RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« 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