RECENT  POSTS:  » No, you really don't seem to know what tyranny is, Jerry Cox » Vatican's #Humanum event meant to paint gay families as 'evil' and 'obscene,' admits invited guest » Read: Federal judge calls MS's marriage ban what it is: discriminatory » Yet another federal judge accurately notes crude discrimination within Arkansas' marriage ban » Prominent conservative outlet equates LGBT activists with Nazi paramilitary » New pledge: Conservative pastors choose to separate selves from civil marriage » Read: ADF creates fake 'victim' superbook; misapplies business matters to churches » P&G reaches out to pro-discrimination activist, learns it made right choice » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years  

« 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