be detected through psychiatric examination, whether and how they could be cured, whether they lacked the emotional stability necessary for government service, whether they tended to seduce younger men and women, and whether it would be helpful to have psychiatrists on personnel boards charged with identifying homosexuals. Committee staff consulted close to two dozen medical authorities and devoted one session of hearings to related testimony.

The doctors' letters and testimony offer a snapshot of the medical community's understanding of homosexuality at the time. Dr. Clements Fry of Yale University's Division of Psychiatry and Mental Hygiene captured the overall tenor in his August 9 letter:

"It is a difficult task to answer your five questions as the problem of homosexuality is more involved than your questions indicate. Each question would have to be answered with qualifications for homosexuality is not an entity. There are all shades and gradations."

Other medical authorities echoed his points about the complexity of the issue, the coexistence of various tendencies in the same person, and the fluidity of sexuality. In his July 26 testimony before the committee, Dr. Leonard Scheele, Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service, observed, "We have many individuals who are not completely homosexual. We have some who are homo and heterosexual at various times." He underscored the sketchiness of knowledge about the issue: "We are dealing in a gap area in large degree."

The committee, it seemed, hoped instead for clarity, simplicity, and straightforward solutions. Senator Smith asked Dr. Scheele, "There is no quick test like an x-ray that discloses these things?"

"No, unfortunately," he replied, "it is a long interview affair."

Another witness before the committee, Capt. George Raines, professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University, emphasized the role his social connections played in his understanding. Having known a thousand well-adjusted gay men and lesbians, he declared that "the homosexual in the drawing room is quite a different individual than the homosexual the psychiatrist sees in his office. Only sick people go to a doctor." His experience foreshadowed what came to pass in a larger way by the end of the 20th century, as widespread social interaction with openly gay people increased public acceptance of homosexuality.

That future, however, was a long way off. In 1952, the American Psychiatric Association's first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders officially classified homosexuality as a "sociopathic personality disturbance." Ironically, the relatively open-minded Raines was then the chairman of the APA's Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics, which shepherded the manual into existence.

The fine print in that text admits that people placed in this category were "ill primarily in terms of society and of conformity with the prevailing cultural milieu," but that hedging did not soften the blow on gay men and lesbians. That official "sociopathic" designation carried tremendous force, lasting for more than 20 years and justifying widespread discrimination. Nevertheless, the Hoey committee's files show that, even in this era, some in the medical community were trying, however haltingly and inconsistently, to articulate an understanding of human sexuality that embraced complexity.
Tightening the Net
The two congressional investigations themselves, and the procedural and other changes put in place while they were ongoing, made life far more precarious for gay federal workers.

In her testimony before the Hoey committee on September 8, Frances Perkins, former secretary of labor and then a member of the Civil Service Commission, emphasized recent initiatives aimed at eliciting from all government offices "the true reasons" for resignations. Perkins reported that the commission had established an inspection division-a "constant inspection service"-charged with ensuring agency compliance with the new full disclosure rules.

"I think we can say," asserted Perkins, "that because of recent pressures which we and others have imposed upon the agencies, and a new awareness of the fact that this problem existed, that we are now getting we believe the full cause of the resignation." It was becoming increasingly difficult for a gay worker to resign without a permanent tag of "perversion" or "homosexuality" on his or her record.

During the same hearing, D. Milton Ladd, the assistant to the director of the FBI, reported that the bureau had recently delivered Lieutenant Blick's list of DC homosexuals to the Civil Service Commission and to all relevant government agencies. On top of that, the FBI had instructed the DC Metropolitan Police, as well as the police departments of neighboring cities in Maryland and Virginia, to indicate on all arrest records submitted to the FBI in the future "information as to the man's employment, particularly where there is indication he is employed by the Federal Government." In May, reported Ladd, the FBI had taken one additional giant step, instructing police departments throughout the U.S. "to indicate on any arrest fingerprint cards, the federal employment of the individuals arrested." A man could be picked up in California for responding to an undercover vice officer's suggestive remarks-and end up losing his government job 2,000 miles away in Washington, DC.

The Hoey committee also directly influenced District of Columbia court procedures and penalties for cases involving homosexuality. According to Thomas Quinn, associate judge of the municipal court, the Hoey committee's Flanagan met in early August with George Barse, chief judge of the municipal court, "with regard to homosexual cases, and with particular regard to the matter of forfeitures."

This meeting sparked a conference of all the city judges later in the month, resulting in a new judicial order. That order prohibited forfeiture in disorderly conduct cases of a sexual nature and required that $300 cash or $500 bond be posted. "So by that procedure," Quinn observed, "we will force these individuals to come into court and they will either have to stand trial or enter a plea." These changes ratcheted up the financial penalty, as well as the public shaming, and all because Flanagan had taken action.

Without a doubt, particular individuals were detected and removed from employment as a direct result of the two congressional investigations. In addition to Blick's claim in May that close to 100 had been rooted out just since the Wherry-Hill investigation began in March, the files of the Hoey committee show that certain individuals were caught up in its wider net as well. Anonymous correspondents submitted the names of suspected homosexuals to the committee. Staff of the committee also cross-referenced information to snare individuals who had until then managed to fly under the radar.

For example, investigator James Thomas wrote a memorandum on July 6, summarizing his interview with officials at the General Accounting Office about 10 homosexuality cases. Then he looked through the Hoey committee's file of police records and found the names of two additional GAO employees who had been arrested for same-sex activity. Thomas notified the agency, adding in a postscript to his memo, "The G.A.O. had no record of the charges in these cases and were glad to receive the information concerning them."

It came to the committee's attention that Congress itself had no system for dealing with "perversion" in its midst. Senator Hoey acknowledged the oversight in a November 28 memorandum to the Justice Department's deputy attorney general, Peyton Ford:

"Our investigation revealed that no procedures now exist whereby the proper officials in the legislative branch of the government can be kept informed in those cases in which legislative employees may be arrested . . . on charges of homosexuality."

His letter was likely sparked by the discovery, mentioned in a letter of the same date by Flanagan, that a current employee of the House had been arrested the preceding March for homosexual activity. Each chamber had a problem. Committee clerk Ruth Young recalled that an elevator operator in the Senate was found to be on "the District of Columbia list of known homosexuals." In his November 30 reply to Hoey, Ford concurred with the chairman's suggestion that, henceforth, FBI information about any House or Senate employee arrested on charges of homosexuality should be forwarded to the chair of that chamber's committee on administration.

The two congressional investigations had a chilling effect on the overall climate of Washington's gay community.

"I think you should know," Captain Raines observed in his testimony before the Hoey committee, "those of us in town who have a large number of contacts are aware . . . that Government at this time has a rising wave of anxiety in it, a tremendous wave of anxiety. These people are frightened to death, and the agencies, some of them are frightened."
The Power of a Report
After completing its investigation, the Hoey committee issued a report, Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government, summarizing its findings and recommendations. The committee found that, during the preceding three years, close to 5,000 homosexuals had been detected in the military and civilian workforces.

Written by Flanagan and approved by the committee, the report concluded that gay people should not be employed by the federal government because they were "generally unsuitable" and constituted "security risks." Much was made of their supposed vulnerability to blackmail, though evidence of this was lacking. The report asserted also that gay people lacked emotional stability, had weak "moral fiber," were a bad influence on the young, and attracted others of their kind to government service. "One homosexual," the report warned, "can pollute a Government office."

Flanagan selectively used evidence that the committee had gathered, largely ignoring, for example, the complexities raised by medical authorities. The report also dismissed the hesitations, qualifying statements, and more tolerant attitudes voiced by a minority of agency officials.

Flanagan characterized these alternative perspectives as "unrealistic" views of the problem, as relying on the "false premise" that what employees did in their own time was their own business, and as "a head-in-the-sand attitude."

While the report did not call for any major new legislation, it urged government agencies and the Civil Service Commission to enforce aggressively their existing policies banning employees guilty of "immoral conduct." The committee also called for a tightening of sex crime laws in the District and for better communication among the agencies, the Civil Service Commission, and law enforcement officials.

Flanagan forwarded his draft of the report on to each committee member. Only Senators Mundt and Schoeppel sent back suggestions for revision, and these were minor. Both men asked Flanagan to add something about, as Mundt put it, the committee's intent to reexamine the situation periodically "to see whether these recommendations are being followed and whether they are comprehensive enough to protect the public interest": a warning to the agencies to be vigilant. Flanagan obliged. The impact of his wordsmithing in the form of this report, like the impact of James Thomas's industrious cross-referencing, serves as a reminder that congressional power is wielded by hired staff as well as elected representatives.

The Hoey committee report was widely promulgated and highly influential. It shaped government agency security manuals for years to come. It was sent abroad to U.S. embassies and to foreign intelligence agencies. The report carried the authority of Congress and so was taken as official proof that gay people did indeed threaten national security. The U.S. government and even foreign governments repeatedly quoted it to justify discrimination.

Most significantly, the 1950 congressional investigations and the Hoey committee's final report helped institutionalize discrimination by laying the groundwork for President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1953 Executive Order #10450, "Security Requirements for Government Employment."

That order explicitly added sexuality to the criteria used to determine suitability for federal employment. With the stroke of a pen, the President effectively banned gay men and lesbians from all jobs in the U.S. government-the country's largest employer.Even the private sector was no haven. Because Eisenhower's order stipulated that "consultants" to government agencies could be investigated for adherence to these security requirements, contractors and other employers, especially in metropolitan Washington, followed the government's lead and adopted discriminatory hiring and firing practices as well.

Congressional investigation, and the institutionalized exclusion that followed, created a sizable ripple effect. Historians estimate that somewhere between 5,000 and tens of thousands of gay workers lost their jobs during the Lavender Scare. Some faced continued unemployment or underemployment, exclusion from their professions, financial strain or even ruin, and considerable emotional distress. Suicide was not uncommon. Some of these tragedies we know about; others remain forever hidden because obituaries typically omitted the cause of death in such cases.

Many gay men and lesbians did not even bother to apply for federal employment, or jobs with government contractors, because they worried about possible detection. Others passed up opportunities for promotion, or otherwise scaled down their ambitions, for fear of attracting greater scrutiny in more prominent positions. The total fallout in terms of ruined or truncated lives and wasted human potential is ultimately immeasurable.

Unlike the Red Scare, the Lavender Scare featured no public naming of names and no dramatic spectacles in which the accused testified. That relative anonymity saved lives; public exposure almost certainly would have led to more suicides.

Yet this feature of the scare also meant that gay men and women remained vague specters-not real people.

Moreover, that anonymity tends to skew perception of the scare even today by making it seem abstract. If you read only the Hoey committee's published generalities and statistics, it is easy to see those caught up in the purge as numbers on a page, rather than particular human beings. In the unpublished committee records, however, the individuals emerge just a bit-in passing references and fleeting anecdotes.

One man who lost his job had married, fathered a child, and tried his best to be exclusively heterosexual before slipping up ("We would never have caught this fellow except this one time"); another fired employee worried about his dependents ("He cares for sick parents and has now no source of income"); another "committed suicide by leaping from a bridge." These kinds of fragments-scattered in the committee's transcripts, memoranda, correspondence, and other unpublished records-suggest the fuller truth and tragedy.
The Past as Prologue
The story recounted here is prologue to another: official discrimination eventually inspired some gay federal workers to take action.

In 1957, the Army Map Service fired astronomer Franklin Kameny because he had been arrested in California a year earlier for consensual contact with another man. Unlike most in his predicament, Kameny fought back in a sustained way, eventually appealing his dismissal all the way to the Supreme Court.

When that appeal failed in 1961, Kameny co-founded the Mattachine Society of Washington, DC, which battled anti-gay discrimination in general and the federal government's exclusionary policies in particular. Other fired gay workers filed suit as well. Eventually, after years of public demonstrations, ongoing organizational pressure, and numerous legal battles, the tide turned.

In 1975 the Civil Service Commission announced new rules stipulating that gay people could no longer be barred or fired from federal employment because of their sexuality. The Lavender Scare was finally officially over (at least for civilian workers).

In his testimony before the Hoey committee in 1950, psychiatrist George Raines emphasized the danger of further alienating anyone who was already a social outcast. "That sort of individual," he warned, "is ripe for revolution."

He was correct. Although the "revolution" was of a different sort than Raines (or McCarthy) imagined, Kameny and his fellow activists, under the pressure of rising discrimination, brought about their own kind of revolution: a changed world for gay federal workers.

Judith Adkins is an archivist at the Center for Legislative Archives at the National Archives in Washington, DC.
Notes on Sources
The definitive monograph on the purge is David K. Johnson's The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government (2004). I thank Dr. Johnson for sharing audio files of his interviews with Francis Flanagan in 1996 and 1997. For the background leading up to the investigations, and for the impact of the Hoey committee report, I have relied largely on Johnson's work and on Genny Beemyn's A Queer Capital: A History of Gay Life in Washington, DC. (2015).

Other secondary works informing this account include: Randolph W. Baxter, "'Homo-Hunting' in the Early Cold War: Senator Kenneth Wherry and the Homophobic Side of McCarthyism," Nebraska History 84 (2003): 119-132; Douglas M. Charles, Hoover's War on Gays: Exposing the FBI's "Sex Deviates" Program (2015); Lillian Faderman, The Gay Revolution: The Story of the Struggle (2015); Linda Hirshman, Victory: The Triumphant Gay Revolution (2012); and Michael G. Long, Gay is Good: The Life and Letters of Gay Rights Pioneer Franklin Kameny (2014).

Primary sources used here include three congressional committee reports published by the U.S. Government Printing Office in 1950. The Wherry Report appeared as Report of the Investigations of the Junior Senator of Nebraska . . . on the Infiltration of Subversives and Moral Perverts into the Executive Branch of the United States Government, 81st Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Committee Print 4178. The Hill Report was published as Report of the Subcommittee of the Subcommittee on the Appropriations for the District of Columbia . . . with Reference to Testimony on Subversive Activity and Homosexuals in the Government Service, 81st Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Committee Print 4179. The Hoey committee's final report is Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government, Interim Report . . . , 81st Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Document 241.

For McCarthy's speech to the Senate, see Congressional Record, 81st Congress, 2nd Session, Vol. 96, Part 2, pp. 1952-1981.

The unpublished records of the Hoey committee are part of National Archives Record Group 46, the Records of the U.S. Senate. The investigative files have been subsumed into the "numbered case files" of the investigating committee's successor committee, which is the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) of the Senate Committee on Government Operations. These files are the Case 40 files of the PSI records. The committee's hearings transcripts are the Executive Session Hearings, Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, Subcommittee on Investigations, 81st Congress.

The specific hearings and Case 40 items referenced in this article are: Sawyer's July 24 letter is in file 40-09; Colvin's July 31 letter and Thomas's July 6 and July 20 memoranda are in file 40-20, folder 2; Hillenkoetter's testimony, and the senators' responses, are from the executive session of July 14; the Blick and Quinn testimonies are from the executive session of September 15; Fry's August 9 letter is in file 40-17; the Scheele and Raines testimonies are from the executive session of July 26; the Perkins and Ladd testimonies are from the executive session of September 8; the Hoey, Flanagan, and Ford correspondence regarding legislative employees is in file 40-0, folder 1; correspondence about the final report is in file 40-24.

Those "passing references and fleeting anecdotes" are from Hillenkoetter's July 14 testimony, Raines's July 26 testimony, and Thomas's June 20 memorandum in file 40-20, folder 1.

The interview of Ruth Young Watt was conducted by Donald A. Ritchie on September 7, 1979, for the Oral History Project of the United States Senate Historical Office. A transcript is available on that office's website.

Eisenhower's Executive Order #10450 can be found on the website of the Office of the Federal Register; the original is at the National Archives as part of Record Group 11, General Records of the U.S. Government.

Note on language: I have used homosexual or gay interchangeably to describe workers fired for homosexuality, but these are not necessarily terms they would have used to describe themselves. Gay as a descriptor for sexual orientation dates to the 1920s but did not become common usage until the 1970s.

Articles published in Prologue do not necessarily represent the views of NARA or of any other agency of the United States Government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Congressional Investigations and the Lavender Scare Summer 2016, Vol. 48, No. 2 By Judith Adkins Enlarge On December 15, 1950, the Hoey committee released this report, concluding that homosexuals were "unsuitable for employment in the Federal Government" and constituted "security risks in positions of public trust." (Records of the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Constant Raids at Gay Bars

The 1960s and preceding decades were not welcoming times for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans. For instance, solicitation of same-sex relations was illegal in New York City.

For such reasons, LGBT individuals flocked to gay bars and clubs, places of refuge where they could express themselves openly and socialize without worry. However, the New York State Liquor Authority penalized and shut down establishments that served alcohol to known or suspected LGBT individuals, arguing that the mere gathering of homosexuals was "disorderly."

Thanks to activists' efforts, these regulations were overturned in 1966, and LGBT patrons could then be served alcohol. But engaging in gay behavior in public (holding hands, kissing or dancing with someone of the same sex) was still illegal, so police harassment of gay bars continued and many bars still operated without liquor licenses-in part because they were owned by the Mafia.

Gay Rights Before Stonewall

The first documented U.S. gay rights organization, The Society for Human Rights (SHR), was founded in 1924 by Henry Gerber, a German immigrant. Police raids forced them to disband in 1925, but not before they had published several issues of their newsletter, "Friendship and Freedom," the country's first gay-interest newsletter. America's first lesbian rights organization, The Daughters of Bilitis, was formed in San Francisco on September 21, 1955.

In 1966, three years before Stonewall, members of The Mattachine Society, an organization dedicated to gay rights, staged a "sip-in" where they openly declared their sexuality at taverns, daring staff to turn them away and suing establishments who did. When The Commission on Human Rights ruled that gay individuals had the right to be served in bars, police raids were temporarily reduced.

The Stonewall Inn

The crime syndicate saw profit in catering to shunned gay clientele, and by the mid-1960s, the Genovese crime family controlled most Greenwich Village gay bars. In 1966, they purchased Stonewall Inn (a "straight" bar and restaurant), cheaply renovated it, and reopened it the next year as a gay bar.

Stonewall Inn was registered as a type of private "bottle bar," which did not require a liquor license because patrons were supposed to bring their own liquor. Club attendees had to sign their names in a book upon entry to maintain the club's false exclusivity. The Genovese family bribed New York's Sixth Police Precinct to ignore the activities occurring within the club.

Without police interference, the crime family could cut costs how they saw fit: The club lacked a fire exit, running water behind the bar to wash glasses, clean toilets that didn't routinely overflow and palatable drinks that weren't watered down beyond recognition. What's more, the Mafia reportedly blackmailed the club's wealthier patrons who wanted to keep their sexuality a secret.

Nonetheless, Stonewall Inn quickly became an important Greenwich Village institution. It was large and relatively cheap to enter. It welcomed drag queens, who received a bitter reception at other gay bars and clubs. It was a nightly home for many runaways and homeless gay youths, who panhandled or shoplifted to afford the entry fee. And it was one of the few-if not the only-gay bar left that allowed dancing.

Raids were still a fact of life, but usually corrupt cops would tip off Mafia-run bars before they occurred, allowing owners to stash the alcohol (sold without a liquor license) and hide other illegal activities. In fact, the NYPD had stormed Stonewall Inn just a few days before the riot-inducing raid.

The Stonewall Riots Begin

When police raided Stonewall Inn on the morning of June 28, it came as a surprise-the bar wasn't tipped off this time.

Armed with a warrant, police officers entered the club, roughed up patrons, and, finding bootlegged alcohol, arrested 13 people, including employees and people violating the state's gender-appropriate clothing statute (female officers would take suspected cross-dressing patrons into the bathroom to check their sex).

Fed up with constant police harassment and social discrimination, angry patrons and neighborhood residents hung around outside of the bar rather than disperse, becoming increasingly agitated as the events unfolded and people were aggressively manhandled. At one point, an officer hit a lesbian over the head as he forced her into the police van- she shouted to onlookers to act, inciting the crowd to begin throw pennies, bottles, cobble stones and other objects at the police.

Within minutes, a full-blown riot involving hundreds of people began. The police, a few prisoners and a Village Voice writer barricaded themselves in the bar, which the mob attempted to set on fire after breaching the barricade repeatedly.

The fire department and a riot squad were eventually able to douse the flames, rescue those inside Stonewall, and disperse the crowd. But the protests, sometimes involving thousands of people, continued in the area for five more days, flaring up at one point after the Village Voice published its account of the riots.

Stonewall's Legacy

Though the Stonewall uprising didn't start the gay rights movement, it was a galvanizing force for LGBT political activism, leading to numerous gay rights organizations, including the Gay Liberation Front, Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD (formerly Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), and PFLAG (formerly Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays).

On the one-year anniversary of the riots on June 28, 1970, thousands of people marched in the streets of Manhattan from the Stonewall Inn to Central Park in what was then called "Christopher Street Liberation Day," America's first gay pride parade. The parade's official chant was: "Say it loud, gay is proud."

In 2016, then-President Barack Obama designated the site of the riots-Stonewall Inn, Christopher Park, and the surrounding streets and sidewalks-a national monument in recognition of the area's contribution to gay rights.

Photo Gallery

HISTORY Vault

Sources

A History of Gay Rights in America. CBS.
LGBTQ Activism: The Henry Gerber House, Chicago, IL. NPS.gov.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
1969 Stonewall Riots - Origins, Timeline & Leaders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Stonewall Riots, also called the Stonewall Uprising, took place on June 28, 1969, in New York City, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, a local gay club. The raid sparked a riot among bar patrons and neighborhood residents as police hauled employees and patrons out of the bar, leading to six days of protests and violent clashes.