Connect with us

Remembering “The Homosexuals”

Published

on

Editor’s note: This guest post by Scott Wooledge was originally published at Daily Kos and is published here with his permission. Scott Wooledge writes at the Daily Kos under the handle Clarknt67.

44 years ago this week, March 7, 1967, CBS News aired a Special Report hosted by Mike Wallace titled simply, “The Homosexuals.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=-AXAOT_swIE%3Ffs%3D1%26hl%3Den_US

Wallace begins quoting a 1967 CBS-commissioned opinion poll that showed “most Americans are repelled by the mere notion of homosexuality” and “two out of three look upon homosexuals with disgust, discomfort or fear. One out of ten says hatred.” He goes on to say:

The majority of Americans favor legal punishment even for homosexual acts performed in private between consenting adults. The homosexual, bitterly aware of his rejection, responds by going underground, they frequent their own clubs, bars and coffee houses where they can act out in the fashion that they want to.

Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out calls this “the single most destructive hour of antigay propaganda in our nation’s history.”

It is definitely painful but important look into a bygone era, but one that is not so very far in our past (I was, myself, merely 21 days away from coming into this world).

Dave White took a fresh look at this documentary in an article for The Advocate last year. Describing his review process, he says:

I took notes. And when I was done my pad of paper was a laundry list of every horrible thing you’ve ever heard about the gays: smothering mothers, mental illness, animalistic sexual gratification, society’s repulsion, promiscuity, recruitment, etc.

Some quotes, some from Wallace, some from clergy and other “experts” on the subject:

“They frequent their own bars … where they can act out…”

“The average homosexual isn’t capable of love.”

“Homosexuality is, in fact, a mental illness.”

“The church has a great deal of sympathy for those who are handicapped in this way.”

“[Being a homosexual] automatically rules out that [the man in question] will remain happy.”

But what I find interesting is not so much the archaic, offensive language but the insight into how the law played into a culture of oppression. Wallace reminds us in 1967, Illinois was the only state that did not outlaw homosexual acts. (Most sodomy laws would live on until the Supreme Court struck them down in 6-3 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.)

We’re now living in a time when finally the paradigm is shifting. But 1967, it was unquestioned that it was the appropriate place of government to manage, control, and contain the homosexuals and protect good society from them. In the clip below you will hear a police chief explain the importance of maintaining the “moral aptness here in the community” (which, at that time, would mean endless sting arrests, bar raids, in some places, even home invasions.) The government, top to bottom, was an enthusiastic participant and propagator of LGBT oppression.

But it seems, gratefully, that ship is turning around. But also it seems too that movement may have confused some people. I see people pointing to landmarks, like the passage of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in 1993 or Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, as somehow a marker of the beginning of the LGBT struggle for equality.

In fact, those moments in time only serve to illustrate that the LGBT community’s call for equality became too strident, too effective, too threatening and hence, legislative roadblocks had to be constructed to slow or stop it.

Below, I’ve share a six minute clip I found particularly heartbreaking and disturbing. The intro starts off, with seeming benevolent condescension, then takes a turn:

Most homosexuals do not consider themselves ill, and they are able to live with their condition fairly comfortably.

On the other hand, there are those whose compulsive behavior becomes a problem for the police. This is such an example.

Wallace then accompanies the police on a ride along where a 19-year old serviceman is picked up for trolling for sex in a public park bathroom. He is heard, but not shown, pleading and begging to deaf ears that his life will be over. And he’s probably right.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Pa7OwUOur1M%3Ffs%3D1%26hl%3Den_US

What might have become of this young man after his arrest? Well, his name and picture would probably have been run in the local paper. He was a servicemember, so it was likely the police contacted his CO and he was dishonorably discharged.

But he was only 19, he might still be saved. His parents might have committed him to an asylum, for reparative therapy, that might have included electroshock, chemical or actual castration, and yes, even lobotomies.

But why would someone risk such consequences? There were no other options, of course. It was another time, there was no Craigslist, Grindr, or Facebook.

But much more significantly, municipalities across the country gave not a second thought to violating LGBT Americans’ First Amendment right to free association. Gay bars were illegal in much of the country. Even hosting a gathering of “known homosexuals” in the privacy of your home was often an arrestable offense. We see the circuitous nature of the oppression, where gay people are granted no space to exist in private, and are declared a public menace, which becomes a convenient excuse to hunt them down in private… And round and round we go.

In the clip, the police chief brags of the 3,000 arrests he’s made, and warns the problem is growing:

I’m concerned with the moral aptness here in the community and I’m opposed as a matter of principle to making anything which is improper or immoral conspicuous and by this conspicuousness making it easy for a person to engage in this kind of activity.

I can’t help thinking how similar these concerns of “conspicuousness” are like many current objections to marriage equality, which conservatives fear it will “make it easier for people to engage in this kind of activity.” We must keep them “less conspicuous” for the children! Or objections to repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” confirmed it was best for everyone if gay people were kept as inconspicuous as possible (for the sake of “troop morale.”)

The police chief adds in a rueful tone:

The law is itself is much that, really, there isn’t a great deal we can do about those things that occur in private places.

A morality police’s lament: they can’t just knock down the doors of our bedrooms and put an end to our depravity once and for all. Thankfully, the Supreme Court definitively closed the door on that option in 2003.

To clarify, gay establishments existed, but they were most often clandestine operations. To even enter one was to risk arrest. Forbidding them opened the door to exploitation. They usually operated only by the grace of pay-offs to both police and the Mafia. Gays were subjected to an endless vicious cycle of exploitation from the law and the lawless alike. This pressure-cooker of corruption was, in part, what fed the critical mass that culminated in the famous Stonewall Riots of 1969.

By the 1980s the worst of this police harassment was a thing of the past. Although not entirely, the raids continue to this day, under dubious pretext from Texas to Atlanta to New York City. And the arrival of the AIDS crisis served as a bitter reminder we were still a disposable population, unworthy of attention or care.

After the special aired, Jack Nichols of the of the nascent LGBT rights organization, the Mattachine Society (founded in 1955) shared this anecdote of his encounter with Wallace:

[A]fter we finished and the camera was turned off, Mike Wallace sat down with me and talked for about half an hour. He said, “You know, you answered all of my questions capably, but I have a feeling that you don’t really believe that homosexuality is as acceptable as you make it sound.” I asked him why he would say that. “Because,” he said, “in your heart I think you know it’s wrong.” It was infuriating. I told him I thought being gay was just fine, but that in his heart he thought it was wrong.

From Wikipedia, (a very interesting read):

For his part, anchor Mike Wallace came to regret his participation in the episode. “I should have known better,” he said in 1992.

Speaking in 1996, Wallace stated, “That is — God help us — what our understanding was of the homosexual lifestyle a mere twenty-five years ago because nobody was out of the closet and because that’s what we heard from doctors — that’s what Socarides told us, it was a matter of shame.”

The Socarides he references would be Charles Socarides, a prominent Columbia University psychiatrist. He is featured in the documentary and was very active at the time, fighting the movement to remove homosexuality from the DSM as a mental illness. He also penned a book Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far (a collection of anti-gay nonsense pseudo-science, still popular with anti-gay hate groups like Family Research Council). Sort of an East coast, elite Anita Bryant.

Today’s youth may associate the name Socarides with his son, Richard, who currently serves as President of Equality Matters and has served as LGBT liaison to the Clinton Administration, and has long been an outspoken voice for the LGBT equality movement.

Clearly we’ve come a long way, apparently you can now endure a sting operation like the serviceman’s and not only avoid jail and commitment but keep your Senate seat.

And LGBT images in the media aren’t this awful, by any means. But they still need a lot of work, 44 years later. It was less than a year ago, CNN’s Kyra Phillips wanted to address the issue of “Can homosexuality be cured?” “NO!” is already a long-held consensus opinion of the following leading professional organizations:

  • The American Psychiatric Association
  • The American Psychological Association
  • The American Psychoanalytical Association
  • The American Academy Of Pediatrics
  • The National Association of Social Workers

And these organizations would object to the question frame of “cure.” They think it’s definitely not an illness, and there’s no sound evidence orientation can be changed.

But apparently, those scientists and respected professionals don’t know what they’re talking about. No, Ms. Phillips of CNN—the one network committed to “Moving Truth Forward”—looked far and wide, until she found a discredited former-psychologist under a rock who would come on the air and tell her what she wanted to hear: “Yes.” That man was Richard Cohen. If his name is familiar you may remember his meltdown on the Rachel Maddow Show (when he had the misfortune of encountering a real journalist).

https://youtube.com/watch?v=TLlVDSfbzpE%3Ffs%3D1%26hl%3Den_US

Among the endorsers of Richard Cohen’s book, Coming out Straight?, Dr. Laura C. Schlessinger and Charles Socarides, who wrote before his death in 2005:

“This book is a testament to a heroic and successful struggle to regain one’s heterosexual destiny. It gives hope to many.”

–Charles W. Socarides, M.D., Author,

Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far

How far we’ve come. How far we still have to go to marginalizing the voices of hate and ignorance that are featured in our media as credible sources.

The full hour video may be viewed via this link.


FYI: Wallace makes not a single reference to lesbians in the special. A very telling non-commentary comment on attitudes toward women’s sexuality, indeed.

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Blanche Suggests Trump Played Role in FBI Investigation of Georgia Elections Office

Published

on

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche suggested on Friday that President Donald Trump had a role in the FBI’s investigation that led to the execution of a search warrant on a Georgia elections office, where ballots from the 2020 election reportedly were seized.

For years, President Trump has claimed that the 2020 presidential election he lost had been stolen, despite dozens of court cases that failed to prove so.

At a press conference at the U.S. Department of Justice headquarters, Blanche suggested the president played a role in the investigation that led to the FBI raid, according to Politico.

“Blanche suggested that the probe was related to ‘election integrity’ and that President Donald Trump had a role in it,” Politico reported. Blanche also appeared to confirm the raid was in connection with a criminal investigation.

READ MORE: CNN’s Tapper Flags ‘Killed’ Trump-Related Link in Epstein Dump — Access Restored Fast

“It should be no surprise to many in this room, or anybody watching, that election integrity is extraordinarily important to this administration, always has been and always will be,” Blanche told reporters.

“And so the fact that President Trump and this administration are investigating to make sure that … we are investigating issues around elections to make sure that we do have completely fair and appropriate elections should not be surprising, but I can’t comment on any criminal investigations.”

The New York Times’ Glenn Thrush, during the press conference, posted to social media, “When asked about FBI’s seizure of voter records in Atlanta — Todd Blanche just said that Trump himself ‘is investigating’ voter fraud.”

In modern presidential administrations it would be unusual for a president to play a role in a specific Department of Justice criminal investigation, so as to avoid the appearance of political interference.

READ MORE: ‘We Did Not Protect President Trump’ DOJ Says Upon Releasing Millions More Epstein Files

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

CNN’s Tapper Flags ‘Killed’ Trump-Related Link in Epstein Dump — Access Restored Fast

Published

on

Access to a document originally released as part of Friday’s Epstein files document dump that included language related to accusations against President Donald Trump and others allegedly had been removed, according to Jake Tapper. In just under an hour access was restored after the CNN anchor’s social media post.

The page Tapper linked to had read: “We are sorry, the page you’re looking for can’t be found on the Department of Justice website.”

“DOJ has since killed this link,” Tapper wrote. “This is what was there.”

Access was restored about 48 minutes later, according to Tapper’s posts.

According to the screenshot the CNN journalist posted on social media, the document included complaint summaries alleging minors engaging in sexual acts with Trump and others. The complaints are allegations and not proof or evidence of wrongdoing. Donald Trump has denied any wrongdoing.

Part of one accusation alleged, “Caller named other individuals involved in ‘big orgy parties’ with her, other young girls, and older Victoria’s Secret models, including Bill Clinton and Donald Trump.”

“Online complainant reported she was a victim and witness to a sex trafficking ring at the Trump Golf Course in Rancho Palos Verdes. CA between 1995- 1996,” that same allegation continued. “Complainant reported Ghislaine Maxwell as the madam and broker for sex parties, clients of whom included Epstein, Robin Leach, and Donald Trump.”

The screenshot stated that the “Response” to those complaints was that “Complainant was spoken to and deemed not credible.”

Other complaints in the screenshotted document read: “One of complainant’s ex-girlfriend’s daughters told complainant Trump raped her, as did Epstein.”

The screenshot of the document included multiple allegations that are graphic and include references to rape and murder.

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

‘We Did Not Protect President Trump’ DOJ Says Upon Releasing Millions More Epstein Files

Published

on

More than forty days after federal law required the release of the Epstein files, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it will post about three million additional documents from its trove on Friday.

In addition to the documents, 2,000 videos and about 180,000 images will also be released, according to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who “said the files included images taken by Epstein and others that were on his devices but he didn’t take,” NBC News reported.

“Blanche said that the public should not find within the files the names of any men who abused women in connection with Epstein,” NBC added. “His comments affirm an unsigned statement from the DOJ and the FBI last year that sparked an avalanche of criticism and calls for more transparency.”

When asked by reporters if he had updated the White House on the release of the files, Blanche said, “My team has certain communications with the White House — let me just be clear, they had nothing to do with this review. They had no oversight with this review, they did not tell this department how to do our review, what to look for, what to redact, what not to redact. They absolutely knew that I was doing this press conference today and I was releasing the materials today.”

Blanche insisted there was no “oversight by the White House” in the process.

Asked if the DOJ is releasing all documents related to President Donald Trump from the files, Blanche told reporters, “I can assure that we complied with the statute.”

“We complied with the act,” he said, “We did not protect President Trump.”

“We didn’t protect or not protect anybody,” he added, while declaring that “that there’s a hunger, a thirst for information that I do not think will be satisfied by the review of these documents.”

Blanche insisted that President Trump has had the “same consistent message about Jeffrey Epstein.” He also insisted that “there’s not been a change, of course, or anything, and certainly his direction to … the Department of Justice was to release the files, be as transparent as we can.”

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.