Why is Charleston not gay friendly?

[mcashlv]

This question has always baffled me. I lived in Charleston for seven years before relocating to Charlotte last year. The city has an overabundance of the charm, soul, and character that most of us gays love . The laid back atmosphere should engender a more accepting attitude. Its not though. The gay community is largely underground and closeted.The relatively small Alliance for Full Acceptance and LGLA, Dudley's Pantheon and Patricks is the gay community in Charleston and its pathetic. Other beautiful and historic cities embrace their gay community: Savannah,New Orleans, Asheville. There is not one rainbow flag anywhere on the peninsula. Upper King would be the perfect place for a gay and lesbian community center, yet Columbia (much less charming no offense columbians) in the much more conservative Upstate functions as the gay hub for South Carolina. I don't get it

Why should anyone be 'gay friendly'? Why would this be a good thing?

[voyager12]

It would be a "good thing" because promoting acceptance and standing against bigotry is the right thing to do. From an urban standpoint, today's thriving cities are progressive and inclusive of all groups and Charleston deserves to be among them. Your position is what? Charleston should be anti-gay? I don't see that being very beneficial and tolerant

[peaceloveunderstanding]

today's thriving cities are progressive and inclusive of all groups and Charleston deserves to be among them.

San Fran and Boston are not doing too well. People are moving out of those cities in droves to the 'less progressive' cities. I don't think 'acceptance' has anything to do with how well a city does.

Maybe you weren't talking about economics. Maybe we have different definitions of thriving.

[Charleston native]

It would be a "good thing" because promoting acceptance and standing against bigotry is the right thing to do. From an urban standpoint, today's thriving cities are progressive and inclusive of all groups and Charleston deserves to be among them. Your position is what? Charleston should be anti-gay? I don't see that being very beneficial and tolerant

I know I'm tempting fate by responding and disagreeing with this statement, but I have to. No one is saying Chas should be anti-gay. However, there is no proof stipulating that gay-friendly cities will always become thriving and high-growth. As moonshield said earlier, Boston and San Fran are not doing too well and those cities practically cater to gays.

The point is that many cities are inclusive of gays, but that does not necessarily mean they have to cater to them. Some cities do and thrive such as South Beach in Miami, but there are also cities that are thriving without being "gay-friendly" such as Jacksonville, Houston, and Raleigh. Most people are going to live where they feel the most comfortable, where they feel the safest, and where there are plenty of job opportunities. Acceptance of certain lifestyles does not guarantee those variables.

[voyager12]

Charlestonnative, I am not asking to be catered to. I am asking to be accepted and not hated for who I am. Something you take for granted. So you are advocating that subtle homophobia is fine and being neutral is good enough. I would respect you more if you admitted to being a bigot because finding fault with SF and Boston and all the other premier cities in this country because they are gayfriendly is hateful and pathetic. Boston and SF don't cater to "us". They accept "us" as equal because we are and deserve to be. Obviously you can't understand that.

[Charleston native]

Usually that's the typical response about this sort of thing, especially if it's a different point of view and I'm not going to post about it anymore. Being treated equal is one thing, but making sure that all people in each and every community agree with it, embrace it, and never say anything against it appears to be advocating thought-police.

I was hoping that the discussion would not be driven to name-calling, but unfortunately, that happens here. I especially don't appreciate somebody addressing me with that word when I have not been denigrating to you at all. I'm not advocating homophobia, though I think that word is used a little too often. However, in order to be "non-homophobic", why do people have to boost it and promote it? All I'm saying is that I think many people confuse "gay-friendly" with "gay-celebratory". If that's who you are, I'm not going to hate you and spit on you, but that does not mean I have to agree with it.

I was merely espousing my opinions on how different cities can thrive without being "gay-friendly". My argument was for what you stated earlier and not anything more. I'm afraid this discussion is going to get out of hand, so this will be all I have to say.

[Brandon]

I'd venture that San Fran and Boston are losing people because of the cost of housing in those cities. To suggest they "aren't doing well" because they are gay friendly is off the mark.

As to "not having to agree with it"....that's akin to saying you don't "agree with" being brunette.

[tablrock]

Why should anyone be 'gay friendly'? Why would this be a good thing?

mcashlv, look at what you started. i see a catfight on the way. am i gonna have to seperate you kids? brandon, i was just gonna post what you wrote. since when are san fran and boston not doing well? it is because of the ridiculous cost of living in those cities! besides just because a city is not currently having a constrution booom does not mean they are not doing well. san fran and boston were bulding like crazy years and years ago while the cities in sc were all backwater/backwoods afterthoughts. well maybe not boston, since it is about as tough for new construction as it is in chas. besides gay people=gentrification and that is always a good thing! now all of you kiss and make up right now or you are staying after school!

[voyager12]

I am not expecting anybody to throw me a parade when I go to a large city. I expect to be treated like everyone else because my personal life is not anybody else's business. If rightwingers and conservatives would realize that and leave us in peace we would not have to make it an issue and push for acceptance in places like Charleston. Its ignorant and shortsighted to accuse cities like Boston and SF of catering to gays. They don't. The majority of people in those cities regard us as equal and contributing members of the community which is beneficial to everyone. Having a respectful attitude attracts Fortune 500 companies the majority of whom have gay friendly corporate policies. Consequently, helping the economies of those cities, the Research Triangle in NC being a prime example.

[waccamatt]

I'd venture that San Fran and Boston are losing people because of the cost of housing in those cities. To suggest they "aren't doing well" because they are gay friendly is off the mark.

As to "not having to agree with it"....that's akin to saying you don't "agree with" being brunette.

Right on, Brandon; you hit the nail on the head. The first falsehood I'd like to address is the statement "I don't have to agree with it". Being gay is not an opinion that you agree or disagree with, it is a state of being like being a brunette (as Brandon so aptly stated). There are alot of gay-friendly cities that are growing rapidly (Austin, Atlanta, DC, Columbia, LA, Seattle) and there are some that are not. There are some conservative cities that are growing rapidly (Jacksonville, Tampa, Charlotte, Dallas, Greenville) and some that are not. The point is that diverse cities are more interesting. Imagine a city where everyone looked and acted the same, wouldn't that be boring?

[CorgiMatt]

Usually that's the typical response about this sort of thing, especially if it's a different point of view and I'm not going to post about it anymore. Being treated equal is one thing, but making sure that all people in each and every community agree with it, embrace it, and never say anything against it appears to be advocating thought-police.

I was hoping that the discussion would not be driven to name-calling, but unfortunately, that happens here. I especially don't appreciate somebody addressing me with that word when I have not been denigrating to you at all. I'm not advocating homophobia, though I think that word is used a little too often. However, in order to be "non-homophobic", why do people have to boost it and promote it? All I'm saying is that I think many people confuse "gay-friendly" with "gay-celebratory". If that's who you are, I'm not going to hate you and spit on you, but that does not mean I have to agree with it.

I was merely espousing my opinions on how different cities can thrive without being "gay-friendly". My argument was for what you stated earlier and not anything more. I'm afraid this discussion is going to get out of hand, so this will be all I have to say.

Being heterosexual means being sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex. Being homosexual means being sexually attracted to members of the same sex. I don't get the concept of how a person agrees or disagrees with what another person is attracted to.

[CorgiMatt]

Being heterosexual means being sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex. Being homosexual means being sexually attracted to members of the same sex. I don't get the concept of how a person agrees or disagrees with what another person is attracted to.

Let me rephrase. I don't get the concept of agreeing or disagreeing with who another person is sexually attracted to. Agreeing or disagreeing with a person sharing the sex act with someone of the same sex is a moral thing. People's ideas of what is morally upstanding are as varied as people. To each his own. Live and let live. Celebrate diversity.

[Greenville]

I wonder why cities like SF and Boston have become "gay-friendly," while others haven't? Is it because those cities created neighborhoods for homosexuals and passed a bunch of laws to make homosexuality as pleasant an existence as possible? OR, did certain aspects of those cities appeal to homosexuals, leading to an increase in homosexuals living there, which resulted in larger and stronger gay communities, which led to more acceptance by the city, etc.?

I don't really understand what a city's role is in this debate, other than assuring that homosexuals are not discriminated against. My personal view is that the government should not be involved with marriage, thereby allowing two consenting adults of any sexual orientation to draw up their own marriage contracts. Private organizations, such as churches, would obviously have the freedom to recognize only those that fit with its ideals and beliefs. Ideally, everyone would be happy with this arrangement, realizing that everyone has a right to "live and let live" without pressuring others or feeling pressured by others to change their personal views.

But we all know that this is a long time away from happening, so in the meantime I think cities need to make sure that their environment there is accepting of everyone. From there, homosexuals (or any other group wanting to improve the sense of community for their members) need to take the initiative. Want more GLBT organizations? Start them. Want more public awareness regarding homosexuality? Go for it. See a need for counseling or STD awareness? Please, take action.

And everyone else who is not actively involved can do their best to stay out of the way and mind their own business.

[waccamatt]

City's that become gay-friendly usually start out by having a liberal population by nature. San Francisco has always been a live and let live type of city so gay people started moving there in large numbers in the 60's and 70's.

Boston is probably gay friendly because it is the country's largest college town. Generally speaking, college students tend to be more open-minded because they are put into an environment where they are forced to deal with people from many different places and cultures. This breeds an open minded attitude which naturally extends to people who are gay or lesbian. Columbia would probably fit into this mold, as well.

Other cities like Key West, Palm Springs and Provincetown, Mass. have become gay meccas because they were artist-friendly and tourist friendly locales. Most artists are not gay, but people in the arts tend to have live and let live attitudes. There ya go in a nutshell.

BTW, Gvl, I agree with most of the rest of your post.

[monsoon]

City's that become gay-friendly usually start out by having a liberal population by nature. San Francisco has always been a live and let live type of city so gay people started moving there in large numbers in the 60's and 70's.

Well that had nothing to do with it.

San Francisco has been quite hostile to Gays in its past. Gays moved to San Francisco in the late 60s and early 70s, simply because there was a huge area of cheap housing in a run down part of the city where they could move and be left alone because the middle class did not pay any attention to that part of San Francisco. However word spread and over the course of a decade, Castro grew to be a well know Gay neighborhood. It really didn't have anything to do with SF being that liberal but the arrival of the Gays to that part of the city helped move the city in that direction.

However, referring to the earlier hostility that I mentioned. In 1978, (not that long ago) Harvey Milk was elected to the SF board of supervisors. This was due to the fact that Castro had grown to the point to have gained enough political power to send its own member to the council. Since Milk was the first openly Gay man to be elected to the council of a major USA city, his election as city supervisor actually made national news. But this doesn't mean the rest of the city accepted it as the following will demonstrate.

Another council member, Dan White had big issues with Milk and a Gay rights bill being considered by the Council and resigned in protest. He later returned and shot dead Milk and the Mayor of SF. White was convicted of voluntary manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and sentenced to seven years and eight months, a sentence widely denounced as lenient and motivated by homophobia. Lawyers had prevented anyone they deemed "pro-gay" from serving on the jury, and had brought in a psychologist to show evidence of the depression - namely that the consumption of junk food was out of character for the normally health-conscious White. White never served any jail time and actually hid out in LA for a while where he was put on parole. Not exactly the punishiment that one would see for a double murder if there was not open hostility towards Gays in SF and the population in general.

The point of all of this is that cities in themselves are not generally pro or anti Gay. It is up to Gays to make themselves members of the community as they had to do in SF and other places. With the exception of the vacation towns of Provincetown and Key West, Gays tend to flock to the larger urban areas. Charleston is really a small city and this is not a place that you will find concentrations of Gays as the opportunities really are not there for a community to gain enough critical mass. Gays move away from Charleston, not to it.

On the earlier comment about Raleigh being conservative, I will point out that RDU is a 2 million metro area, and one of the towns there, Caroboro is very Gay positive and has elected an openly Gay mayor several times.

[waccamatt]

I have to disagree with you, Metro. SF was the center of the counter culture in the 60's in the Haight-Ashbury district, etc. While gay people moved to the Castro district, specifically, in droves because housing was cheap, that is not the sole reason that they moved to San Francisco. As far as the assassination of Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone, I know the story well and remember when it happened since I was just starting to come out to myself at the time.

Aside from that, since when is RDU a metro of 2 million? That is REALLY a stretch and RALEIGH is conservative (look at Wake County voting history) Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Durham are the liberal areas of the Triangle area.

Here are the latest Raleigh metro estimates. If you add Durham-Chapel Hill then they are a little over 1.3 million as of 2003. That is far from 2 million.

Raleigh-Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 884,489 859,432 833,314 804,041 797,031 797,071

Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area 447,066 442,287 435,220 426,016 423,803 426,493

US Census metro estimates

[monsoon]

Counterculture of the 60's does not mean Gay culture. This was basically the Baby Boomers coming of age and rebelling against the 50s, the draft, vietnam war, segregation, and experimentation with drugs. Gay rights were not on the radar screen as most Gays at the time still risked jail time for coming out.

Gay men were routinely arrested in San Francisco in the 60s for simply dancing with each other. I know several who lived there during this period and throughout the 70s. The story I gave was a recounting of their recollections to me over the years. San Francisco did not become Gay friendly until tens of thousands of Gays ending up moving to the derelict portions of the city which in the decades since have become gentrified and very valuable. They move to the abandoned parts of San Francisco because they were not persecuted there. Now in the 2000s, these places are becoming less Gay because many of the original inhabitants died from the AIDS epidemic, and the costs of SF now make it prohibitive to most wanting to live there. Gentrification has a way of turning everything into one dull demographic and San Francisco is no exception to that.

I did over state the RDU population. The CSA is currently estimated to be about 1.5M, which is still significantly larger than Charleston. I never made any statements concerning the conservative nature of Wake county.

[waccamatt]

Counterculture of the 60's does not mean Gay culture. This was basically the Baby Boomers coming of age and rebelling against the 50s, the draft, vietnam war, segregation, and experimentation with drugs. Gay rights were not on the radar screen as most Gays at the time still risked jail time for coming out.

Gay men were routinely arrested in San Francisco in the 60s for simply dancing with each other. I know several who lived there during this period and throughout the 70s. The story I gave was a recounting of their recollections to me over the years. San Francisco did not become Gay friendly until tens of thousands of Gays ending up moving to the derelict portions of the city which in the decades since have become gentrified and very valuable. They move to the abandoned parts of San Francisco because they were not persecuted there. Now in the 2000s, these places are becoming less Gay because many of the original inhabitants died from the AIDS epidemic, and the costs of SF now make it prohibitive to most wanting to live there. Gentrification has a way of turning everything into one dull demographic and San Francisco is no exception to that.

I did over state the RDU population. The CSA is currently estimated to be about 1.5M, which is still significantly larger than Charleston. I never made any statements concerning the conservative nature of Wake county.

On the earlier comment about Raleigh being conservative, I will point out that RDU is a 2 million metro area, and one of the towns there, Caroboro is very Gay positive and has elected an openly Gay mayor several times.

I believe the above statement was made by you.

I made a point about SF being a center of the counter culture in the 60's, not as a center of gay culture. I said that SF was a liberal city and pointed out the 60's counter culture as an example. I stand by my point that alot of gay people moved to SF because it was an already established liberal area. In the 60's gay people were harassed by the police everywhere, including NYC and SF. Thank goodness for the Stonewall riots in '69 and the tremendous strides we've made in the last few decades.

[monsoon]

I was referring to Raleigh as the metro, not specifically Wake county.

However, Raleigh makes up only a small portion of Wake county (115 sq miles vs 832) and in itself is much more liberal than the county in general. Raleigh has several Gay areas that don't exist in Charleston.

[MikesLogic]

Something that is on this topic I guess. Charleston was the first city in SC to show Brokeback Mountain in theaters.

I noticed it is now showing at the major theaters in Charleston except out in the Summerville burbs.. That is interesting because I have always seen that area as more conservative than the rest of Charleston and this sorta alludes to that.

Something OT, I noticed looking at the theaters there are a good bit of them in the Charleston area but it seems there are none over in West Ashley besides the one at the mall, anyone know what the reason for this is? Mt.P has 2 nice sized ones, N.Chas has 3, James Island has a few, Summerville has 2 and downtown has a couple small ones and IMAX. It seems like the area could support at least a 12 screen theater out near the mall or something?

[Charleston native]

...Something OT, I noticed looking at the theaters there are a good bit of them in the Charleston area but it seems there are none over in West Ashley besides the one at the mall, anyone know what the reason for this is? Mt.P has 2 nice sized ones, N.Chas has 3, James Island has a few, Summerville has 2 and downtown has a couple small ones and IMAX. It seems like the area could support at least a 12 screen theater out near the mall or something?

You know, Mike, I've been saying this literally for years. I cannot figure out, for the life of me, why West Ashley does not have a new, modernized theater with stadium seating. The mall would be the best location for it, and I thought they were going to build it where the new Dick's Sporting Goods center is. It seems ridiculous that this section of the city (the most populous suburb of Chas) doesn't have a big, modern multiplex like Mt. P and the north area.

Another great place to put it would be at the West Ashley Fitness club, next door to Ye Ole Fashioned Ice Cream at US 17 and Wesley Drive. The whole area could be demolished for the building and parking. It would be a very central location for the theater, and the ice cream place next door would have even more business! OK, that's all I'll say off-topic!

[CorgiMatt]

Something that is on this topic I guess. Charleston was the first city in SC to show Brokeback Mountain in theaters.

I noticed it is now showing at the major theaters in Charleston except out in the Summerville burbs.. That is interesting because I have always seen that area as more conservative than the rest of Charleston and this sorta alludes to that.

Something OT, I noticed looking at the theaters there are a good bit of them in the Charleston area but it seems there are none over in West Ashley besides the one at the mall, anyone know what the reason for this is? Mt.P has 2 nice sized ones, N.Chas has 3, James Island has a few, Summerville has 2 and downtown has a couple small ones and IMAX. It seems like the area could support at least a 12 screen theater out near the mall or something?

It had nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal. It has been a slow-release movie for economic reasons, according to theater spokespersons and movie industry analysts. Charleston and Greenville just happened to get it one week before Columbia did. Incidently, I found it to be a profoundly depressing movie.

[Charles Pearson]

Counterculture of the 60's does not mean Gay culture. This was basically the Baby Boomers coming of age and rebelling against the 50s, the draft, vietnam war, segregation, and experimentation with drugs. Gay rights were not on the radar screen as most Gays at the time still risked jail time for coming out.

Gay men were routinely arrested in San Francisco in the 60s for simply dancing with each other. I know several who lived there during this period and throughout the 70s. The story I gave was a recounting of their recollections to me over the years. San Francisco did not become Gay friendly until tens of thousands of Gays ending up moving to the derelict portions of the city which in the decades since have become gentrified and very valuable. They move to the abandoned parts of San Francisco because they were not persecuted there. Now in the 2000s, these places are becoming less Gay because many of the original inhabitants died from the AIDS epidemic, and the costs of SF now make it prohibitive to most wanting to live there. Gentrification has a way of turning everything into one dull demographic and San Francisco is no exception to that.

I did over state the RDU population. The CSA is currently estimated to be about 1.5M, which is still significantly larger than Charleston. I never made any statements concerning the conservative nature of Wake county.

very well said...Indeed The CASTRO in The City's 8th District isn't what it used to be. However, it has grown up much from a gay ghetto to include a flavoring of all people and sexual orientations. The Castro now sprawls eastward and down a Palm tree lined Market Street of the "F-Line" (historic trolley street cars imported from all over the world) and stops at Market & Octavia Streets where the Charles Holmes' Lesbian, Gay, Transgender Center was recently erected...Though the piano bar, Martunis at Valencia & Market Streets, is prob. the beginning of the Castro gay district, which is one block away from the LGT Center.

Most of the residential areas of the Castro remain nice or better than the 1970s. However, the heart of Castro at 18th & Castro Street has become rather dirty and seedy and now looks like Polk Street, SF's lst gay district, that's downtown...

[waccamatt]

It had nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal. It has been a slow-release movie for economic reasons, according to theater spokespersons and movie industry analysts. Charleston and Greenville just happened to get it one week before Columbia did. Incidently, I found it to be a profoundly depressing movie.

It was a downer and I definitely was emotional after the movie, but it was very moving and, unfortunately, very accurate in portraying how life used to be and probably still is, in isolated places.

[digital_sandlapper]

Hey All, I just discovered this string from before I joined, and wanted to add my 2 cents since I have lived in Charleston:

The gay scene there is paltry if you are talking nightlife. However, it wasn't always that way--years ago, there was the Arcade, and before that, the Garden and Gun Club. Both were exceedingly vibrant--I enjoyed both while in school down there (CofC). How cool to just walk to such places--I thought I was in the BIG CITY! The Charleston underground scene (which these were at the time) has since been gentrified out of existence. While recently living there, I had to scour the downtown area to find any last remnants of the bohemian or the funky. I am pretty conservative, but do enjoy the spice that these places add to city life--they are KEY to making a city a city. Perhaps this embracing of counterculture is what makes a city gay-friendly as well . . Asheville, Savannah (SCAD and the Book helped here), and college towns like Chapel Hill, Austin, Athens, and Columbia do this better. However, gay culture is now assimilating (which is what we wanted, right?) and no longer "underground" or "counterculture." I'm afraid we will continue to see gay bars fade away as assimilation makes them unnecessary. I for one will be sad when that day comes, in a way-- though happy that being gay is becoming more "normal" as well. I like breaking social taboos occasionally, and going to gay bars can still thrill . . just not so much as before. Also, I see gays frequenting straight bars now more than gay ones. A lot of gay bars have never risen to the occasion and become the nice nightspots they should be. Still a little sleazy for most . . bohemian, good, sleazy, bad!

Bottom line: Charleston has always been, and always will be, provincial. It is an old British city. It had a true aristocracy. It is overwhelmingly Anglican (the conservative alterego of Episcopalians, quite different from the usual liberal-minded majority of them--I'm E.). It is proper, polite, respectable, dignified. For better or worse, that's as much a part of its fabric as anything else. It has helped protect the architecture, its chivalry and graciousness, its traditions. For that, I can't fault it--I celebrate it.

For a damn good time, or to go to a truly great gay bar, just go down to our more bawdy sister city to the south: Savannah! (Which I will be doing next weekend for St. Pat's--woo hoo!!) She has a little smudge on her beautiful face, similar to the one that Charleston long ago wiped clean from hers. I hope Savannah won't ever lose its playful wink. With all those crazy Irish Catholics running the town, I think not! Let the good times begin . . . . !!!