Cross-Dressing Law Struck Down in 1973

by Marie J. Kuda
Windy City Times
14th May 2008

As part of the ongoing Chicago Gay History Project, Windy City Times will present a series on Chicago gay history events and people over the coming months. This essay focuses on the city's cross-dressing ordinance.

On Sept. 21, 1973, three Chicago daily newspapers had the following headlines:

—“Transvestite law held illegal; 4 juveniles freed”—Chicago Sun-Times

—“Cross-sex Dress Ban Overruled”—Chicago Tribune

—“City ordinance KOd: Judge upsets ban on transvestism”—Chicago Daily News

Attorney Renee Hanover took the case of four juvenile transvestites who were arrested Aug. 21, 1973, on charges of cross-dressing and underage drinking. The young men, aged 17 to 20, said they had entered a tavern at 2200 W. 21st Pl. to buy cigarettes; one used the women's bathroom. An altercation with patrons ensued, the four were beaten up, but police from the 10th District arrested the youths. They were charged with violating Section 192–8 of the Chicago Municipal Code, which prohibited someone from appearing in a public place in clothing of the opposite sex “with the intent to conceal his or her sex.”

The ordinance had originally been enacted by the City Council long prior to 1943, but in that year it was amended so as to add the “conceal” language. One can only speculate that at the height of the war years the ordinance was seen in some way as a protection for military personnel. Sailors from the Great Lakes Naval Training Station flooded the city on weekend leave. Companion ordinances prohibited women from serving drinks in bars or tending bar ( unless they were owners ) and prohibited unescorted women in such establishments, effectively turning the jam-packed bars all-male.

Appearing before Judge Jack Sperling ( a former City Council member ) in North Boys Court, the defendants—Melinda, Mona, Tanya and Tammie, as they preferred to be called—wore blouses and miniskirts, lipstick, rouge and wigs, and they carried purses. Hanover said the unisex fashions and hairstyles of the time made it difficult to tell the difference between men and women. Hanover followed her law partner Pearl M. Hart's advice and argued the case on purely constitutional grounds; since not all transvestites are gay, homosexuality was not to be an issue.

Hanover's defense resulted in Sperling's decision that the ordinance violated the constitutions of Illinois and the United States by not affording transvestites equal protection under the law. He cited federal court opinions in cases that held government dress codes unconstitutional, stating that people's right to present themselves as they chose was guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Sun-Times reporter Larry Weintraub ended his coverage of the case: “Ms. Hanover was clad in a blouse and a knit, striped slack suit. Mooradian [ the city prosecutor ] was attired in a striped sports jacket and slacks. The judge wore a floor-length black robe.”

Because the case was decided by a trial-court judge rather than an appellate court, it had little or no weight as precedent in any other court. In any event, the police could use anti-gay discretionary enforcement of other laws if they chose.

Earlier, in July 1973, Alderman Clifford P. Kelley and nine co-signers had introduced what has become popularly known as the “gay rights bill.” At public hearings on the proposed bill held by the City Council's Judiciary Committee on Oct. 10, Hanover was one of 24 who testified on discrimination against gays. She used the case of the four to call for repeal of the cross-dressing ordinance, arguing that since Judge Sperling's decision was not binding on other criminal court judges, repeal was necessary to eliminate further arrests.

In a Nov. 2 article in Chicago's Reader newspaper, Nancy Banks reported that Hanover's testimony had noted further consequences to the arrest of the four: “ [ T ] he day before the court hearing, the home of defendant Mona Garcia was burned. The day after court, Tanya Williams, who appeared on television, was fired from her job, and the following day Melinda Balderas was evicted from her apartment.”

— With research contributions by William B. Kelley

_________________
http://www.spinwatch.org/