Homosexuality's Legal Revolution; C. Horowitz

173 Homosexuality's Legal Revolution by Carl E Horowitz L ast April,abriefseriesofeventsoccurredin a Madison, Wisconsin, restaurant that spoke volumes about the current character of the homosexual rights movement. An employee of the Espresso Royal Cafe asked two wom en-presumably lesbians-to refrain from pas sionately kissing as they sat at a window table. Madison's gay community was not amused. The very next day, about 125 homosexual demonstra tors showed up on the premises, and conducted a "kiss-in" for several minutes. A spok~swoman for the protesters, Malvene Collins, demanded, "You say gays and lesbians cannot show affection here? Why not here but in every other restaurant in Madison?" The establishment's chastised owner, Donald Hanigan, assured the crowd, "I regret that this incident ever happened. I want all of you to come in here every day."1 In October, several dozen homosexual males, many of them dressed in women's clothing, openly hugged and kissed in a terminal of Seattle-Tacoma Airport, and handed out condoms and leaflets to travelers. Matt Nagel, spokesman for the Seattle chapter of a new homosexual organization, Queer Nation, seemed to sum up the feeling among militants in the local homosexual community.

"We're going to homophobic bars, we're going to pack them, we're going to be openly affectionate, we're going to dance together and make it unDr. Horowitz is a policy analystat The HeritageFoun dation in Washington,D.C. He formerly taught at Vir ginia PolytechnicInstitute. comfortable for all the straight people there."2 At the same time in Chicago, six homosexual couples staged a "kiss-in" at the cosmetics counter of a Bloomingdale's department store until they were escorted out by security guards. Far from being deterred, the couples shortly went down to the cafeteria of a nearby office building, where they resumed their public display of affection.3 A Bidfor Legitimacy After some two decades of confrontation, the homosexual rights movement is consolidating its bid for legitimacy.The phrase, "Out of the closet, and into the streets," sounds quaint. That battle has already been won. Openly homosexual adults are certainly in the streets-and in stores, airports, and "homophobic" bars. Openly gay television characters, each with handsome, well-scrubbed looks, populate daytime and evening drama. Gay oriented news programming is available on radio and television. Homosexual activists have all but completed their campaign to persuade 'the nation's educational establishment that homosexuality is normal "alternative" behavior, and thus any adverse reaction to it is akin to a phobia, such as fear of heights, or an ethnic prejudice, such as anti Semitism.4 The movement nQw stands on the verge of fully realizing its use of law to create a separate homo sexual society paralleling that of the larger society in every way, and to intimidate heterosexuals 174 THE FREEMAN· MAY 1991 uncomfortableabout cominginto contactwith it.

Throughaggressivelobbyingbysuchgayorganiza tions as the Human Rights CampaignFund, the LambdaLegalDefenseand EducationFund, and the NationalGay andLesbianTaskForce,the first part ofthat missionhasenjoyedenormoussuccess. About 90 counties and municipalitiesnow have ordinancesbanningdiscriminationon the basis of gender orientation.There are roughly50 openly gay publicofficials,up from lessthan a half-dozen in 1980.5 Gay couplesare increasinglyreceivingthe full benefitsof marriage,if not throughstate recogni tion of homosexual marriage ceremonies, then throughenactmentof domesticpartnershiplaws.6 The State of California recently took a big step towardlegalizationofsuchmarriages:thisDecem ber it announcedthat "non-traditional"families, includinghomosexualcouples,couldformallyreg ister their unions as "unincorporated nonprofit associations."7Divorcedgay parentsare receiving with increasingfrequencythe right to custodyof natural children.Gay adultswithoutchildrenare increasingly receiving the right to adopt them.

Aspiringhomosexualclergyare demanding~and receiving~the right to be ordained. Openly gay teachersare teachingin publicschools.Homosex ual soldiers,aware that their sexualorientationis grounds for expulsionfrom the military,openly declaretheir proclivities. A Federal gay rights bill is the ultimate prize, and homosexualactivistsare bluntand resolutein pursuingsuch legislation.For example,Jeff Levi, spokesmanfor the NationalGay andLesbianTask Force,remarkedat a pressconferencecoinciding with the national gay march on Washington in October1987: ... we are no longerseekingjusta rightto priva cy and a protectionfromwrong.·We alsohavea rightas heterosexual Americans already have-to seegovernmentandsocietyaffirmour lives.... untilourrelationshipsarerecognizedin the law-through domesticpartner legislation or the definition of beneficiaries, for exam ple-until we are providedwiththe samefinan cial incentivesin tax law and governmentpro gramsto affirmourfamilyrelationships,thenwe will not have achieved equality in American society.S Yet, homosexualactivistsknow that this legal revolutionwillneversucceedwithoutthe unpleas ant task of coercingheterosexuals into masking theirdispleasurewithhomosexuality.It is thusnot enoughmerelyto break down all existingbarriers to homosexualaffectionbeing expressedthrough marriage,child-rearing,or employment.The law must additionallybe rewrittento make it as diffi cult as possiblefor heterosexualsto avoidcontact with such displays,or to show discomforttoward them.

This two-edgedapproachwould create a world in which stringent laws at all levels,aggressively enforced and strictlyinterpreted, force business ownersto refuseto discriminateagainstthe openly homosexual in patronage, leasing, and hiring. Removingovertlyhomosexualpatronsfrom a bar, an airport,or any other publicspacewould result in heavyfinesandevenjailsentencesagainstprop erty ownersor their employees(or in lieuof these sanctions, mandatory purgation). Derogatory remarksdirectedat homosexuals,evenwithsexu alityonlyincidental,wouldlikewiseresultin crim inalpenalties. 1990:A PivotalYear The year 1990 was pivotalfor the homosexual legalrevolution.The states of Massachusettsand Wisconsinin the late 1980shad enacted laws for biddingdiscriminationagainsthomosexuals.The victorieswould come quickly now, especiallyat the local level. In March, the City of Pittsburgh voted to includesexualorientationas a rightpro tected under the CityCode.In October,Stanford Universityallowedhomosexualcouplesto quali fy for universitystudent housing.In November, voters in San Francisco, buoyed by a heavy turnout of that city's large gay population, pro duced a "lavender sweep," not only passing PropositionK, a cityinitiativeto allowhomosex uals to register as domesticpartners at City Hall (a similar measure was defeated in 1989), but electingtwo openlylesbiancandidatesto the City Board of Supervisors,and an openlyhomosexual malecandidateto the Board of Education.

Votersin Seattle refused to repeal an existing gender orientation ordinance. Congress did its part early in the year by overwhelminglypass ing the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (or Hate Crimes Act), which requires the Justice De partment to publishhate crime statisticsaccordHOMOSEXUALITY'S LEGAL REVOLUTION 175 ing to classifications that include sexual orienta tion.9 This agenda would likely have been even further realized with Michael Dukakis as President. In 1988, his Presidential campaign organization placed an advertisement in a New York homosex ual newspaper, pledging, "As President, I willfight for Federal legislation to add a prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation to the existing protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act."lO Rank-and-file pressure on even a centrist Democratic Presidential candidate would be diffi cult to fend off. Rule 5C of the National Democrat ic Party currently states: "With respect to groups such as ... lesbians and gay men ... each state party shall develop and submit party outreach programs for such groups identified in their plans, including recruitment, education and training, in order to receive full participation by such groups in the del egate-selection process and at all levels of party affairs."

For close to 20 years, old-time party regulars have been walking on eggshells on this issue, pray ing it would go away, yet never really having the stomach for open conflict. Now the day of reckon ing looms. Democratic candidates and party offi cials opposing this recent requirement (none dare call it a quota) must be willing either silently to watch the slow disintegration of their party, or to speak out and face de facto expulsion. It is there fore not surprising that all candidates for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination in 1988, in response to a questionnaire circulated by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, promised to support a Federal gay rights bill. Republicans offer only little more resistance. The few among them who do speak out against the homosexual lobby-most notably, U.S. Rep resentative William Dannemeyer of Califor nia-enjoy little support from their party.!l One need only remember how reluctantly and belat edly Congress acted merely to reprimand U.S.

Representative Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, for aiding a male roommate in running a prostitution service from the basement of his Washington, D.C., townhouse. One need only remember also how quickly a Bush White House official, Doug Wead, who circulated a memoran dum complaining of the high visibility of gay activists at the Hate Crimes Act signing ceremo ny, was fired from his post. "GayCivilRights" The homosexual lobby speaks of itself as strug gling for "civil rights." "The gay community's goal is integration-just as it was with Martin Luther King," argues homosexual activist and San Fran ciscoBoard of Supervisors President Harry Britt.12 Yet, underneath the surface, gay civil rights seems analogous to black "civil rights" after Reverend King's death. Far from seeking integration with the heterosexual world, it vehemently avoids it. More important, the movement seeks to win sinecures through the state, and over any objections by "homophobic" opposition. With a cloud of a heavy fine or even a jail sentence hanging over a mort gage lender, a rental agent, or a job interviewer who might be discomforted by them, homosexuals under these laws can win employment, credit, housing, and other economic entitlements. Het erosexuals would have no right to discriminate against homosexuals, but apparently, not vice versa. Libertarians as well as traditionalists ought to be troubled by this.

Consider a recent controversy in Madison, Wis consin, as noted earlier a national bastion of "enlightened" attitudes. Three single women had recently moved into the same apartment, and one announced that she was a lesbian. The other two, not unreasonably, asked her to move. The lesbian filed a grievance with the local Human Rights Board, and, predictably, won. The shock came in the punishment. The two heterosexual women had to pay $1,500in "damages" to the lesbian, send her a public letter of apology,attend a two-hour "brief ing" on homosexuality (conducted, needless to say, by homosexuals), and submit to having their living arrangements monitored for two years.13 With such laws in effect, this outcome would not be so much played out as simply avoided. Let one hypothetical example suffice, one that no doubt hasbeen played out regularly, and that goes a long way in explaining why in any metropolitan area gays tend to cluster in a few neighborhoods.

A man enters an apartment rental office, inquir ing about a vacancy. He openly indicates he is a homosexual, or at least implies as much through certain mannerisms. For good measure, he brings along his lover. The rental manager fudges, clears his throat, and says, "Well, er, several people are looking at the apartment. Call me later." An hour later, a second man, alone, walks in. He does not 176 THE FREEMAN. MAY 1991 Members of the group ACT-UP march through New York's Grand Central Station. announcehis sexuality.Who gets the apartment? In the absenceofgayprotectionism,and assum ing equal incomes, the manager (sighing with relief)wouldprobablyawardthe apartmentto the secondapplicant.Gay militantswould cry, "Dis crimination!"-and missthe point.Discrimination based on sexualorientationis fundamentallydif ferent from that based on race. Homosexuality constitutesa behavioral,not a genetictrait. It is withinthe moralrightof a landlord,jobinterview er,banker,or anyoneelseperforminga "gatekeep er" function to discourage economically risky behavior,sexualor otherwise.Libertariancolum nistDougBandowarticulatesthis: The point is, homosexualshave no rig~t to force others to acceptor supporttheir lifestyle.

Certainlygovernmenthas no businessdiscrimi nating against them: Anti-sodomy laws, for instance,are a viciousintrusionin the mostinti mateformofhumanconduct.Andgayswhopay taxeshaveas muchrightto governmentservices and employmentas anyoneelse. But someonewho decidesto live openlyas a homosexualshould accept the disapprovalof those around him. For many Americans still believethat there is a fundamental,unchange able moralcodeby whichmen are to live.... Usinggovernmentto bludgeonhomophobics intosubmissionis evenmoreintolerant thanthe originaldiscrimination.14 Under normalcircumstances,the rentalmanag er would not want to lease to gays who, once moved in, might tell their friendsthat the neigh borhood could have possibilitiesas a "gay" one. Word-of-mouth travels fast within their world. Beyonda certain"tipping-point,"manyheterosex ual residentsnear and withinthe complex,rather than risk feeling stigmatized, would choose to move.Theirplaceslargelywouldbetakenbyovert homosexuals.

In factthisis exactlyhowneighborhoodssuchas Castro(SanFrancisco),WestHollywood(formerly part of Los Angeles,now separatelyincorporated largelydueto gaypressure),theWestVillage(New YorkCity),andDupontCircle(Washington,D.C.) allrapidlydevelopedreputationsas "gayneighbor hocds," and how large sectionsof Martha'sVme yard, Fire Island, and Rehoboth Beach became HOMOSEXUALITY'S LEGAL REVOLUTION 177 "gay resorts."15 The tipping-pointprinciple also appliesto publicfacilitiessuch as restaurants.At the GrapevineCafein Columbus,Ohio,for exam ple,heterosexualcustomersstoppedcomingwhen the clientelebecameheavilygay.16 What would happen with a sexual orientation law in place?The rental managerknowsthat if he turns down an openly homosexualapplicant, he risksprosecution.Anyrejectioncanserveas proof of discriminatoryintent,even with factorssuch as lengthof employment,income,and previousten ant record taken into account.17 In response to suchafear,themanager,thoughreluctantly,is like ly to awardthe apartmentto the homosexual.

For gay activists,thereinliesthe payoff.By cod ifyinginto law "protection" of homosexualman nerisms,theycanintimidategatekeepersintopro viding job security and housing for the openly homosexual.Thus,withoutnecessarilymentioning anythingabout quotas or, for that matter, homo sexuality,law in the U.S. is increasinglymandating homosexual affirmative action.18 Such law has the same intent as the recently vetoed Kennedy HawkinsCivilRightsAct. SexualSchism If the homosexualrights movementis in large measure an affirmative action strategy, certain consequences should be evident, all of which alreadyare on theirwayto beingentrenched.Most obviously,Americancultureis experiencinga sex ualschismas deepas anyracialone.Thereare oth er damagingramifications. First,whereversuch laws exist,they will attract homosexualsto the jurisdictionsenacting them. Commonsensedictatesthat anycommunitylaying out the welcomemat for homosexualitylays it for homosexuals, implicitlytelling others to kindly step aside. Aside from legal protection, there is politicalstrength in concentratednumbers.Most aspiring elected officials in San Francisco, for example, must now pay homage to the achieve ment of localgays, and show up at gay events.As PropositionK coordinatorJean Harris remarked following the November elections, "We've shocked the world and made history with this lavendersweep.... It's clear that if you don't get the support of the gay-lesbiancommunityyou're going to be in trouble."19 While the homosexual votingblocwillneverbe a majorityinanycity,even San Francisco,it can wield enormousveto power overthe objectionsof all other blocs.

Second,havinglearned the power of the gate keeper role, many homosexuals will seek to becomegatekeepersthemselves.It takes no great stretchof imagination,for example,to understand that the growingnumber of college administra tions severely punishing anti-gay harassment (evenif such "harassment"takes no more sinister a formthan a satiricalcampusnewspapereditorial or cartoon)has muchto do withthe growingnum ber of collegeadministratorsand facultywho are themselveshomosexual(and possiblywere hired on that very basis).20 Nor does it take muchimag ination to understand that gay employers have more reason than ever to favor homosexualsin their hiringand promotionpractices. Third,theselawswillcreatemarketbottlenecks. Heterosexualsand even "closeted" homosexuals will be at a competitivedisadvantagefor jobs and housing.For them,priceswillbe higherand wages lower than in the absence of such "safeguards."

Thisis especiallysignificantsincegaycultureisvis ible in high-costcitiessuch as New York and San Francisco. Gays view economicvictoriesto be won here, and few have been as resoundingas the Braschi decision.21 In July1989,the New YorkState Court of Appealsruled that a gay lover had the right to stay in his deceased partner's rent-controlled apartmentbecausehe qualifiedas a memberofthe partner'sfamily,a decisionrecentlyupheldby the Appellate Divisionof the State Supreme Court. "We conclude that the term 'family,'" the lower court argued, "should not be rigidlyrestricted to those people who have formalizedtheir relation ship by obtaining,for instance,a marriagecertifi cate or an adoptionorder.... a morerealistic,and certainlyequallyvalid,view of a family includes two adult lifetimepartners whose relationshipis long term and characterizedby an emotionaland financialcommitmentand interdependence."22 Gay activistsunderstandablywereelated at this imprimaturfor homosexualmarriage;they know household economics. Homosexual couples definedas "married" could reduce not only their housingcosts,but alsotheirincometaxes(byfiling jointly),pensions,and insurancepremiums.They also wouldqualifyfor paid medicalleave,spousal bereavementleave,and other employeebenefits.

At this writing,the San Franciscochapter of the 178 THE FREEMAN. MAY 1991 American Civil Liberties Union is considering suing several locally based corporations that deny benefits to their homosexual employees' part ners.23 Fourth, the new legalism will increase hetero sexual anger-and even violence-toward homo sexuals..Reports of "gay bashing" (the real kind) simultaneous with increased homosexual visibility cannot be a coincidence. What economist Thomas Sowell24 and psychologist Stephen Johnson25 have each revealed about racial affirmative action can apply to sexual affirmative action as well; unpro tected groups, lacking recourse through rule of law, may resort to violence against innocent members of protected groups. Those who make it their baili wickto monitor every incident of petty harassment of gays are impervious to any possibility that when laws force heterosexuals to bottle up dialogue, their feelings may erupt in more destructive ways.

Gay bashing,then, is in some measurea product of the very laws designedto punishit. The LanguageofVictimhood The radical homosexual movement seeks cen tralization of state power in the name of "civil rights." What began as a demand for the state not to interfere against private homosexual behavior has evolved into a demand for the state to inter cede on behalf of public homosexual behavior. In so doing, the movement has advanced further into the same totalitarian netherworld that various black and feminist movements also have come to occupy. In each case, activists proclaim "victim" status, malign the intentions of critics~ and demand government entitlements that necessarily discrim inate against others. "Once upon a time," syndicat ed columnist Paul Greenberg writes in The Wash ington Times, "civil rights were unifying and uni versal-a way to open society to the claims of indi vidual merit. Now 'civil rights' becomes a code word for dividing society into competing, resentful groups."26 Gay militants know the cue-card language of victimhood. For example, Gara LaMarche and William B. Rubenstein write in The Nation,"The targets of the 1950s witch hunts were both Com munists and other leftists, labeled 'subversives,' and homosexuals, labeled 'sexual perverts. '·Today, as the cold war mentality collapses, enemies are again being found at home, but this time lesbians and gay men are leading the list."27 With former President Ronald Reagan and Cardinal John O'Connor leading the list of personages in the "McCarthy" role, the authors can make believe this really is the 1950s.

Just as opposing current racial and ethnic civil rights orthodoxies inevitably invites being labelled "racist" and "ethnocentric," opposing the current homosexual orthodoxy almost guarantees being denounced as "homophobic." One is simply not free to not pay tribute to them. The few people willing to toe the line pay the consequences. Pete Hamill, hardly an allyof the hard Right, knows this too well. Having written a column in the August 1990 Esquiresharply critical of those aggressively politicizing their homosexuality (though with gen uine warmth for his homosexual friends), he was subsequently subject to constant attack by ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) and other homosexual gendarmes. 28 When early in 1990, Martin Luther King III remarked in a speech in Poughkeepsie, New York, that "something must be wrong" with homosexuals, enraged gay leaders demanded (and got) an apology.

Heterosexuals need not even fire the first shot to invoke gay wrath. When a pair of Queer Nation activists disrupted the airing of the December 14, 1990,segment of TheArsenioHallShow,they insist ed that the host explain why so few of his guests were gay. Unappeased by Hall's assurance that many are, the activists continued their on-camera ranting for about 10 minutes. Hall, of course, must now bear the onus as a "homophobe."29 Gay activists may incessantly speak of their "rights," yet oddly care little for those of others. Articles in Outweek,a year-old tabloid dedicated to exposing homosexual liaisons (real or imagined) of public figures believed otherwise to be hetero sexual, routinely call for removing freedom of speech from anyone alleged to be "homopho bic."30 A placard at a recent gay rights march in Washington read, "BAN HOMOPHOBIA, NOT HOMOSEXUALITy."31 Radical homosexuals apparently do not reciprocate when it comes to the First Amendment.

The most shameful example of the gays' civil rights double standard, of course, was their tem porarily successful attempt to blackball Andy Rooney, longtime humorist of CBS's 60 Minutes program. The details of the saga-Rooney's allegedly anti-gay comments on a CBS news speHOMOSEXUALITY'S LEGAL REVOLUTION 179 cial reviewing the events of 1989;32the subsequent storm of protest by gay militants; Rooney's expla nation to them in the form of a letter to and an interview with a national gay newspaper, the Advocate; the anti-black comments falsely attributed to Rooney in the interview; and his three-month suspension without pay from CBS-are well-known.33 Never mind that the interview was a pure frame up, or that homosexual militants routinely make hate-filled denunciations of "straights." More omi nous is how quickly CBS moved to institute dam age control, choosing to take the word of a gay cub reporter, lacking any tape of the interview, over that of Mr. Rooney, a loyal and popular CBS employee for some four decades. This is how CBS, which now hires a homosexual group to conduct "gay sensitivity seminars" for its news personnel, responded to its fear of a lawsuit or a boycott of network sponsors. The network's action was an indication of how readily small businesses might capitulate under a Federal gay civil rights law.

Rooney, of course, was reinstated on 60 Min utesbefore the three months, but no thanks to any good graces from CBS top brass. Give the credit instead to Rooney's supportive 60 Minutes col leagues and the show's falling Nielsen ratings. Yet Rooney, chastened, had to issue a public apology prior to reinstatement, one that virtually forfeited his right to say "offensive" things about gays in the future, ironic since his job requires being cantan kerously peevish. Free speech lost. Homosexual militants also have little use for the right to privacy save their own. They view any pub lic figure's possible homosexual behavior as grist for voyeuristic public consumption. The mere exis tence of a spurious scandal sheet like Outweek ought to outrage the sensibilities of all individual ists. The hypocrisy of it all begs a comparison. Sup pose the NationalEnquireror some other general circulation gossip magazine exposed as homosexu als the very same celebrities that Outweek does.

Homosexual activists would properly see this as character assassination. Yet apparently when a homosexual publication engages in the identical practice, it is creating "positive gay role models. "34 "Now, the idea that one must be either in the closet or out of it is an invention of those who would politicize sex and abolish privacy," Thomas Short writes in NationalReview. "They wrongly make whatever is not publicly proclaimed seem secret, furtive. This dichotomy of being either in the closet or out of it should not exist. ... We all have some secrets to keep. "35 Homosexual radicals do not keep sexual secrets. Since a homosexual act is political, even the most casual encounter by an otherwise heterosexual person must be made pub lic, at whatever cost to that person. Outweek,and the mentality to which it caters, is more than indis creet; it is totalitarian. The GrowingThreatof Violence There is something about encountering homo sexuality in its militant and pugnacious form that touches a deep, almost reflexive anger, even among most heterosexual liberals. That is why attempts at "mainstreaming" gay culture, even when holding an olive branch, are bound to fail.

One of the saddest books to appear in recent years is After the Ball: How America Will ConquerIts Fearand Hatredof Gays in the 90s.36 The authors, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, both homosex ual, advocate a national campaign to cheerfully "sell" gay culture. They suggest, for example, that gay organizations buy up advertising space in "straight" newspapers with pictures of historical figures such as Alexander the Great, asking: "Did you know he was gay?" Kirk and Madsen, like their surlier compatriots, fail to grasp that public homosexuality strikes at both a heterosexual's fear of loss of sexual identity and sense of belonging to a family. For even in this age of artificial insemination, families are not sus tainable without heterosexuality. No matter how much the homosexual activist naively protests, "Gays are people, too," such a plea will receive in return grudging respect, and little else.

In a summary piece for Newsweek'sMarch 12, 1990, cover story, "The Future of Gay America," Jonathan Alter revealed a rare understanding of this dynamic. 37 He notes, '''Acting gay' often involves more than sexual behavior itself. Much of the dislike for homosexuals centers not on who they are or what they do in private, but on socalled affectations-'swishiness' in men, the 'butch' look for women-not directly related to the more pri vate sex act." Quite rightly so--one doubts if more than a tiny fraction of heterosexuals have even inadvertentlywitnessed a homosexual act. Alter then gets to the core of the issue. "Heterosexuals," he writes, "tend to argue that gays can downplay 180 THE FREEMAN • MAY 1991 these characteristics and 'pass' more easily in the straight world than blacks can in a white world.... This may be true, but it's also irrelevant. For most gays those traits aren't affectations but part of their identities; attacking their swishiness is the same as attacking them."

Yet if gays, through their carefully practiced "gay" mannerisms, know fully well they are antag onizing many heterosexuals, then why do they dis play them? Is it not in part to make heterosexuals sweat?38 By aggressively politicizing these traits, and demanding that those objecting must grin and bear it, they are in a sense restricting heterosexual freedom of speech. Male and even female opposi tion to persons with these traits is slowly taking a nasty turn, moving from violence of language to violence of fists. And yet, given the emerging legal climate, one discovers within oneself a disquieting empathy with the inchoate rage behind such acts. Most heterosexuals are reasonably libertarian; an October 1989Gallup Poll indicated that by a 47 to-36 margin (with the remainder undecided), Americans prefer legalization of homosexual rela tions between consenting adults.39This is all to the good. Anti-sodomy laws serve no purpose but to intimidate people out of private, consensual acts.

On the other hand, the brazen, open display of homosexuality-as if to taunt, to tease, to mali ciously sow confusion into sexual identities-is something most heterosexuals do not handle gracefully.With an unofficial government mandate for preferential treatment, it is not difficult to imagine a backlash. When homosexual lawyer artist William Dobbs plastered explicit homosexu al artwork throughout the Yale University campus back in 1989, he was not simply making a homo erotic statement; he was daring "homophobes" to remove the art, and risk suspension or expulsion from the university.40Those having little to lose may accept his dare-and it may be people like Dobbs as well as such art that gets torn up. Should a sober discussion of the possibilities for heterosexual violence be forbidden? Nobody in a rationalstate of mind would seek to emulate the exploits of "skinheads" or the late San Francisco Supervisor Dan White. Yet let readers here imag ine themselves in that Madison restaurant or Seat tle airport, being witness to mass displays of homo sexual kissing, and feeling utterly helpless to evince the slightest disapproval. Would not such a scenario provoke an impulse, however fleeting and irrational, to do bodily harm? Does not the knowl edge that the law is now stacked against even non violent disapproval.("hate crimes") merely add to the likelihood of a conflagration?

The principal motive of the gay movement is coming into focus with each passing month: to bait heterosexuals' less morally sturdy side, goading them into verbal or (better) physical assaults against the openly homosexual. That way, cries of homosexual victimhood would carry even more self-fulfillingprophecy, so much the better to vilify heterosexuals. Gay militants aren't hesitant about admitting to such motives. Some want nothing less than war in the streets. Homosexual playwright and ACf-UP founder, Larry Kramer, recently called upon a gay audience to take gun practice for use in eventual combat against police and gay-bashers. "They hate us anyway," he rationalized. A cover of a recent issue of Outweek displayed a lesbian pointing a gun at the reader, with the headline, "Taking Aim at Bashers," while another cover announced, "We Hate Straights."41 Even "mainstream" gay lead ers, such as Urvashi Vaid, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, endorse such tactics, whatever the loss of potential support ers.42 The crowning legacy of the new gay legalism may yet be widespread violence, a violence brought on by state inhibition of rational dialogue at the behest of gay radicals, and in the name of "sensitivity." That alone is enough reason to oppose it. 0 1. "Gay RightsProtestersWin Rightto Kiss," The Wash ingtonTimes,April 18, 1990.

2. JoycePrice,"Queer Nation DecidesIt's TIme to Bash Back," The WashingtonTimes,October 15, 1990. 3. Price,"Queer Nation." 4. One of the best arguments that homosexualityis not simplya statisticalaberration,but a behavioralabnormality, can be found in StevenGoldberg,"Is HomosexualityNor mal?" PolicyReview,Summer1982,pp. 119-38. 5. "The Future of Gay America," Newsweek,March 12, 1990,pp. 21-22. 6. "Gay Measure Stirs Florida," The WashingtonTimes, August24, 1990. 7. Thpper Hall, "Gay CouplesAllowedto File as 'Non Profit' Associations,"The WashingtonTimes,December17, 1990. 8. Jeff Levi, speechto National Press Club, October 10, 1987. 9. The term "hate crime,"in the handsofthe homosexual lobby,is sovaguethat evenan accidentalepithet couldqual ify as an offense.For example,of the 462 anti-homosexual "hate crimes"committedin Virginiain 1987,423-0ver 90 HOMOSEXUALITY'S LEGAL REVOLUTION 181 percent-involved mere name-calling. See Patrick Buchanan,"The Real Victimsof Hate Crimes,"The Wash ingtonTimes,March7,1990.The NationalGayand Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), in its own estimate of hate crimes committed nationwide in 1988, admitted that 77 percent wereverbal.In fact,the originofthe legislationlayin a 1985 NGLTF presentation before the National Institute of Jus tice.SeeCongressmanWilliamDannemeyer,Shadowin the Land: Homosexualityin America (San Francisco:Ignatius Press,1989),pp. 71-75.CongressmanDannemeyer'sbook is the best currentlyavailableon the homosexuallobby.

10. Advertisementin New York Native,April 18, 1988. 11. See Dannemeyer,Shadowin the Land. 12. Quoted in Newsweek,"The Future of Gay America," p.21. 13. PhyllisSchlafly,"A Choice,Not an Echo in Califor nia," The WashingtonTimes,March2,1990. 14. Doug Bandow,"Government as God," in The Poli tics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington (New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction,1990),pp. 18-20. 15. Evensympatheticobserversofthisprocessadmitthat the publicidentificationof a neighborhoodas "gay"induces non-gaysto moveout. SeeManuelCastellsand Karen Mur phy, "Cultural Identity and Urban Structure: The Spatial Organizationof San Francisco'sGay Community,"in Nor man I. and Susan S. Fainstein, eds., Urban Policy Under Capitalism(BeverlyHills,CA: SagePublications,1982),pp. 237-59.For a decidedlyunsympathetic(andhighlypersonal) accountofhowthe processworksin resortcommunities,see Midge Deeter, "The Boys on the Beach," Commentary, September1980,pp. 35-48.

16. JamesN. Baker and ShawnD. Lewis,"Lesbians:Por trait of a Community,"Newsweek,March12, 1990,p. 24. 17. For evidenceof this,see Dannemeyer,Shadowin the Land,p.70. 18. For example, gay activistshave now convincedthe courtsthat havingAIDS qualifiesas a conditioncoveredby Federal handicap discrimination laws. Shuttleworth v. Broward County, 41 FEP Cases 406 (S.D. Fla. 1986); Thomasv. AtascaderoUnifiedSchoolDistrict,662 F. Supp. 376 (C.D. Cal. 1987). 19. ValerieRichardson,"Gay VotersClaimBiggestVic toryin SanFrancisco,"The WashingtonTimes,November9, 1990. 20. At Harvard University,for example,the administra tion quicklysuspendeda student who removeda sign from an emptytablein a dininghallindicatingthat it wasreserved for a campus homosexual organization. Leave aside the absurdnotionthat a lunchtableoughtto be reservedforany particular sexual group, and the absence of malice on the part of the student (who simplysought a vacant seat in an otherwisecrowdedroom). This student's suspensioncould only have come about either because the administrators meting out the punishment were radical homosexuals,or becausethey were heterosexualbut feared crossingswords withcampushomosexuals.

In a sadcodato thisincident,the suspendedstudentlater committedsuicide.See ThomasSowell,"Callof the Woolly Pulpit," The WashingtonTimes,December7,1990. 21. Braschiv. StahlAssociatesCo.,74 N.Y.2d201. 22.DennisHevesi,"CourtExtends'Family'Ruleto RentStabilizedUnits," The New York Times,December6, 1990. 23. Richardson,"Gay VotersClaimBiggestVictory." 24. Thomas Sowell,"AffirmativeAction: A Worldwide Disaster,"Commentary,December1989,pp. 21-41;see also Sowell,PreferentialPolicies:An InternationalPerspective (New York:WilliamMorrow,1990). 25. Stephen Johnson, "Reverse Discrimination and AggressiveBehavior,"JournalofPsychology,January1980, pp. 11-19;Johnson,"Consequencesof ReverseDiscrimina tion," PsychologicalReports, December 1980, pp. 1035 1038. 26. Paul Greenberg, "Decline and Fall of Civil Rights," The WashingtonTimes,November8, 1990. 27. Gara LaMarche and WilliamB. Rubenstein, "The LoveThatDare NotSpeak,"The Nation,November5,1990, p.524.

28. Pete Hamill, "Confessions of a Heterosexual," Esquire,August1990,pp. 55-57. 29. "Gay ProtestersConfrontArsenioHall," The Wash ington Times,December17, 1990. 30. Quoted in Andrew Sullivan,"Gay Life,Gay Death," The New Republic,December27, 1990,p. 24. That Sullivan, an ally of the homosexuallegalrevolution,is alarmedover the totalitarianisminherent in suchpronouncementsshould be taken seriously;he supports-on conservativegrounds, no less-legalizing homosexual marriage. See Sullivan, "Here Comes the Groom," The New Republic,August 28, 1989,pp. 20-22. 31. DavidRieff,"The CaseAgainstSensitivity,"Esquire, November1990,p. 124. 32. Here was Rooney's"anti-gay"remark: "Manyof the illswhichkillus are self-induced."Theyinclude,"too much alcohol, too much food, drugs, homosexual unions, and cigarettes." Given that at the time of that statement, over 50,000persons already had died of AIDS, Rooney would hardlyqualifyas anythingother than a bearer of unpleasant truth.

33. For good interpretations of this episode, see Eric Breindel, "The Andy Rooney Affair," Commentary,May 1990, pp. 56-57; Cal Thomas, "Silence from the Pluralism Comer," The WashingtonTimes,March12, 1990. 34. The evidencesuggeststhat increasedsocialtolerance of homosexualitydoes not necessarilylead to homosexuals themselvesbeinghappier.SeeMartinS. WeinbergandColin 1. Williams,Male Homosexuals(NewYork:OxfordUniver sity Press, 1974);Samuel McCracken,"Are Homosexuals Gay?" Commentary,January 1979,pp. 19-29. 35. Thomas Short, "Gay Rights or Closet Virtues?" NationalReview,September17,1990,pp. 43-44. 36. Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball: How AmericaWill ConquerIts Fearand Hatredof Gays in the 90s (Garden City,NY: Doubleday,1989). 37.Jonathan Alter,"DegreesofDiscomfort,"Newsweek, March12,1990,p. 27. 38.Thisis the positiontaken in McCracken,"Are Homo sexualsGay?" pp. 27-28. 39. The Gallup Report, Report No. 289 (Princeton,NJ: The GallupPoll,October 1989),p. 13.

40. "The Future of Gay America,"pp. 22-23. 41. See Sullivan,"Gay Life,Gay Death," p. 25. 42. "The Future of Gay America,"p. 23.