The Daily Agenda for Friday, May 20
These days, probe can be such a funny word. In days gone by, it was a handily short idiom that headline writers could use that didn’t take up nearly as much space as investigation. So headlines like these were common during the Lavender scare of 1950. Go ahead. It’s safe to snicker today, but in 1950, this was serious stuff.
I think one of the most unconscionable gaps in our understanding of American History is the fact that everyone knows about McCarthy’s Red Scare. But what nobody knows about — and what never gets talked about in the documentaries and history books — is that for most of the first year of that national obsession over subversives in government, homosexuals were the focus of everyone’s fears much more so than communists. (Feb 28, Mar 14,Mar 21, Mar 23, Mar 24, Apr 14, Apr 18, Apr 26, May 2, May 15, and May 19). After all, this was the era when the epithet “pinko fag” became one of the worst insults one could deliver.
Just one day before headlines about Senators demanding a “pervert probe” hit the papers, Senate Majority Leader Kenneth S. Wherry (R-NE) and his counterpart in a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, segregationist Sen. Lister Hill (D-AL) engineered the release of supposedly secret testimony which gave what was considered a rather shocking figure of “3,750 sex perverts” — their term for gay people — in federal employment, with “300 to 400” of them in the State Department alone (May 19). What was buried in most of those reports was that those figures were nothing more than wild guesses put forth by Police Lt. Roy Blick, head of the D.C.Police Department’s vice squad.
But with those headlines blasted in newspapers across America, Wherry had the momentum they needed to put on the floor of the Senate a resolution calling for what the Associated Press described as “a speedy Senate inquiry into federal employment of sexual perverts described as likely tools of Communist conspirators.” The previous day, Wherry and Hill tried to plant another link between gay people and communists by claiming to have uncovered a conspiracy linking “a nest of homosexuals” to the Soviet embassy, where, if a war broke out, a “Red Fifth Column” would sabotage Washington, D.C. using “sex degenerates for subversive purposes.” Few details were forthcoming, but on May 20, the United Press provided this sketchy account:
The purported “blueprint for disaster,” an inch-thick volume, contained detailed instructions for bombing key government offices, destroying public utilities and poisoning the city’s water supply. The aim of the plan would be to paralyze the government, particularly Congress, the military establishment and the State Department.
The volume is currently in the custody of Sgt. James K. Hunter of the Washington police subversive squad. It has been examined already by Senators Kenneth S. Wherry (R-Neb.), and Lester Hill (D-Ala.) … “It looks genuine,” Wherry said.
To put his spin on things, Wherry released a statement which said:
“Only the most naive could relive that the Communists’ fifth column in the United States would neglect to propagate and use homosexuals to gain their treacherous ends in view of the resort to every conceivable form of sabotage revealed in every enemy country infiltrated and finally taken over by the ruthless Communists.”
Hill also chimed in:
It is accepted and agreed that persons who are homosexuals are bad security risks and should not be in sensitive positions or in any positions on the government where they might in any way aid or abet or be a party to subversive activities.
On May 20, Wherry introduced Resolution 280, with the co-sponsorship of Sen. Lester Hunt (D-WY), asking for a committee “to make a full and complete study and investigation of (a) the alleged employment by the departments and agencies of the Government of homosexuals and other moral perverts, and (b) the preparedness of authorities of the District of Columbia, as well as the appropriate authorities of the Federal Government within the District…for the protection of life and property against the threat to security, inherent in the employment of such perverts.” Crucially, the resolution didn’t specify which committee would do the investigation. And this is where some inside baseball is important to understand what’s happening.
There were two separate motivations for pursuing an investigation like this that would potentially be problematic for the Truman Administration. For the Republican side of the aisle, the motivation is obvious: any time they can successfully sling mud at a Democratic president, Republicans win. But there were also Truman enemies within his own party. Remember, before the Southern political re-alignment of the 1980s, Southern Democrats were often Democrats in name only, what with the Republican brand still so closely identified with what was still being called in more polite circles, “Mr. Lincoln’s War.” And many of those southern Democrats, ardent segregationists that they were, had walked out of the 1948 Democratic Convention over a civil rights platform adopted by the Democratic Party and Truman’s 1948 order to end racial segregation in the military. These Dixicrats failed in their bid to derail Truman’s re-election, and just two years later, those memories were still raw.
And so that’s how Wherry was able to get a Democratic co-sponsor and garner Democratic support in what was still a Democratically-controlled Senate. But in order to secure that support, Wherry dropped his preference that it go to the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Pat McCarran (D-NV, who, by the way, was well known for his xenophobia and admiration for Spain’s Fascist dictator Francisco Franco). His resolution instead left the committee’s designation open. The Senate passed Wherry’s resolution on June 8. The presiding officer, freshman Sen. Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) ruled that Vice President Alben Barkley would decide on the committee referral. Barkley referred the investigation to the Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee on Expenditure in the Executive Departments, headed by Sen. Clyde Hoey (D-NC), who in 1948 supported Truman over the Dixicrat challenger, Sen. Strom Thurmund (R-SC), and who Democrats believed would conduct the investigation in a manner that would result in an outcome less damaging to the Administration.
[Additional sources: Randolph W Baxter. “‘Homo-Hunting’ in the Early Cold War: Senator Kenneth Wherry and the Homophobic Side of McCarthyism,” Nebraska History 84 (Fall 2003): 119-132. Available online here (PDF: 2MB/16 pages)
Roger McDaniel. Dying for Joe McCarthy’s Sins: The Suicide of Wyoming Senator Lester Hunt (Cody, WY: Wordsworth, 2013): p 160.]
In a paper published in the US journal Science, a team from France’s Pasteur Institute, led by Luc Montagnier, described a suspect virus which had been isolated in a patient who had died of AIDS. Montagnier’s groundbreaking work led to the determination by US researcher Robert Gallo in 1984 that the virus was indeed the cause of AIDS. Gallo named his virus HTLV-III, and promptly claimed credit for discovering the virus. But the rest of the world began calling it the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, or HIV. A three year acrimonious spat between Gallo and Montagnier ensued over who was the first to discover it. The dispute was finally settled after intensive negotiations resulting in both parties being awarded credit, and everyone lived happily ever after, as it were.
On this date, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Romer v. Evans, handed down the landmark decision striking down Colorado’s Amendment 2 to the state constitution which would have disenfranchised that state’s LGBT citizens from the right to petition their state and local governments for laws banning discrimination. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, rejected Amendment 2 supporter’s arguments that the ban on anti-discrimination laws were meant solely to deny LGBT people “special rights”:
[W]e cannot accept the view that Amendment 2’s prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint. They can obtain specific protection against discrimination only by enlisting the citizenry of Colorado to amend the State Constitution or perhaps, on the State’s view, by trying to pass helpful laws of general applicability. This is so no matter how local or discrete the harm, no matter how public and widespread the injury. We find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These are protections taken for granted by most people either because they already have them or do not need them; these are protections against exclusion from an almost limitless number of transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civic life in a free society.
…(Amendment 2) is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence. …We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.
Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer joined Kennedy in the majority opinion.
Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, considered Colorado’s attempt to disenfranchise an entire class of people “unimpeachable under any constitutional doctrine hitherto pronounced.” Pointing to Bowers v Hardwick, the 1986 Supreme Court Decision which declared sodomy laws constitutional (Jun 30), Scalia wrote, “If it is rational to criminalize the conduct, surely it is rational to deny special favor and protection to those with a self-avowed tendency or desire to engage in the conduct.” Seven years later, the Court would correct that contradiction in Lawrence v Texas, which finally struck down anti-sodomy laws in the 13 states where such laws were still in effect (Jun 26).
May 19th, 2016
From El Universal, (via my highly unofficial translation, with my comments in square brackets, and your corrections to my translation welcome):
The PRI’s coordinator in the Chamber of Deputies, César Camacho Quiroz, said the initiative of the Federal Executive on equal marriage, which opens access to this right to gay couples, constitutes a cutting-edge approach and the prority it will have in San Lázaro [shorthand for the Legislative Palace of Sán Lazaro which houses both chambers of Congress] will be decided in September.
Camacho Quiroz explained that this depends on the Political Coordination Board’s agreeing on legislative priorities for the sessions, and pointed out that in August it is his responsibility as chairman of the collegial body to integrate parliamentary coordinators.
…The PRI’s coordinator in the Senate, Emilio Gamboa Patrón, said the Executive’s initiative is an advanced project, and a part his group is a clear respect for human rights and freedoms.
“The discussion begins,” said PRI’s Amacho Quiroz, and confirmed that the Chamber of Deputies, as the chamber of origin for this reform, will debate it in a climate of freedom and respect.
Camacho expressed that the project has the support of party members, and stressed that this initiative by the Executive enters with a foundation that touches on liberty and equality in diversity.
… For its part, PAN [the center-right National Action Party] Senate coordinator Fernando Herrera Ávila, said that the Executive initiative includes a right recognized by the Supreme Court Justice of the Nation. However, “we do not know the project itself, and we will analyze it and subsequently establish a position.”
Deputy Marko Cortés, coordinator of the National Action bench in San Lázaro, signaled that federal lawmakers, together with PAN’s CEN [CEN is PAN’s National Executive Committee], will adopt a joint position on “this significant issue.”
Of course, said Deputy Cortés, National Action “is in favor of individual guarantees, freedoms and values,” and his party welcomes the President’s initiative.
Deputy Guadalupe Acosta Naranjo (PRD) [Party of the Democratic Revolution, a center-left/left-wing party which governs Mexico City] expressed that this initiative marks “a cultural change of respect for all freedoms,” and that his party will analyze it to see if, in its opinion, improvements are needed.
The President’s proposal, said the PRD, has its full backing, “on the condition that it does not undermine what we have achieved” in Mexico City, where we have obtained these rights, only to see them contested in court.
Miguel Barbosa Huerta, PRD’s Senate coordinator, signaled that the project marks a paradigm change on the part of the federal government in these matters and are the subject of deep debate.
“It is a moral triumph of leftist governments against conservative opinion, Barbosa said, noting that this opens a great debate “which will lead us to many more things.”
He affirmed, “I hope this reform does not become an object of a political strategy of resistance from social sectors trying to stop it.”
On Tuesday, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto announced a package of reforms, including a revision to the Mexican Constitution along with changes to the Federal Civil Code to provide marriage equality for same-sex couples. The reforms also provide for updating birth certificates according for gender identity. While the Mexican constitution has undergone numerous revisions in its 99-year history, I don’t have a sense of how long the process would take. Since that announcement was made, Michoacan became the ninth state to enact marriage equality and Morelos initiated the process to change its state constitution to allow same-sex marriages.
May 19th, 2016
When the 2016 Defense Authorization Bill hit the floor of the House today, it carried with it a provision attached by Rep. Steve Russell (R-OK) which would overturn President Obama’s executive order requiring federal contractors to maintain anti-discrimination policies that cover sexual orientation and gender identity. Today, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY) introduced an amendment from the House floor to strike Russell’s provision from the bill. And that’s when
The Hill describes it succinctly:
The House floor devolved into chaos and shouting on Thursday as a measure to ensure protections for members of the LGBT community narrowly failed to pass after Republican leaders urged their members to change their votes.
Initially, it appeared Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney’s (D-N.Y.) amendment had passed, as 217 “yes” votes piled up over 206 “no” votes when the clock ran out. The measure needed 213 votes to pass.
But it eventually failed on a 212-213 vote after a number of Republican lawmakers changed their votes from “yes” to “no” after the clock had expired.
GOP leaders held the vote open as they pressured members to change sides. Infuriating Democrats, they let lawmakers switch their votes without walking to the well at the front of the chamber.
The clock for the vote was set at two minutes. According to House procedures, after the clock expires, the lawmaker holding the gavel asks the House if any members want to change their votes. At that point, the electronic voting machines are switched off, and any vote-changing members go to the front of the chamber to switch their votes in person.
But in this case, when GOP leaders saw that Maloney’s amendment had passed when the clock ran out, the Speaker pro tempore never asked the question and the electronic voting machines were kept open as GOP leaders prowled for potential vote-switchers. After an additional five minutes and 37 seconds had passed, the vote was closed soon after the 213th “nay” vote was cast.
When Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) took over the as Speaker from Rep. John Boehner, he promised to return the House to regular order and to be a stickler about House rules and the vote clock. Today he feigned ignorance to reporters when asked whether his leadership team pressured seven Republicans to change their votes. But a senior House Republican leadership aide told CNN that all of the top GOP leaders were working to defeat Maloney’s amendment.
Ryan was not in the House chamber when the vote was taken. Democrats say it was Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) who was the most visible actor in the campaign to flip votes.
Maloney emphasized that many Republicans held their ground and refused to switch sides. Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) “was at the head of that list,” Maloney said.
“McCarthy went down and talked to him, and [Dent] told [McCarthy] to get lost,” Maloney said. “And McCarthy then went around and twisted everybody else’s arms, and it was disgraceful.
“I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything that craven and that ugly in my time in Congress,” Maloney added.
At one point, Rep. Steve Russell (R-OK), who had inserted the pro-discrimnation clause in the first place, was heard prowling the Republican side of the aisle shouting, “Need two more votes!”
Maloney added that “easily a dozen” Republicans approached him on the floor “and expressed disgust for what happened today.”
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) was similarly outraged over what he called the “cowardice” of those House members who switched their votes:
Hoyer alleged that the Republicans who changed their vote initially believed that the amendment would fail.
“Several Republican Members initially cast votes in favor of Rep. Maloney’s amendment but shamefully changed their votes after it was clear the amendment would pass, leading the amendment to fail by just a single vote,” Hoyer said in a Thursday afternoon statement. “Not only did they vote against equality and inclusion, but those who switched their votes did not even have the courage to do so openly in the well of the House. They did so quietly from the back benches, contrary to established practice that requires vote-switching to be done in person at the Clerk’s desk, and House Republican leaders held a two-minute vote open for nearly eight minutes.”
…Hoyer later revealed on Twitter the seven Republican members who changed their vote on the amendment: Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA), Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), Rep. Mimi Walters (R-CA), Rep. David Young (R-IA), Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R-ME), and Rep. David Valadao (R-CA).
Walden is chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign committee for House Republicans. Valadao, Young and Poliquin have been identified by the NRCC as vulnerable, and before this vote they were already marked by the NRCC for extra “special protection” campaign spending. Democrats are already pouncing on the possibility of making this a campaign issue in those and other competitive districts.
The Daily Agenda for Thursday, May 19
This is one of those places where it’s hard to find any information. The Town and Country Club on Farnum Pike in Smithfield, Rhode Island, appears to have been a swim club with an Olympic-size swimming pool that went bankrupt in 1969. But when this ad was published in a New England gay bar guide in 1976, it was back in operation, perhaps under new ownership. Since no specific address is given for the Town and Country Club, it’s hard to know what happened to it. I don’t know for sure, but it may (or may not) be the same facility that was, until recently, the Effin Last Resort Club — a bar with an Olympic-sized swimming pool — which also went into receivership in 2013, only to open again as simply The Last Resort.
Roger Williams established Providence Plantation (“Plantation” was a synonym for a settlement or colony) in 1636 as a refuge for religious freedom and on the principle of majority rule among the heads of households for “civil things.” He had established his colony after Massachusetts banished him for spreading “diverse, new, and dangerous position.” Those positions included theological and legal disputes with the leaders of Massachusetts colony, and since Massachusetts laws were based on Puritan theology, Williams was found guilty of sedition and heresy simultaneously. His Providence Plantation would be far different, becoming the first outpost to uphold the diverse, new, and dangerous position of the separation of church and state.
The following year, Massachusetts banished the followers of Anne Hutchinson, who preached the doctrine of Antinomianism, which held that if salvation came through faith and divine grace alone, then the strict imposition of a moral law by political authorities was an unbiblical reliance on good works over faith. Hutchinson’s followers settled in present-day Portsmouth, Rhode Island. Other settlements soon followed.
In 1647, representatives from Providence, Portsmouth, Newport and Warwick came together in Portsmouth to establish a government for the Rhode Island Colony, and to draw up a body of laws which would become one of the earliest governmental codes enacted by colonists in the New World. With Rhode Island being a refuge for those “distressed of conscience,” Rhode Island’s new code was modeled more on the statutes of England rather than on Biblical texts as in Massachusetts. But that didn’t mean it was devoid of Biblical citations — Rhode Island Colony may have prized religious freedom, but there was still an assumption that Biblical principles were important in public life. And so Rhode Island Colony’s law addressing sodomy cited, in addition to English law, Paul’s letter to the Romans as part of its justification. That section read:
Touching Whoremongers. First of sodomy, which is forbidden by this present Assembly throughout the whole colony, and by sundry statutes of England 25 Hen. 8, 6: 5 Eliz 17. It is a vile affection, whereby men given up thereto leave the natural use of women and burn in their lusts toward another, and so men with men work that which is unseemly, as that Doctor of the Gentiles [St. Paul] in his letter to the Romans once spake, i. 27. The penalty concluded by that state under whose authority we are is felony of death without remedy. See 5 Eliz 17.(2)
The citations of 25 Henry 8, 6 and 5 Elizabeth 17 refer to, respectively, the 1533 buggery statute enacted under King Henry VIII, and its 1563 reenactment under Queen Elizabeth I. The reference to Paul’s letter to the Romans was unusual. Legislation at that time would have much more typically referenced Leviticus 20:13. But remember, Rhode Island Colony was settled by colonists who rejected salvation by works of the law, and there’s nothing more workier-of-the-law than Leviticus. Hence, the New Testament citation rather than the Old.
By imposing the death penalty for men who “work that which is unseemly” with other men, sodomy joined treason, murder, manslaughter, witchcraft, robbery, arson, and rape as crimes meriting the death penalty. There were no recorded persecutions under this law or any subsequent laws which included the death penalty, although that may be due to a lack of rigorous record keeping rather than a lack of prosecutions. The ultimate penalty was eliminated in 1844 and replaced with one to twelve years’ imprisonment. The minimum penalty was raised to seven years in 1872, and the maximum was raised to twenty years in 1881. The Rhode Island legislature didn’t get around to decriminalizing consensual sex between same-sex couples until 1998.
The two-year ordeal began in 1895 when Oscar Wilde was denounced as a homosexual by the Marquess of Queensberry. Wilde, who was involved with the marquess’ son, Alfred Douglass, sued the Marquess for libel but lost the case when evidence supported the marquess’ allegations (Apr 5). Because homosexual behavior among men was still considered a crime in England, that evidence led to Wilde’s arrest. His first trial resulted in a hung jury, but a second jury in 1895 sentenced him to two years of hard labor (May 25). Wilde was imprisoned in Pentonville and then Wandsworth prisons in London. The regime consisted of “hard labour, hard fare and a hard bed.” Ill with dysentery and weakened from hunger, Wilde collapsed during Chapel, bursting his right ear drum. He spent two months in the infirmary, and his health never fully recovered.
He was later transferred to Reading prison, where he wrote a 50,000 word letter to Douglass. He wasn’t allowed to send the letter, but he was permitted to take it with him when he was released. The letter, since named De Profundis was published in 1962’s Complete Letters of Oscar Wilde. It reads, it part:
When first I was put into prison some people advised me to try and forget who I was. It was ruinous advice. It is only by realising what I am that I have found comfort of any kind. Now I am advised by others to try on my release to forget that I have ever been in a prison at all. I know that would be equally fatal. It would mean that I would always be haunted by an intolerable sense of disgrace, and that those things that are meant for me as much as for anybody else – the beauty of the sun and moon, the pageant of the seasons, the music of daybreak and the silence of great nights, the rain falling through the leaves, or the dew creeping over the grass and making it silver – would all be tainted for me, and lose their healing power, and their power of communicating joy. To regret one’s own experiences is to arrest one’s own development. To deny one’s own experiences is to put a lie into the lips of one’s own life. It is no less than a denial of the soul.
Imagine seeing a headline like this one while reading the morning paper over coffee. A surprising number of newspapers used a headline very similar to the one the Pittsburgh Press used for this story.
What we now know as the McCarthy Red Scare of the 1950s, which was ostensibly about allegations of communists in the U.S. government, actually had its roots in the Lavender Scare of 1950, about which history books today are mostly silent. But for much of 1950, it was actually Congress’s obsession with the perceived threat of homosexuals in government which consumed most of the front pages of the nation’s newspapers, with Communist-hunting pretty much relegated to the background. (Feb 28, Mar 14,Mar 21, Mar 23, Mar 24, Apr 14, Apr 18, Apr 26, May 2, and May 15;).
Driving the hysteria over homosexuals in the Senate was a coalition of the Republican caucus, which was then in the minority, and Southern Democrats who were furious over President Truman’s order to integrate the Armed Forces and who worried that he might have a few more integration tricks up his sleeve. As ABC radio commentator Elmer Davis remarked in mid-May, “‘It looks as if the enemies of the State Department, and of the administration generally, have gotten hold of a more profitable issue than communism.”
That profitable issue got a greater boost when the following United Press article appeared in newspapers nationwide:
3750 Perverts Listed on Payroll
Senate Republican Leader Kenneth S. Wherry said today that Washington police estimate there are 3750 sex perverts in the Government here.
In a report to a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Wherry said police authorities testified that 300 to 400 State Department employees are “suspected or allegedly homosexual.”
The Nebraskan also said that Washington police reported they have uncovered “what purported to be a plan of Communists to sabotage and damage” Washington in case of war with Russia; that a Red Fifth Column is using sex degenerates for subversive purposes; and that “there are 1000 bad security risks” in Washington.
The report gave no details on the purported plot to sabotage Washington.
The New York Times had a more in-depth account, which revealed that Police Lieutenant Roy Blick, head of the department’s vice squad, testified that his estimate of 300 to 400 gays employees in the State Department was based on “a quick guess”:
This, he said at one point, was a “quick guess,” in the sense that it was based upon his experience that arrested persons not connected with the State Department would sometimes say: “Why don’t you go get so-and-so and so-and-so? They all belong to the same clique.”
“By doing that,” Lieutenant Blick added, “their names were put on the list and they were catalogued as such, as the suspect of being such.”
But Blick’s arrival at the 3,750 number was, by his own admission, based on pure guesswork. He gave a “quick guess” of five thousand homosexual men in the District of Columbia (out of a population of 800,000). He guessed that three-fourths of them were government jobs.
Sen. Wherry and his Democratic counterpart, Lister Hill (D-AL), were alarmed at what they considered a lax attitude toward homosexuals in government employment, and had conducted closed-door hearings with DC police and federal agency witnesses since March 23. More than a dozen witnesses testified, including those from the State Department, Defense Department, the FBI, and D.C. police. The Navy protested that they were doing their job by removing more than 7,800 “known or alleged homosexuals” since 1947, and the Army boasted that more than 5,000 were discharged during the same period.
But Blick wound up being the star witness by suggesting that the work in rooting out homosexuals wasn’t completed. Wherry praised Blick as a “one-man watchdog of the city’s morals,” but he was disappointed that the city’s vice squad didn’t maintain a master list of arrested homosexuals to cross-check against federal employment rolls. But Blick wound up providing the crucial testimony that Wherry was looking for: a confirmation that there were “thousands” of homosexuals working in the government, far more than the 91 that the State Department acknowledged getting rid of in February (Feb 28).
Sensing a political advantage, Republicans leaked Blick’s secret testimony to the press in late March — but without Blick’s dubious methods for coming up with his number. By the time Wherry released his report to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, no one bothered to fact-check Blick’s number. His “quick guess” was simply repeated as fact. Later that July, Blick admitted to a reporter that his numbers were dubious and he regretted having been “caught between the Democrats and the Republicans.”
Oh, remember the communists? The thing that they were supposed to have been so worried about when the whole controversy started? Well, Wherry had an answer for that, too. He also passed on to reporters that D.C. police reported that they had uncovered “what purported to be a plan of Communists to sabotage and damage” Washington if war would break out. The plan involved a “Red Fifth Column” using “sex degenerates for subversive purposes,” though he didn’t give any details of the purported plot. He claimed instead to have traced a “nest of homosexuals” to the Soviet embassy.
[Additional source: Randolph W Baxter. “‘Homo-Hunting’ in the Early Cold War: Senator Kenneth Wherry and the Homophobic Side of McCarthyism,” Nebraska History 84 (Fall 2003): 119-132. Available online here (PDF: 2MB/16 pages).]
About three years earlier, Vietnam vet, ex-hippie and born-again Christian by the name of Lon Mabon had formed the Oregon Citizens Alliance (OCA) with support from the Oregon branch of Pat Roberston’s Christian Coalition. By 1991, budding firebrand Scott Lively joined the group, where he had quickly earned his reputation for being a loose canon. In October of that year, the photographer Catherine Stauffer attended a church meeting where the OCA was previewing a videotape it had cobbled together in preparation for a campaign in support of a series of local anti-gay ballot measures across the state. Lively forcefully ejected Stauffer from the meeting by physically throwing her against the wall and dragging her across the floor. She sued Lively and OCA. The jury determined that Lively was guilty of using unreasonable force and awarded Stauffer $20,000.
What the OCA was preparing was a series of local ballot measures that would prohibit “promoting, encouraging or facilitating homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism” — restrictions which would, in addition to equating homosexuality with pedophilia, determine such basic community issues as which books could be accepted into the local library and which groups could access city facilities, including streets and parks. They would also institute a double standard: for example, OCA would be allowed to hold meetings in city buildings, while Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) would not.
Those ballot measures found their first success in Springfield, a more conservative working-class suburb of Eugene, where voters approved a proposed city charter amendment, Ballot Measure 20-80, by a 54-46 margin. City Councilman Ralf Walters, was elated. “What this means is that Springfielders have shown their commitment to traditional family values. They want to maintain Springfield as a terrific place to raise a family, and they don’t want their leaders and public institutions to promote as an alternative lifestyle.”
But Mayor Bill Morrisette, an outspoken opponent of the measure, was more cautious. “I think there’s more to the city of Springfield than this particular question of sexual orientation. It certainly would be a mistake for the OCA to think if they win this that they’ve got a lock on the city.” Planning Commission member Tom Atkinson, who helped lead the opposition, said the vote “does stamp Springfield with Hate City USA. I just don’t believe that it’s true about Springfield. The low turnout really makes me believe the real will of the people of Springfield was not expressed tonight.”
Even though a similar vote in Corvallis failed by a wide margin, OCA’s Scott Lively saw the Springfield vote as a prophetic omen for future ballot measures in the state. “The votes in Springfield — and Corvallis, too, even though it failed there — vindicate our position that traditional family values are shared by a large number of people in this state. The attempt by the opposition to equate the simple ‘no special rights’ message with hatred and bigotry was a lie, and the people of Springfield proved it.”
OCA’s victory in Springfield gave Mabon and Lively all the encouragement they needed to propose a state constitutional amendment with language that was very similar to the Springfield measure. They saw Springfield as their testing ground, but it would also prove to be their high water mark. Following a nasty state-wide campaign led by Mabon, Lively and the OCA, Measure 9 was defeated by voters just nine months later (see Nov 3). Meanwhile, Springfield’s new law was challenged in court, and in 1995 the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that a state law passed in 1993 pre-empted local governments on gay rights issues.
[Sources: Jim Burroway. “Lively’s Lies: A Profile of Scott Lively.” Political Research Associates (March 1, 2011). Available online here.
Ann Portal. “Voters approve anti-gay measure.” Eugene Register-Guard (May 20, 1992): 1A. Available online here.
Randi Bjornstad. “OCA issue hinged on ‘special rights’.” Eugene Register-Guard (May 21, 1992): 1A. Available online here.
Paul Neville. “Appeals court deals setback to gay rights foes.” Eugene Register-Guard (April 13, 1995): 1A. Available online here.]
(d. 1999) In 1954, Peter Wildeblood was a diplomatic correspondent for London’s Daily Mail in 1953, when he was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for homosexual offenses. In essence, he was convicted of refusing to be ashamed. Wildeblood has one of four men caught up in the so-called “Montagu Case,” named for Lord Montagu (Oct 20), whose beach house was raided by police on a tip that a homosexual orgy was taking place. Montagu had offered Wildeblood the use of the beach house, and Wildeblood in turn invited two friends from the RAF, his lover Edward McNally and John Reynolds. Montagu’s cousin, Michael Pitt-Rivers, had also joined the group.
Wildeblood later said that the whole affair had been “extremely dull,” while Montague elaborated, “We had some drinks, we danced, we kissed, that’s all. But McNally and Reynolds turned Queen’s Evidence and claimed that “abandoned behavior” had occurred. Wideblood was charged with “conspiracy to incite certain male persons to commit serious offences with male persons,” among other charges, and was sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment.
After his release, Wildeblood considered his battle only half over. Just as he proclaimed his homosexuality during his trial, he published his audacious memoir Against the Law, which revealed his experiences during his arrest and trial, and the appalling conditions of his imprisonment. He also described being on the receiving end of popular scorn when news of his arrest hit the papers:
That night, a woman spat at me. She was a respectable looking, middle-aged, tweedy person wearing a sensible felt hat. She was standing on the pavement as the car went by. I saw her suck in her cheeks, and the next moment a big blob of spit was running down the windscreen.
This shocked me very much. The woman did not look eccentric or evil; in fact she looked very much like the country gentlewomen with whom my mother used to take coffee when she has finished her shopping on Saturday mornings. She looked thoroughly ordinary, to me. But what did I look like to her? Evidently, I was a monster.
The following year, Wildeblood came out with another book, A Way of Life, which included twelve essays describing various gay people he had come in contact with. This helped to put a human face on the hitherto faceless “homosexuals.” Wildeblood’s two books also helped to inform the Wolfenden Report, which in 1957 recommended the decriminalization of homosexual acts in Britain. But those recommendations wouldn’t be acted upon for another ten years (Jul 28).
Wildeblood went on to become a television producer and writer, first for Granada Television, and then CBC Toronto. He became a Canadian citizen in the 1980s, and died in Victoria, British Columbia in 1999.
(d. 1965). The American playwright and writer is notable for being the first African-American woman to have her play performed on Broadway. A Raisin In the Sun described a black family’s experience of moving to an all-white Chicago neighborhood in an attempt to “better” themselves. Hansberry drew from her own family’s experience in a “hellishly hostile ‘white neighborhood'” and her father’s lawsuit challenging racial restrictions in property covenants. A Raisin In the Sun, starring Sidney Poitier, Ruby Dee, Claudia McNeil and Diana Sands, was nominated for four Tony Awards, and she became the youngest American and the first black playwright to win the New York Drama Critics’ Circle Award for Best Play. In 1961 it was made into an acclaimed film featuring much of the original Broadway cast and with Hansberry writing the screenplay.
Hansberry had been involved with the civil rights movement since 1951, when she joined the staff of the African-American newspaper Freedom. She was also keenly interested in women’s issues, and wrote of the various global conflicts from the point of view of the female participants. In 1953, she married Robert Nemiroff, a white Jewish publisher, songwriter and political activist; they spent the night before the wedding protesting the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg executions. The couple quietly separated in 1957 and divorced amicably in 1964, but they remained close and continued to work together throughout.
These facts about her short life are fairly well known. What isn’t widely known is her much quieter contribution to a gay rights discussion in the pages of The Ladder, the official magazine of the Daughters of Bilitis. In May, 1957, the same year Hansberry and Nemiroff separated, The Ladder published a letter from “L.H.N., New York, N.Y.” — her abbreviation for Lorraine Hansberry Nemiroff. “I’m glad as heck that you exist,” she wrote. “You are obviously serious people and I feel that women, without wishing to foster any strict separatist notions, homo or hetero, indeed have a need for their own publications and organizations. Our problems, our experiences as women are profoundly unique as compared to the other half of the human race. Women, like other oppressed groups of one kind or another, have particularly had to pay a price for the intellectual impoverishment that the second class status imposed on us for centuries created and sustained.”
The letter reads as one who was coming to an exciting realization about herself and her discovery of a world of others like her. And her background as a woman and an African-American, she had some very pertinent thoughts about the assimilation debate taking place in the pages of The Ladder (i.e. that women should dress as ladies as a path to acceptability.) “As one raised in a cultural experience (I am a Negro) where those within were and are forever lecturing to their fellows about how to appear acceptable to the dominant group, I know something about the shallowness of such a view as an end to itself. The most splendid argument is simple and to the point, Ralph Bunche, with all his clean fingernails, degrees, and, of course, undeniable service to the human race, could still be insulted, denied a hotel room or meal in many parts of our country.”
Despite her circumspection in how she signed her letter, and despite her remaining closeted, her background allowed her to draw parallels between her experience as a woman, an African-American, and a lesbian. “What ought to be clear is that one is oppressed or discriminated against because one is different, not ‘wrong,’ or ‘bad’ somehow.” She recalled her former “personal discomfort at the sight of an ill-dressed or illiterate Negro,” but now “Social awareness has taught me where to lay the blame. Someday, I expect, the ‘discrete’ Lesbian will not turn her head on the streets the sight of the ‘butch’ strolling hand in hand with her friends in their trousers and definitive haircuts. But for the moment, it still disturbs.”
“I feel I am learning how to think all over again,” she gushed in her second letter the following August. And she spent the next four pages diving deeply into the problems confronted by “heterosexually married lesbians,” of whom she added, “I am one of those.” And here, we get a sense some of her internal struggles in dealing with her own marriage with Nemiroff:
Speaking personally as well as abstractly here, may I ask when did the problem of saying to oneself, or to one’s husband, or anyone else that one finds “other women interesting” get to be any kind of a problem at all? Isn’t the problem of the married lesbian woman that of an individual who finds that, despite her conscious will ofttimes, she is inclined to have her most intense emotional and physical reactions directed toward other women, quite beyond any comparative thing she might have ever felt for her husband – whatever her sincere affection for him? And isn’t that the problem?
…I am suggesting here that perhaps it is pat and even unfair to suggest that all that remains for the married lesbian, already nursing her frustrations and confusions, 1s somehow to get rid of her ‘self-pity’ and ‘self-excuses’ and make a ‘happy marriage without in anyway denying her nature’. I am afraid that homosexuality, whatever its origins, is far more real than that, far more profound in the demands it makes; otherwise it could hardly deserve to be called a problem at all. I don’t think people start out in this world to be ‘bad’ – they start out to be happy. Frankly, I haven’t the least idea in the world what a ‘solution’ to the question might be at this particular moment in history.
Her diaries were recently made available, and they reveal her conflicts, then adjustment to her self-realization as a lesbian. But when she died at a tragically young death at the age of 34, of pancreatic cancer, she remained closeted, not surprising given the times. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote, “Her creative ability and her profound grasp of the deep social issues confronting the world today will remain an inspiration to generations yet unborn.” Those words are truer today the more we’ve come to know of her.
After she died, her ex-husband adopted her unfinished autobiography for the play To Be Young, Gifted, and Black, which became the longest-running off-Broadway play from 1968 to 1969. The autobiography itself was then published under the same title in 1970.
[Sources: “L.H.N., New York, N.Y.” Letter to the editor. The Ladder 1, no. 8 (May 1957): pp 26-28.
“L.N., New York, N.Y.” Letter to the editor. The Ladder 1, no. 11 (August 1957): pp 26-30.]
Growing up gay in Oklahoma wasn’t easy, but the experience quickly made Mike realize that people like him were, at best, second-class citizens. While attending the University of Oklahoma, his friend, Joe Clem, was also gay and rather cautiously open about it, even among his frat brothers. During one bout of drinking, those so-called “brothers” became enraged with Clem being a “faggot,” beat the crap out of him, and drove him out to a deserted road outside Norman and dumped him there. Clem eventually made his was back to Norman, but he didn’t dare call the police.
McConnell met Jack Baker (Mar 10) at a barn party in 1966 outside of Norman. McConnell was completing his Masters degree in Library Science, and Baker was working as a field engineer in Oklahoma City. Both were 24, and they hit it off right away. Six months later, Baker proposed to McConnell, and McConnell accepted, on one condition: that they would find a way to marry legally.
In 1969, Baker moved to Minneapolis to study law at the University of Minnesota. Six months later, McConnell was offered a job at the University’s library. Three weeks after McConnell moved to Minneapolis, the pair went to the Hennepin County Courthouse in downtown Minneapolis to apply for a marriage license (May 18). Their application was denied. Not only that, but after the news about what they had done had hit the papers, the university’s Board of Regents voted to withdraw its job offer to McConnell.
Those events launched two separate lawsuits: Baker v. Nelson challenged Hennepin County’s denial of their marriage license, and McConnell v. Anderson challenged the University’s withdrawal of McConnell’s job offer. Baker v. Nelson worked its way up the Minnesota state courts, with courts ruling against Baker and McConnell every step of the way. The case eventually made it to the Minnesota Supreme Court in October 1981, which also ruled against them. The U.S. Supreme Court then dismissed an appeal “for want of a substantial federal question,” and Baker v. Nelson was treated as though it were an established precedent for the next several decades.
McConnell’s lawsuit against the University went little better. He got an early victory when the Federal District Judge issued an injunction against the University. He called the couple’s attempt at getting married “rather bizarre,” but found that even a “homosexual is after all a human being and a citizen… He is as much entitled to the protection and benefits of the laws… as others.” But McConnell never did get his job at the University. The judge stayed his injunction pending appeal, the Eight Circuit overturned the lower court’s ruling, and the Supreme Court refused to consider the case.
While the cases were winding their way thought the courts, McConnell and Baker continued to pursue legal recognition of their relationship through other means. McConnell legally adopted Baker in August 1971, which allowed them at least some of the benefits of marriage (inheritance, medical decision-making, even reduced tuition for Baker). A month later, they managed to obtain a marriage license from a clerk in Blue Earth County, Minnesota and were married by a Methodist minister (Sep 3). That license was never officially revoked, although questions remained about its legal force. The IRS, for example, refused to recognize their marital status.
McConnell later found work in the Hennepin County Library system, and continued working there for the next thirty-seven years before retiring in 2010 as a Coordinating Librarian. In 2012, University of Minnesota president Erik Kaler formally apologized to McConnell for his treatment forty-two years earlier. When marriage equality finally arrived in Minnesota in 2013, it was natural to ask whether Baker and McConnell would formally tie the knot. Maybe even as the honorary first same-sex couple to marry. No need for that, they answered. As far as they were concerned, they had been legally married since 1971. They are still living together as a married couple in the suburbs of south Minneapolis, quietly and well out of the spotlight.
May 18th, 2016
It looks like Mexico is far more interested in tearing down walls rather than building them. The Congress of the Mexican state of Michoacan today voted 27-0 to legalize same-sex marriage. All seven members of the right-leaning PAN (National Action Party) abstained from the vote. Michoacan becomes the ninth state, in addition to the Federal District, to provide marriage equality for same-sex couples.
Michoacan is located on the Pacific Coast between Guerrero to the south and Jalisco to the north, both of which have also legalized marriage equality. It’s capital, Morelia, was declared a U.N. World Heritage Site for its preservation of colonial-era buildings.
Meanwhile, the state of Morelos (shown in blue on the map) has taken its first step toward marriage equality when it approved a state constitutional reform package to provide marriage equality. The vote 20-6, with the PAN lined up in opposition followed a particularly noisy debate. The reforms now go to the state’s 33 Ayuntamientos (regional governments) for ratification.
Morelos is located just south of Mexico City, with Cuerenavaca as its capital. It has always been a popular getaway for Mexico City residents, and is slowly becoming something of a bedroom community for the congested capital. It boasts a long list of impressive museums, botanical gardens, a famous hacienda that once belonged to Hernán Cortés, impressive Tlahuican ruins (complete with a preserved Aztec-influenced handball court) and a dizzying array of magnificent churches. I can’t say I’ve traveled all that extensively in Mexico, but I can say that of all the places I visited, Cuernevaca is by far my favorite. I’m thinking it would make a pretty awesome wedding venue and honeymoon destination.
May 18th, 2016
There’s some rare good news coming out of Africa:
Section 151 of the country’s Penal Code states that a man who has sex with a man “against the order of nature” can be jailed for up to fourteen years. The law is a hang-over from British colonial rule, and convictions are already very rare – but the Seychelles had pushed to scrap the law entirely.
Seychelles President James Michel highlighted the need to abolish the law based on its United Nations human rights obligations, when it agreed to undergo a Universal Periodic Review with an eye toward decriminalizing same-sex relationships. Seychelles popularity as a European vacation destination undoubtedly added an economic incentive to the decision.
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.