RECENT  POSTS:  » And now NOM is literally pleading with its (theoretical) supporters » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices » NOM to lasso the White House with a rosary. Or something. » NOM's new plan? To beat up its org-crushing loss until it becomes a win. » By the time you read this headline, we'll be ten more seconds beyond stagnant anti-gay 'culture wars' » Video: America cannot wait—to purchase American Family Association radio equipment? Huh?! » Huckabee 2016: 'cause church and state aint gonna marry themselves » EEOC does wonky, under-radar thing that could lay groundwork for definitive nondiscrimination protections » Maggie Gallagher, now that you've lost on marriage, might you lose these deceptive ways as well? » Crowdfunding discriminatory business owners: Perfect statement on anti-gay movement's current affairs  

« 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