Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the Relegatory laws of the 1930s.

     Mary asked us this question in class today: Thinking question: after reading Section II of Chauncey, including his epilogue "The Strange Career of the Closet"--consider how you might develop a cultural analysis that connects the creation recent repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the US Military to theories and incidents presented in Gay New York. 
     Immediately, I was drawn to the passages describing the Post- Repeal era.  I mentioned Prohibition briefly in my previous post, yet I did not go into detail about the regulations following its repeal.  This, to me, is what most strongly correlates with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.  The State Liquor Authority in New York at the time (the SLA)  imposed strict anti-homosexual policies in establishments in teh 1930s, grouping homosexuality along with "disorderly conduct."  This is similar to the military's grouping of homosexuality as something which is contrary to good morale and discipline in the military, and assuming that homosexuality automatically indicates a digression in behavior that would be bad for the institution.  The policies lasted for many years (though I don't believe it is specified how many, only "a generation" gives time frame)  and in several trips to court were not able to justify their reasoning beyond the need for morality and the limitation of variants.  The courts upheld these regulations, much as Don't Ask, Don't Tell has remained a U.S. policy up until last year.  A quote from Gay New York reads, "they did not need to cultivate a gay patronage in order to suffer...any bar that so much as tolerated the presence of a single homosexual risked losing its license" (341).  Similarly, the U.S. Military maintained for years that the presence of homosexuals was a risk to the reputation and success of the entire force, and that none, if found would be tolerated. (Though the rule does give a bit more exception than did the regulations of the 1930s in New York- there are several exceptions to the first premise for expulsion)  Moreover, Don't Ask, Don't Tell corresponds directly to the behavior that New York gays were expected to adhere to should they not wish to be arrested for "disorderly conduct."  We can read this quote in two ways, in that described by Chauncy, and that indicated by the square parentheses whose correct name I do not know: "In effect, the ruling allowed bars [the military] to be patronized [enlisted with] by homosexuals, but only so long as they did nothing to indicate they were homosexuals"(343).  There are clearly many parallels between the newly-repealed section of Military rules, and that of the history of gays in New York.  However, I will have to read Chauncey's part two to see how the licensing rules and crackdowns on homosexuality changed in New York's bars, for this book doesn't detail the repeal, which I would need to adequately compare the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and that of gay regulations.