hankycode magazine is a print and digital publication dedicated to sharing queer stories.

The emergence of the term ‘cruising’ in reference to anonymous gay sex in public and semi-public locations such as parks and public restrooms rose to prominence in the early 1960s (Dunbar, 2020). That isn’t to say cruising wasn’t happening before the slang was created. However, as homosexuality became more visible to the American public, so did cruising. Cruising locations began to appear throughout the United States in parks, public restrooms, bathhouses, waterfronts, and other similar places. The increased visibility of homosexual cruising also led to a steep increase in policing the activity throughout the mid-twentieth century (Lvovsky, 2017).

Much of the scholarship surrounding cruising is centered on the United States’ coasts; in this series, I seek to explore how geography, religion, familial and community expectations, and policing shaped the experiences of closeted gay men in Michigan. The focus of this series is on newspaper documentation of 26 mass rest stop arrests in the state of Michigan from 1965 to 1991, when there was an explosion of gay cruising (and thus gay cruising mass arrests) throughout the state. Analyzing historical newspaper records from this time, I will explore patterns that emerge from these mass surveillance events, examining how undercover policing, public identification in the newspapers, and, in some cases, explicitly homophobic rhetoric by law enforcement and members of the court could lead to public spectacle. Furthermore, this series examines how the coverage shines light on the public discourse at the time related to homosexuality, which spanned from sympathy to condemnation.

Materials and Methods

This project is based on archival research, primarily from digitized historical newspapers from Newspapers.com. In addition, the research relies on data compiled from the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA), political data from Michigan from 1980-1992, and a record from the Michigan Court of Appeals. The study is centered on arrests that occurred between 1965 and 1991, as that is the window of time during which I uncovered records of mass-cruising arrests at rest stops throughout Michigan. The study is focused on the entire state of Michigan, but as I uncovered records of mass arrests, they were concentrated in nine counties in Michigan’s lower peninsula.

The process for locating data for this study involved searching utilizing key words such as ‘homosexual,’ ‘rest stop,’ ‘arrests,’ ‘gross indecency,’ and ‘morals charges’ in the newspapers.com database. The search scope was limited to the state of Michigan, and to simplify data finding, I searched by one year at a time. The date range was centered on 1931 to 1994; 1931 was the year Michigan’s gross indecency statutes were introduced, and 1994 was the year substantial changes were made in those statutes.

There were four key criteria for inclusion in the dataset:

1. The arrest had to involve three or more people to be considered a ‘mass arrest.’

2. The arrest must have occurred at a highway rest stop in the state of Michigan.

3. The arrests needed to have some documentation in the local newspapers at the time.

4. The arrests were required to fall between the years of 1931 and 1994.

5. 
   

This series relies on records from 37 newspaper articles and outlines 26 mass arrests involving 625 men.

The data was then analyzed. Through thematic analysis, I read the newspaper articles and identified recurring trends, changes in language, and shifts in perspective over time. Quantitative analysis allowed me to examine the average number of men arrested and to explore religious and political data from specific areas to paint a more thorough picture of the situations surrounding the arrests.

Examining the Arrest Records

The 26 rest stop cruising mass arrests this series is focused on took place in nine counties in Michigan’s lower peninsula—Washtenaw, Kent, Kalamazoo, Wayne, Genesee, Oakland, Ingham, Midland, and Jackson. The number of men arrested during each mass arrest ranged from 3 to 61, with an average of 24 per arrest.

Table 1 highlights these arrests showing the year, the number arrested, the county and municipality of arrest, the alleged crime location, the charge, policing method, and the newspaper source for my information. While there can be variation in newspaper language surrounding charges, in Michigan, the most common charges for those arrested for cruising included gross indecency or attempting to procure gross indecency, a felony, as well as misdemeanor soliciting and accosting charges.

The evidence presented in the table, the above map, and throughout the rest of this three part series highlights the fact that mass arrests were not isolated events, instead revealing a larger pattern of policing and surveillance within the state of Michigan. As shown in the figure above, arrests primarily occurred in counties with larger towns or in counties surrounding those areas. There’s a cluster of arrests in multiple counties on the southeast side of the state, centered around Detroit and Ann Arbor. The mid-Michigan arrests are around Lansing, the southwest Michigan arrests center around Kalamazoo, and the west Michigan arrests are focused around Grand Rapids. While Wayne County had the most mass rest stop arrests recorded in local newspapers, the single rest stop with the most publicized mass arrests occurred in Byron Township, outside Grand Rapids, in Kent County, with six documented mass arrests and at least 206 men arrested.

Profile of the Average Men Frequenting the Rest Stops

The newspaper records from these arrests paint a clear picture of the arrested men. A 1978 mass arrest of 42 in Kalamazoo (Battle Creek Enquirer, 1978) noted that the men were ages 18 to 66, with occupations ranging from a shoe salesman, to insurance salesman, and a priest. In 1977, at the aforementioned Byron Township rest stop in Kent County, officers noted that the men were “guy next door” types; there were no ultra-wealthy or impoverished folks, and only two men had prior records (Whitt, 1977). The arrest of 30 men at two rest stops near Ypsilanti in Washtenaw County provides more information about the men’s employment. The police noted that those arrested included a hospital intern, a college professor, an accountant, a cook, a house painter, a grade school teacher, and multiple factory workers and businessmen (Ann Arbor News, 1965). In 1983 following a mass of 61 in Kent County the police noted that all but a few were employed (Morlock, 1983). It’s clear that these men weren’t career criminals, as an officer involved in the 1979 Kent County mass arrest noted, these men were mostly “closet gays” (The Grand Rapids Press, 1979).

What’s also notable is that five of these mass arrests explicitly mention that many of the men were married and some had children. At the Byron Township rest stop in 1983, officers noted that nearly half the men arrested were in heterosexual marriages (Morlock, 1983). A 1980 arrest of 16 at three Genesee County rest stops noted that all but two of the men arrested were in heterosexual marriages (Fenech, 1980), and at the Byron Township rest stop in 1985, police noted that of the 40 men arrested, 23 were married (Hogan, 1986).

A lawyer who represented over 100 men accused in similar cruising-related offenses (Gave, 1985), explained that the majority of the men he represented had families. Because of that, the arrests sometimes caused them “to lose their jobs, their wives, the affection of their children,” he said. “Some have even committed suicide…That’s a very high price to pay for whatever social ill we’re trying to cure.”

The above evidence points to the fact that the vast majority of the men arrested were not openly gay. Because many of the men were married with families, they had an immense amount to lose if the truth about their identities were revealed. The married men weren’t the only ones with something to lose; many of the men arrested had important careers–numerous were in business, were professors, educators, clergymen, doctors, and had other careers that could have been greatly impacted if their sexual preferences were exposed.

Their fears weren’t unfounded. One man was wrongfully arrested and tied to a 1986 mass arrest of 42 in Ingham County. His charges were dismissed in an apparent mix-up (Gallagher 1986). However, damage had already been inflicted. He was arrested in front of his co-workers and when he returned to work, he was ridiculed and called names, even after he was found innocent. He was found not guilty, and he was still subject to intense harassment. It’s not difficult to imagine that those who pleaded guilty or went to trial to face the charges likely endured much public derision. Most of the mass arrests didn’t publish full lists of the names of those arrested, but in cases where any names were published, the men were set up for humiliation at work, at home, and in their communities.

It wasn’t simply mistreatment at work that the men feared; their jobs were also on the line.

Another man who was picked up in the 1986 Ingham County mass arrest had a job at an academic institution. The year after the arrest, he was asked to resign (Grand Haven Tribune, 1987). Another incident involved a middle school Principal (Ann Arbor News, 1984), who was arrested in a mass arrest of 31 in Wayne County in the 1980s. In this case, only individuals with notable jobs had their names published in the newspaper and this man was one of the individuals whose names were shared. He was suspended with pay pending the outcome of the case. Prior to the charges, he was well-liked and well-respected, but after the arrest, there were incidents of eggs and other objects being thrown at his home, as well as obscenities being written on his sidewalk and garage (Canton Observer, 1984). He was eventually cleared, but it’s unclear if he returned to his position.

For many of the men arrested at these rest stops, their reputations and livelihoods were at stake. In fact, following the 1977 Kent County mass arrests, The Grand Rapids Press noted that because the men’s names were not published in the local paper, 11 men agreed to plead guilty to the lesser misdemeanor charge of indecent exposure or open, gross, lewdness, lascivious behavior in the public eye. The prosecutor also said they would not be fined or sent to jail (Whitt, 1977). They believed that if the men’s names had been published, they likely would have fought the charges to keep up appearances. Notably, this was a very common pattern in these cases. Research by attorney Rudy Serra in the late 1990s noted that since the charges are “only” misdemeanors, defendants are not entitled to all the usual procedural safeguards, such as appointed counsel. Large numbers of defendants would simply plead guilty and eventually, such pleas could result in lifelong registration as a “sex offender.” (Stay tuned for more on the policing and judicial system through the rest of this series). 

While there was an inherent risk of arrest in these secret trysts, many of the men were very aware of this, some choosing to frequent stops when they weren’t as busy. In 1985, 22 were arrested in Ingham County, and officers said cruising activity peaked at noon and early evening on midweek days when restroom traffic was at its lowest (Frazier, 1985). Following a 1979 mass arrest at four Wayne County rest areas, a lieutenant noted that a similar sweep happened yearly in the late winter. The reason was that the rest stop wasn’t as busy in the late winter, so homosexuals used it more, and the officers weren’t as busy, so they had time to invest in undercover operations at rest stops (Detroit Free Press, 1979).

Given that so many of these men were deeply closeted and scared of coming out or having their sexualities exposed, it is logical that they would choose not to frequent local known LGBTQ+ spaces like bars. A lawyer explained (Whitt, 1977), “At the bars, the guys are branded, and I don’t think they want that stamp.” Because of this, the men sought out anonymous spaces where they could satisfy their sexual desires while avoiding the public label of ‘gay.’

Men Learning about Rest Stop Cruising

All this information begs the question: if these men were closeted and afraid, how did they even know about the rest stop cruising areas? The newspapers highlight a few main ways these men became aware of these anonymous cruising locations. In articles published about three of the mass arrests, they noted that men learned about the cruising location from Bob Damron’s Address Book, which listed ‘cruisy’ locations nationwide, including at multiple Michigan rest stops. The Byron Township, Kent County, rest stop was one such stop listed in the 1977 edition of the book. In 1977, the prosecutor’s office explained that they would mail a letter to Bob Damron requesting that their rest stop be removed from his book (Whitt, 1977). It appears the letter was unsuccessful, as the rest stop remained popular for many more years.

Another way men found out about cruising locations was through graffiti. Following a 1982 mass arrest in Kent County, one man who was arrested explained to officers that he became aware of the rest stop through messages written on the restroom wall in an adult movie theater (The Herald-Palladium, 1982). In 1983, at the Kent County stop, police also noted that the walls were used like a bulletin board in which men wrote dates, times, and locations to meet for specific sexual encounters (Morlock, 1983). This was a way for men to plan to meet at other locations, and it could also have been a way for men to learn about the rest stop’s reputation if they were unaware.

Next week, we will explore why rest stops in particular rose in popularity and look at one particular case study. 

References:

Dunbar, C. (2020). Cruising. Birmingham LGBT. https://blgbt.org/cruising/

Lvovsky, A. (2017). Cruising in plain view: Clandestine surveillance and the unique insights of antihomosexual policing. Journal of Urban History, 46(5), 980-1001 https://doi.org/10.1177/0096144217705495

Police charge 42 men with homosexual acts at freeway rest stop . (1978, November 3). Battle Creek enquirer, p. B-5.

Whitt, A. (1977, December 6). Lawmen disrupt homosexuals’ trysts at u.s. 131 rest stop. Grand Rapids Press, pp. 1B-2B.

Accuse 30 of morals violations. (1965, August 26). Ann Arbor News, p. 3.

Morlock, J. (1983, June 22). 61 to be arraigned in rest stop sex crackdown j. Grand Rapids Press, 1.

Six face sex charges after rest-stop arrests. (1979, April 3). Grand Rapids Press, 14.

Fenech, D. (1980, February 29). 16 arrested in crackdown on homosexual activities. Flint Journal, 1.

Hogan, J. (1986, May 19). Police spur crackdown on homosexual acts at rest stops. Grand Rapids Press, pp. B1–B2.

Gave, K. (1985, September 4). Police crackdown on rest area sex. Detroit Free Press, pp. 3a–14a.

Gallagher, M. (1986, June 1). Rest stop arrest inflicts pain on flones’ family. Lansing State Journal, 3g, p. 1G.

MSU official asked to resign. (1987, June 2). Grand Haven Tribune, p. 5.

Men’s sentence deferred in gross indecency case. (1984, December 12). Ann Arbor News, p. A9.

Judge clears local principal. (1984, November 29). Canton Observer, 1.

Frazier, D. (1985, August 30). Names withheld in rest stop arrests. Lansing State Journal, p. 9.

43 are seized in raids at four rest stops. (1979, February 28). Detroit Free Press, p. 8A.

Homosexual activities at rest stop prompts crackdown in kent county. (1982, October 21). The herald-palladium, p. 10.

Serra, R. (2000). “Bag a Fag” Operations in Michigan: Police misconduct, entrapment, and crimes against gay men.