RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM to gay families: Your relationships are 'simply about adult sexual desires' » Maggie Gallagher's new gig » How do you even talk with a movement that insists we 'cannot coexist'? » Sen. Manchin picks odd way to (D-istinguish) himself » Photo: Before city council votes on nondiscrimination, Charlotte anti-LGBT activists frame us as 'Homo-Nazis' » AG Holder: 'Marriage equality is an idea whose time has come.' » Viciously anti-gay activist Scott Lively to help us show SCOTUS what animus looks like; thanks, doll! » Audio: NOM prez equates his anti-gay fight with defeating slavery, conquering 'evils that were occurring in the Roman empire' » SCOTUS deals another blow to NOM; more to surely come! » Federal judge strikes Nebraska's discriminatory marriage ban  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

01/28/2011

1967: When the national gay conversation involved a different kind of 'homo ring'

by Jeremy Hooper

Looking at this forty-three-year-old column, it's interesting to see how far we've come in terms of gay politicos. LGBT people have always been on political payrolls, largely running the show in some cases. And while even these days, there are certainly LGBT people working for certain politicians who either can't or won't talk about sexuality and the associated rights, in 1967, "homos in government" chatter based on nothing more than the staffers' private personal lives took on a whole other level. It was accepted as a non-negotiable career killer, both for the underling and the top dog. Both for Democrats (see LBJ reference) and Republicans:

>>>10/31/67 -- Drew Pearson's nationally syndicated column

201101271846

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails