RECENT  POSTS:  » 2006: When Clinton vocally supported her state moving forward w/ marriage equality but Sanders did not » Where art thou, Jeremy? » Video: Ad for blemish remover/ tourist spot for our new, bettered America » Whether justified or Kim Davis-ed, individualistic rage rarely outplays broader truths » Kim Davis: The almost too perfect coda to the marriage discrimination fight » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight  

« 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