Today the courts are talking about the ‘right’ to engage in homosexuality, the ‘right’ of homosexuals to get married to each other, the ‘right’ to openly join the military, etc. Political candidates are afraid of appearing ‘homophobic.’ But 60 years ago, even 35 years ago, the U.S. had it right. Then, engaging in same-sex sex was NOT considered a ‘right.’ Indeed, those who engaged in homosexuality were seen as highly socially disruptive, due to a lengthy, and empirically-tested, set of reasons. In 1950, Congress discussed the Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government:¹

Most of the authorities agree and our investigation has shown that the presence of a sex pervert in a Government agency tends to have a corrosive influence on his fellow employees. These perverts will frequently attempt to entice normal individuals to engage in perverted practices. This is particularly true in the case of young and impressionable people who might come under the influence of a pervert. Government officials have the responsibility of keeping this type of corrosive influence out of the agencies under their control. It is particularly important that the thousands of young men and women who are brought into Federal jobs not be subjected to that type of influence while in the service of the Government. One homosexual can pollute a Government office.

Notice what the investigation found concerning employees who engaged in homosexuality. Homosexuals were not disqualified from government service because they were ‘mentally ill.’ At the time, of course, those who engaged in homosexuality were often referred to psychiatrists for ‘treatment.’ Yet for society in general and the federal government in particular, the overriding exclusionary factor was the social disruption that homosexuals caused. This official investigation found that homosexuals:

• “frequently” “attempted to entice normal individuals to engage” in homosexuality. The ‘try it, you might like it’ slogan has been around a long time. Instances of male homosexuals enticing and seducing boys abounded then, as they do today.
• particularly targeted the “young and impressionable.” The homosexually-obsessed have both drive and commitment — especially when it comes to the young or younger.

Based on these facts, the report recommended the following policy:

Government officials have the responsibility of keeping this type of corrosive influence out of the agencies under their control. It is particularly important that the thousands of young men and women who are brought into Federal jobs not be subjected to that type of influence while in the service of the Government.

The report also observed that “one homosexual can pollute a Government office.” Not that ‘every homosexual’ polluted his Government office, but rather “one can.” Most anyone who has worked in a business is familiar with at least once such circumstance. What is striking here is that there is no ‘animus,’ no ‘hatred,’ and no appeal to Christianity or any religious notions — just a statement of the facts and a reasonable social policy conclusion given those facts.

In 1952, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) as a sociopathic personality disturbance. Yet, some psychiatrists pushed to make ‘the issue of homosexuality’ a matter of ‘rights’ rather than an indicator of either ‘mental illness’ or social disruption. In 1953, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that homosexual magazines were not obscene and could be mailed. The same year, Evelyn Hooker, who supported the rights of ‘sexual minorities,’ was encouraged by federal officials to apply for a grant to ‘prove’ gays weren’t ‘mentally ill’.

By 1956, her findings about 30 male homosexuals were being employed to challenge two commonly-held notions: 1) that engaging in homosexuality was tantamount to being mentally ill, and 2) that homosexuality was primarily a matter of ‘social disruption’ rather than a personal ‘right.’

In 1966, while the psychiatric profession was discussing whether or not homosexuals were ‘mentally ill,’ John Macy, Chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Commission, wrote a letter to the Mattachine Society (the first gay rights organization) per its request to rescind the policy barring active homosexuals from federal employment. Macy’s points (many of which pertain to the modern controversy over gays in the military) included:²

Pertinent considerations here are:

1. the revulsion of other employees by homosexual conduct and the consequent disruption of service efficiency,
2. the apprehension caused other employees of homosexual advances, solicitations or assaults,
3. the unavoidable subjection of the sexual deviate to erotic stimulation through on-the-job use of the common toilet, shower and living facilities,
4. the offense to members of the public who are required to deal with a known or admitted sexual deviate to transact Government business,
5. the hazard that the prestige and authority of a Government position will be used to foster homosexual activity, particularly among the youth, and
6. the use of Government funds and authority in furtherance of conduct offensive both to the mores and the law of our society.

By 1969, the move to redefine homosexuality was in full swing. After some cross-dressers and homosexuals rebelled against the NY City police in the Stonewall riot, the Mayor said he would no longer enforce the law against homosexual conduct when it was out of public view. In 1970, Frank Kammeny led a bunch of ‘gay thugs’ against the American Psychiatric Association at its annual meetings. Thuggery worked: the association declared homosexuality not to be a mental illness in 1973. And the Evelyn Hooker study was pushed by the American Psychological Association as ‘proving’ gay normalcy. So by 1974, the news that ‘gays are OK’ was wending its way through society.

Even so, late in 1974, The Pride Foundation was denied non-profit status under Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3) because the organization’s goal of “advanc[ing] the welfare of the homosexual community” was “perverted or deviate behavior” “contrary to public policy and [is] therefore, not ‘charitable.’”³

The American Psychological Association (APA) provided its counter-punch in 1975: “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities.” The APA could not prove this scientifically, but it made a political statement anyway.

The test our society faced was clear. Would it primarily consider those who engage in homosexuality as socially disruptive OR would it shift the grounds of debate to judgments about ‘mental illness’ and ‘fairness?’ In the latter case, would society view ‘all those who are not mentally ill’ as equal “in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities?” Would we look at protecting society — particularly youth — from homosexual predators, or adjust society to accommodate and protect them?

The current law banning homosexuals from the military was passed in 1993 with bipartisan support. The legislation codified the military’s objective finding that “homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.” Today, the President, much of Congress, and a number of federal judges assert there is no risk to allowing homosexuals to serve. Yet in the latest assessment from 2007-2009, homosexuals accounted for 3-5 times their proportionate share of sexual assaults in the U.S. military. (And perhaps only 5% of such assaults are either reported or known to authorities.) It is much harder to work with guys who want to ‘check you out’ sexually if they get the chance.

Both older and recently-collected empirical evidence leans heavily toward demonstrating that homosexuals are socially disruptive — particularly when it comes to our youth. However, our certified professionals — including those from the two APAs — are committed to demonstrating that this social disruption is a ‘figment of our imaginations’ and are quite willing to lie about the existing evidence. Too bad our judges are only too willing to believe them, as the recent federal court cases on gay marriage in California and gay adoption in Florida illustrate. No wonder the civil rights platform is growing to include everyone with a bad habit.

Consider marijuana users. Homosexuals disproportionately use marijuana (as well as other drugs), and marijuana users disproportionately engage in homosexuality. Not too surprisingly, gay rights and pothead rights are often protected together. In 1990, police raided Dennis Peron’s apartment for pot dealing.⁴ “I hated those guys” said, Peron, for being mean to his gay lover who was in the apartment at the time. Peron began an initiative in San Francisco recommending that state officials allow marijuana for ‘medical use.’ It passed.

Today, 14 states and the District of Columbia have started medical marijuana programs. The Denver Post estimated that about 600,000 people can currently use the drug legally. If California voters pass November’s initiative to allow anyone to possess and grow it, a tenth of the nation’s population will have legal access. Pot sellers and Democrats are plumping for the measure — the former to make money, the latter to ‘energize new voters.’

Homosexuals are supportive of ‘new ideas’ like the legalization of pot. Typically childless, they have no real stake in the future, so from their perspective, whatever is ‘fun’ is good.

In addition, homosexuals have almost completely taken over anti-discrimination laws and their enforcement tribunals. Human Rights Commissions are staffed with homosexuals and sensitive to their concerns (after all, their staffing employs many homosexuals, and their rulings give homosexuals many awards). Legally, these Commissions regularly trample the ‘inalienable rights’ granted under the U.S. Constitution by arrogating to themselves the role of both judge and jury.

In September, the Maine Human Rights Commission ruled that a Middle School unlawfully discriminated against a boy during the 2008 school year by not letting him use the girls’ bathroom (no mention of girls’ interests in privacy)! His parents won a similar discrimination complaint against an elementary school in Orono when he was a fifth grader. His parents claimed he had “anxiety and depression after officials forced him to use a gender-neutral bathroom.” We wonder what kinds of trauma the little girls must suffer to make him feel ‘comfortable’ and ‘accepted.’

The same day of the ruling, the Commission began talks about developing anti-discrimination guidelines for schools under the Maine Human Rights Act. Seems the Act doesn’t include rules for educational institutions. In other words, the Commission not only acted outside the color of law, but wants to expand its powers over the people. Notice that almost all these Acts protect the less productive (homosexuals, the sexually confused) and penalize the more productive (heterosexuals). And why not, after all? If it’s all about ‘fairness’ and ‘rights,’ are not those who fancy marijuana just as good and those who don’t, and those who fancy homosexual activity just as deserving as those who don’t?

There is no end to the madness that results when gay rights become law. After all, is it fair to advantage only the homosexually-inclined when the chemically-inclined are ignored?