From Pink to Blue: the Mainstreaming of Homosexuality
R. J. Stove
Four recent events - one of them occurring in Britain, one in Canada, one in the United States, and one in Australia - have forced upon even the least percipient newspaper-reader's attention the gigantic strides which the English-speaking world's homosexual lobbies have made towards forcing their sexual practices into the political and cultural mainstream. These events have been:
• Dr. Rowan Williams’ elevation to the highest clerical position within the Anglican Church;
• the sanctioning, by a Canadian provincial government, of "marriages" between male homosexuals;
• the U.S. Supreme Court’s pronouncement that Texas’ legislature - and, by extension, the legislature of every other State - has lost the right to outlaw sodomy; and
• the Uniting Church of Australia’s landslide vote to permit homosexual ministers.
To understand how astonishingly recent the homosexual lobbies’ rise to absolute power over our legal and media culture has been, we need merely think back to the career of Terry Dolan. Largely forgotten these days, the nominally but vocally Catholic Dolan - chairman of America's National Conservative Political Action Committee - ranked during the early 1980s among President Reagan's most celebrated and most feared champions.1 Esquire reported, in 1983, Dolan’s scarifying response to a female journalist who mentioned rumours concerning his private life: "You f...ing Communist c...t, get out of here." He possessed good reason for alarm at such questioning: for he was a lifelong, unrepentant sodomite, who died in December 1986 of A.I.D.S.. Had his sexual practices been public knowledge twenty years ago, the public odium that still attached to these practices would have forced him out of political life. Were he alive now, he would be glorying in his sodomitic addiction, and would be cheered to the rafters by neoconservatives (of whom, more afterwards) who should know better. Not that such cheering has been confined to America, any more than the activism itself has been.
The first obvious sign of the homosexual activists’ renewed vigilance came with the appointment of their favoured candidate as Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury: Rowan Williams, the first occupant of that post ever to proclaim his support for homosexual relationships. In an acerbic December 2002 article, written long before the notion of ordaining a New Hampshire homosexual as an Episcopal bishop had been mooted, Scotsman on Sunday columnist Gerald Warner mocked Williams’ genteel bet-hedging gush:2
"If the Bible is very clear - as I think it is - that a heterosexual indulging in homosexual activity for the sake of variety and gratification is not following the will of God, does that automatically say that that is the only sort of homosexual activity there could ever be?
Er, no. There is widely rumoured to be another kind of homosexual activity - that which takes place between homosexuals - which many of us had rashly assumed was more common. The Williams doctrine appears to be that homosexual acts are sinful only when practised by heterosexuals. Presumably, any day now he will promulgate the analogous dogma that adultery is a sin only when committed between bachelors and spinsters. The agenda lurking behind this inanity is effectively to abolish sin by redefining it so that it can be committed only in the most improbable circumstances."
On 10 June 2003, Ontario's Court of Appeal announced a new and bizarre legal definition of marriage: "the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others". It issued this finding as a result of a suit brought by seven homosexual couples in Toronto, demanding full lawful recognition for their unions.3 Hitherto no country outside Europe - and only two countries even there, namely Belgium and The Netherlands - had dared to legalise same-sex "marriages." (America's Democratic Presidential candidate Howard Dean, when Governor of Vermont during the 1990s, did accord some statutory recognition to same-sex unions. Yet while in the Governor's mansion he stopped short of pretending that such unions could ever have the same legal standing which a married couple enjoys, although more recently he eulogised the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision.4)
South of the U.S.-Canadian border, on 26 June 2003 - scarcely more than a fortnight after the Ontario declaration - the Supreme Court upheld its own half-century-old tradition of social engineering via unelected dictatorship. It began this tradition in 1954, when by its Brown v. Board of Education judgment, it ushered in the present condition of civil disabilities for American whites. Nineteen years later, with Roe v. Wade, the Court struck down every single anti-abortion law that States had ever passed: the result being three decades of American auto-genocide, which continues at the rate of more than one million butchered children every year. (Those naïfs who continue to imagine that there remains the slightest ideological difference between major political parties in the United States - or anywhere else in the West - should note when both Brown and Roe, like Lawrence v. Texas, occurred: not amid the moral putrefaction of Kennedy's and Clinton's reigns, but during the tenure of ostensibly "right-wing" Presidents.) Now, with Lawrence v. Texas, the Court has maintained that "[the] right to liberty under the Due Process Clause [of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment] gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government supervision." Moreover, only by allowing unrestricted sodomy can "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions" be guaranteed.5 We are presumably meant to infer, from these fantastical assurances, that the United States’ Founding Fathers were as obsessed with perverts’ alleged rights as is our own era’s judiciary.
Even if various factors - parochialism, mindless obeisance to Washington, a touching faith in the Republican Party's goodwill, and more generalised forms of moral myopia - have prevented the average "conservative" in Australia from realising the full implications of Lawrence v. Texas, no such obtuseness characterises those Americans who favour the Supreme Court's announcement. "This is an historic day for fair-minded Americans everywhere," according to the Human Rights Campaign's executive director, Elizabeth Birch.6 Former Nixon aide and current Protestant activist Charles Colson failed to share Miss Birch's euphoria, but willingly conceded the finding's importance. "If the Court is logical and consistent", Colson wrote, "and thank God they often aren't - then it's only a matter of time before the taboos and legal prohibitions against incest, polygamy, and bestiality fall."7
Still, to say that America’s neoconservatives share Colson's fears would be as ludicrously optimistic as the belief that those fears play any significant role in present-day Australia's Uniting Church. National Review editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg imagines that homosexual "marriages" are worthwhile as an aid to federalism and to the concept of States’ Rights. (Strangely, States’ Rights do not now exist - much less do they retain value in Goldberg's eyes - when they favour white Christian heterosexual segregationists and other such Untermenschen.) "Would it really be so terrible", Goldberg rhetorically asks, "if gay marriage were legal in Massachusetts but illegal in Kentucky? I remain unconvinced that marriage is a ‘fundamental right’ and therefore immune to government regulation."8
The active pederast, former New Republic editor and soi-disant Catholic Andrew Sullivan despises Goldberg's mealy-mouthed caveats. Sullivan has turned himself into a tireless champion of homosexual "marriages", which he lauds not only via his own fulsome comments on website, www.andrewsullivan.com, but in his own hardcover essay Virtually Normal. He boldly asserts, without anything so vulgar as corroborative evidence but with much tortured syntax, that such "marriages" would furnish "greater understanding of the need [sic] for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman", and would "undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds".9 When South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond (a sharp-tongued opponent of all New Class mores) died in 2003, Sullivan positively gloated in his website's 26 June entry: "Sodomy legal in South Carolina: Strom Thurmond dead. On the same day. It's a funny old world, isn't it?" This kind of adolescent spite has wholly failed to stem the sycophantic adulation which regrettably neo-conservative magazines heap upon Sullivan's head. After all, Sullivan is pro-Blair, pro-Bush, and (like millions of other Americans whose innate physical cowardice has prevented them from ever firing so much as a water-pistol) pro-war; therefore, apparently, all his oddities in the sexual liberation department must be forgiven him. Perhaps these magazines’ editors could condescend to explain where, exactly, Sullivan would need to insert his private parts in order to warrant even the gentlest rebuke.
Much of the homosexual militancy of recent years derives from a simple medical trend: the comparative harmlessness of A.I.D.S. today, as opposed to A.I.D.S. twenty or even fifteen years ago. Overt talk of "gay marriage" was hardly a viable option back then, when homosexual activists’ main preoccupation consisted simply of staying alive, and when Grim Reaper images dominated television screens. But with the major drop in A.I.D.S. deaths during the mid-1990s, homosexuals’ priorities inevitably changed. Today, as Time noted, second-stage A.I.D.S. will frequently remain asymptomatic for ten or a dozen years.10 Such reprieves give new hope and confidence - not to mention arrogance - to those bath-house habitués who during the Reagan and first Bush Presidencies assumed, with some plausibility, that they had only months to live.
Why has A.I.D.S. become far less potent a threat than it was? Although opinions can legitimately differ as to the main explanation for the decline, one fact leaves no space for doubt: the stupendous amounts of research funding lavished upon combatting A.I.D.S., versus the parsimony of funding to combat other diseases that are often more widespread but always less fashionable. Even the New England Journal of Medicine (as establishmentarian, and politically timid, a periodical as one could possibly contemplate) admitted the following in 1999:11
"[D]iseases with strong political lobbies - especially A.I.D.S. - got more money according to the DALY measure than diseases with less-vocal advocates, such as emphysema and depression. [DALY stands for ‘disability-adjusted life-years’. This phrase is defined by the National Institutes of Health as ‘the years of life lost to disability and death from twenty-nine diseases in the world's industrialised nations’.]
A.I.D.S. got $1.4 billion in [National Institutes of Health] grant money in [the] fiscal [year] 1996 and was estimated to lead to the loss of 1.27 million DALYs - about $1,114 per DALY. Breast cancer received $381.9 million for 1.42 million DALYs, or $269 per DALY. Depression got $148.8 million for 8.4 million DALYs, or $17 per DALY. Emphysema got $62.4 million for 2.28 million DALYs, or $27 per DALY."
From this we can draw a clear moral: A.I.D.S. is a goldmine. The continued employment of hundreds of thousands around the world, both in government departments and in private laboratories, depends on it. Furthermore, you should avoid harbouring dreams of serious expenditure by the medical establishment (or by its entertainment peons) to help you, unless your particular form of life-destroying disease is as conspicuously modish as is your attire. The mentally ill, in particular, need not apply. Chic pop stars will crawl over one another for the chance to take part in benefit concerts for A.I.D.S.; do not hold your breath waiting for them to stage analogous events for schizophrenia, clinical melancholia, or Tourette's Syndrome.
With A.I.D.S. we have, in short, a phenomenon unique in medicine's annals: an epidemic profitable to its own transmitters. The management of earlier epidemics showed no such tendresse towards those who spread them. Contrast the Western world's taxpayer-derived subsidies for buggery - subsidies so generous, and so evidently permanent, that they now form a welfare state within a welfare state - with the fierceness that American public-health bureaucrats showed towards Mary Mallon, better known as "Typhoid Mary". A cook in the New York City era, Typhoid Mary was arrested in 1907 (after killing a mere three people with her typhoid germs) and spent most of the next quarter-century in an isolation unit on North Brother Island.12
Nevertheless, little matters like historical precision are of small account to homosexual activists. These activists continue to propagate such fantasies as a Great Heterosexual A.I.D.S. Plague, despite this myth having been demolished by Michael Fumento, former analyst for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.13
Remarkably enough, such activists have remained unabashed when, through monumental carelessness or sheer malevolence, A.I.D.S.-infected homosexuals have killed hetero-sexuals. Leaving aside their mass-murder of haemophiliacs in France, Japan, and the United States via pollution of the blood-bank infrastructure (a crime that deserves an article to itself), the case of David Acer, which made world headlines in 1990, should be recalled. Acer, a Florida dentist, extracted teeth from college student Kimberly Bergalis and thereby contaminated her blood with A.I.D.S., from which he himself suffered. Bergalis, a virgin, perished in 1991 at the age of twenty-three; A.I.D.S. had already claimed Acer's life the previous year.14
Evangelical Protestant Jerry Thacker has become perhaps an even more tragic victim than was Miss Bergalis: Thacker's wife contracted the disease innocently through a blood transfusion in 1984, and unknowingly passed it on to her husband. Last January, Thacker found himself forced out from the Presidential Advisory Council on H.I.V./A.I.D.S., after having condemned all homosexual acts as "a death-style" contrary to God's law. Ari Fleischer, the White House's press secretary, joined the chorus of outrage against Thacker; he insisted that George W. Bush "has a totally opposite view. That [‘death-style’] remark is far removed from what the President believes and for what the President stands for."15 One must presume that neither the atheist Jew Fleischer nor the "born-again Christian" Chief Executive has ever heard of (let alone ever read) Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans, which in its first chapter supplies abundant justification for Thacker’s comments:
"[M]en also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error . . . they who do such things are worthy of death; and not only they who do them, but they also who consent to them who do them."
No historical misinterpretation is too childish for homosexual activists to have disseminated it. Even the hoary legend of homosexual perversion's acceptability in the classical world - above all, with the Greeks - retains its following among publicity-crazed ideologues, though any expert in the field of classical studies during at least the last five decades has known it to be fraudulent. As one such expert, Adonis Georgiades, says in his aptly titled Debunking the Myth of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece:16
"Athens had the strictest laws pertaining to homosexuality of any democracy that has ever existed . . . At no time, and in no place [among the ancient Hellenic peoples], was this practice considered normal behaviour, or those engaged in it allowed to go unpunished."
Such self-serving fiction as Georgiades denounces in his book belongs in the same Baron Munchausen category, and is propagated for the same motives, as the notorious Kinsey Report assurance that one male in every ten is homosexual. This assurance, derived from data so conspicuously faked - and obtained by methods so vile - that of itself it represented contrived dishonesty,17 became the basis on which Kinsey disciple Harry Hay (founder of the Mattachine Society) urged the legal recognition of homosexuals as a legitimate minority group, with the same rights as any other.18
If the current push towards complete legal benefits for same-sex "marriages" can be reversed, it is no use supposing for a moment that this reversal can take place in Australia. The fight, should there be a fight, will occur in the United States; and we can but pray that any success it attains will reach Australia by a sort of trickle-down effect. Writing three years ago about the vitriol hurled in Canada at radio broadcaster Dr. Laura Schlesinger, who dared to reprehend homosexual pressure-groups, Joseph Sobran observed:19
"How brainy do you have to be to foresee what's likely to happen when a life-giving organ is inserted into the poop chute? Whose idea of love is that? Normal intercourse produces human life (also under attack); homosexual intercourse spawns only bacterial life.
It isn't just Canada, of course. Organised Sodom in these United States is trying to block Dr. Laura from getting a television show, on grounds that she stands for "hate" - though for sheer rancid hate, the "gay" groups themselves are hard to beat.’
Liberals used to love free speech, waving the First Amendment as their banner. That was when they felt weak. Now that they hold positions of power, especially in academia, they’ve decided that some kinds of speech mustn't be tolerated. Homosexuals may defile churches and insult a cardinal with obscenities, but the mildest disapproval of sodomy itself must be crushed.
Hypocrisy? Yes. Double standards? Only superficially. At bottom, there is a real single standard at work here: ‘Absolute free speech for our side; no freedom at all for the enemy."
During June of this year, Patrick Buchanan spelled out the same issue in terms which even Australia’s intelligentsia might be able to understand, on the optimistic assumption that it can understand anything whatsoever except its own financial and sexual aggrandisement:20
"If the tenets of the gay rights movement are true, the Torah and New Testament are wrong, Christianity has been wrong since the time of Saint Paul, Aquinas and Augustine were wrong, and the moral edifice by which men in the West have lived for 2,000 years was built on bigotry, prejudice and lies. Was it?"
1. Sara Diamond, Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States (Guilford Press, New York City), 1995.
2. Gerald Warner, "Is the Pope A Catholic?", The Spectator, 14 December 2002.
3. Richard Egan, "Canadian Court Changes Definition of Marriage", News Weekly, 28 June 2003.
4. Paul Johnson, "U.S. Should Recognise Canadian Gay Marriages, Dean Says", Chicago Pride, 30 June 2003.
5. Charles Lane, "Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Sodomy Law", The Washington Post, 26 June 2003.
6. Lane, op. cit.
7. Ted Olsen and Todd Hertz, "Opinion Round-Up: Does Lawrence v. Texas Signal the End of the American Family?", Christianity Today, July 2003.
8. Jonah Goldberg, "Springfield Versus Shelbyville", National Review Online, 1 July 2003.
9. Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality (Vintage Books, New York City, 1996), pages 202-203.
10. Christine Gorman, "Battling the A.I.D.S. Virus", Time, 12 February 1996.
11. H. Varmus, "Evaluating the Burden of Disease and Spending the Research Dollars of the National Institutes of Health", New England Journal of Medicine, 17 June 1999.
12. Judith W. Leavitt, Typhoid Mary (Beacon Press, Boston, 1997).
13. Michael Fumento, The Myth of Heterosexual A.I.D.S.: How a Tragedy Has Been Distorted by the Media and Partisan Politics (Regnery Gateway, Washington D.C., 1993).
14. R. R. Runnells, A.I.D.S. in the Dental Office? The Story of Kimberly Bergalis and Dr. David Acer (Infection Control Publications, Covington, Georgia, 1993).
15. Michael Cooper, "White House Joins With Gays to Oust Christian Conservative from A.I.D.S. Panel", The Remnant, 28 February 2003.
16. Adonis Georgiades, Debunking the Myth of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece (Georgiades Publishing Company, Athens, 2002), page 62.
17. Judith A. Reisman and Edward Eichel, Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People (Vital Issues Press, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1990).
18. Mark Thompson (ed.) Long Road to Freedom: The Advocate History of the Gay and Lesbian Movement (St. Martin's Press, New York City, 1994), pages 22, 59-60, 102 and 164.
19. Joseph Sobran, "Can Dr. Laura Be Tolerated?", Sobran’s, May 2000.
20. Patrick J. Buchanan, "Pushing the Limits of Reality TV", Human Events, 8 June 2003.
National Observer No. 58 - Spring 2003