The “queering” of the armed forces took a giant leap forward last week with the announcement of a new ship being named in honor of Harvey Milk, a Navy veteran and the first openly homosexual elected official in California. The Village People are reportedly thrilled.
Milk, who was a city supervisor in San Francisco until his 1978 murder, is perhaps best known for his fight against the Briggs Initiative, a statewide ballot question that would have banned openly homosexual teachers from public schools. Governor Ronald Reagan, to his discredit, opposed the measure and it failed by a wide margin. Milk, who had himself been a schoolteacher on Long Island before moving to San Francisco, took the issue very personally and for good reason — it targeted homosexual propagandists and homosexual pederasts like him.
Yes, Harvey Milk liked ’em young. The public first learned of his taste for teenage boys with the publication of his biography, “The Mayor of Castro Street” by Randy Shilts. As the San Francisco Chronicle’s first openly homosexual reporter, Shilts covered the “gay beat” and was of course supportive of the movement. Shilts was also a friend of Milk’s and his biography reflects a friendly admiration. But Shilts was also honest — a rare trait in the homosexual movement — and he refused to obscure Milk’s track record with boys half his age.
According to Shilts’s (laudatory) biography, Milk took in a teen runaway named Jack McKinley as his lover:
[S]ixteen-year-old old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. Within a few weeks, McKinley moved into Harvey Milk’s Upper West Side apartment and settled into a middle class domestic marriage. At thirty-three, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.
The couple later moved to San Francisco. One night a fight erupted between the two of them after Milk picked up another man and brought him home for sex. Milk restrained the belligerent McKinley by tying him up and shoving him in a closet. Oh, the irony.
Aren’t homosexuals revolted by Milk’s underage relationships? Not really. Their movement has ensured that Milk’s face appears on a postage stamp rather than on a sex offender registry list where it belongs. In San Francisco there are a plaza, a high school, and an airport terminal named in his honor. His birthday is a state holiday in California. If there are any homosexuals who dissent from all the Harvey Milk idol worship they are awfully quiet. But aren’t they always?
Of course, it would be inaccurate to say that all homosexuals are child molesters, but their community has a predator problem that they are unwilling even to acknowledge. Homosexuals don’t seem disturbed by grown men bedding young boys — not unless those grown men happen to be Catholic priests, Boys Scout leaders, or Republican politicians. In that case homosexuals become righteously indignant — though not because kiddy-diddling bothers them. The real reason they hate child-molesting priests, child-molesting scoutmasters, and child-molesting Republican politicians is because they oppose, or once opposed, the homosexual agenda. It’s the hypocrisy of it all that draws homosexuals’ ire. Yet they cannot see their own hypocrisy. Isn’t there something inconsistent about condemning the sex criminal and former Republican politician Denny Hastert while simultaneously naming a ship after the sex criminal and former Democrat politician Harvey Milk?
The gay rights movement has always been about sexual liberation and not necessarily among “consenting adults.” The “consenting adults” part was really a development of the 1980’s when the movement learned that the public could be persuaded to soften its stance on sex between men much more easily than its stance on sex between men and boys. In a begrudging concession, activists told the child molesters to get lost — or at least to simmer down.
Chad Sevearence is a good example. Sevearence is the former president of Charlotte’s LGBT chamber of commerce and a tireless advocate for that city’s “bathroom bill” that would have forced private businesses to allow men into the ladies’ room if state legislation hadn’t cut it off at the pass. Edge Media Network, a homosexual propaganda outlet, named him “person of the year” in 2015. Sevearence is a registered sex offender, having been convicted in 2000 of fondling a sleeping 15-year old member of his church while he served as a youth minister. The local newspaper, the Charlotte Observer, omitted this fact in its coverage of the bill which it openly supported on its editorial page.
Sevearence stepped down as president of the LGBT chamber only after the right-wing (bless their hearts) made a stink about his criminal record. This is a pattern within the homosexual community — it takes public embarrassment to prod them to condemn pedophilia or pederasty because there is no private embarrassment to speak of. If no one had made a spectacle of Sevearence’s rape of a 15-year old he would still be leading the Charlotte LGBT chamber of commerce.
Former congressman Barney Frank is another pedo-enabler. You’ve probably heard of his 1980’s misadventures with Stephen Gobie (aka “Hot Bottom”), the boyfriend he met through the Washington Blade’s thinly veiled male prostitution ads. Yes, it’s true that Gobie ran a male brothel out of Frank’s apartment — but that’s not all. Gobie was also a child pornographer. In 1982, he was convicted of four felonies, among which was “production of obscene items involving a juvenile.” The congressman wrote a series of letters on his official letterhead to Virginia probation officials attesting to Gobie’s “good character.” Apparently Frank believes that a guy can make pornography starring children and still be a fundamentally good person. He’s not judgmental, you see.
Massachusetts’s other “out” former congressman, Gerry Studds, was more than just a pedo-enabler — he was an honest to goodness kiddy diddler. In 1983, the House of Representatives voted to censure him for his myriad sexual liaisons with teenage congressional pages. Studds maintained that his affairs were consensual and thus legal because the age of consent in the District of Columbia is sixteen. That’s true enough, although the fact that he was an authority figure and that he plied his victims with vodka and cranberry juice tends to muddy the waters.
Ordinarily, censure means certain political death but Gerry Studds was no ordinary congressman. The district he represented happened to be one of the “gayest” in the nation, containing the rainbow wonderland of Provincetown and the slightly less “gay” Hyannis. He was reelected six more times after the page scandal because his constituents just didn’t care. Boffing the pages was really no big deal; it’s not like he voted against funding for AIDS research or something.
Then there’s the godfather of the homosexual mafia, the Oregon real estate magnate and Human Rights Campaign (HRC) cofounder Terrence Bean. In 2014, Bean’s ex-boyfriend Kiah Lawson claimed that the two of them had together seduced a 15-year old boy in a hotel room. Bean was arrested. Unfortunately, the case fell apart at trial because the alleged victim refused to testify, giving the judge no choice but to toss out the charges. I’m sure that the alleged victim’s reluctance had nothing to do with the fact that Bean paid him $200,000 in hush money. Nor did it have anything to do with the fact that Bean is one of the most politically connected men in the state if not the whole country. There really are two justice systems in this country — one for rich jerkwads like Terry Bean and one for the rest of us.
Bean played the victim role well, saying “I look forward to being able to tell the story of this conspiracy of lies, deceit, blackmail, malicious prosecution and homophobia now that this case has ended.” Yes, he actually accused his boyfriend, who implicated himself in the accusation, of being part of a homophobic “conspiracy” against him.
If there’s a campaign within the homosexual community to expose child predators like Terrence Bean, I’m not aware of it. Outrage is reserved for those whom they already despise for other reasons, namely for their “hypocrisy.” A movement that exalts the likes of Harvey Milk can’t really have any moral qualms about child rape.