Excerpts from:
The Homosexual Revolution


The Homosexual Struggle
"Homosexuals do not reproduce, they recruit." Anita Bryant

The campaign to repeal Miami, Florida's ordinance banning homosexual discrimination ended June 7, 1977. Voters of Miami and Dade County, Florida, repealed by a 7 to 3 margin an ordinance that protects homosexuals from discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations.

The ordinance rejected by the voters mandated that all employers, including private, religious schools, could not refuse to hire someone because he was a homosexual. Nor could employers fire any one because of his sexual preference. Those who did "discriminate" were subject to a $500 fine and/or 60 days in jail.

In short, the homosexuals had, through the threat of state-imposed penalties, denied non-homosexuals freedom of association. School authorities could actually be jailed for following their conscience in seeking to protect children from homosexual influence.

Under the ordinance, private schools -- both religious and secular -- would have been forced to hire or keep on homosexual activists, even though the schools and the parents who sent their children to those schools held the deepest conviction that homosexuality was a perversion that should not be sanctioned or propagated.

But, even with the overwhelming vote in Miami the issue will not be fading away. Less than three weeks after the Miami vote 50,000 homosexuals crammed New York's Fifth Avenue, sidewalk to sidewalk for almost 1-1/2 miles protesting the vote. And in San Francisco, 125,000 marched in the streets. Other record number gay marches took place in Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Diego and Seattle.

And even as you are reading this the homosexuals are meeting or will have met with representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union, the League of Women Voters and the women's liberation movement to press for specific federal legislation to advance their cause.

Soon the whole country will be involved because two bills now pending in the United States Congress - HR 2998 and HR 5239 - would impose on the entire nation the same nonsense as the Miami ordinance. In fact, HR 2998, co-sponsored by 25 Representatives, goes even further than the Miami ordinance, for under its provisions all public schools would be compelled to hire homosexuals as teachers .

The bill, sponsored by Mr. Koch, Mr. Bingham, Mrs. Burke of California, Mr. John L. Burton, Mrs. Chisholm, Mr. Clay, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Dellums, Mr. Fraser, Mr. Harrington, Mr. Hawkins, Ms. Holtzman, Mr. McCloskey, Mr. McKinney, Mr. Miller of California, Mr. Mitchell of Maryland, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Richmond, Mr. Rosenthal, Mr. Solarz, Mr. Stark, Mr. Stokes, Mr. Studds, Mr. Waxman and Mr. Weiss, seeks to add to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the words "affectional or sexual preference." The public education section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, for example, would be amended so that a person "manifesting an emotional or physical attachment to another consenting person or persons of either gender" may not be discriminated against. In other words, all public educational facilities would be forced to hire homosexuals.

Sen. Jesse Helms makes it even stronger. If the Koch bill passes, employers, both public and private,"would be required by federal law to seek out and hire homosexuals on a quota basis. This would include schools, hospitals and other institutions."


Overnight, homosexuality has mushroomed into a menacing abomination. Sodomites by the millions have come out of the closet -- defiant, militant, organized clamoring for "rights" and respectability.

The latest developments are frightening, to say the least. According to the Associated Press of May 28,1977, a tax supported agency of the federal government has opened public housing to unmarried couples living together and to homosexual couples living together. The action "taken quietly" early in May, the AP said, is subject to the approval of local housing authorities, but HUD got "very little response to its new concept of the family."

Thus 1.5 million public housing apartments and 333,000 private housing units for which the federal government (your tax dollars) may pay rental subsidies this year are open to a "family" which consists of "two or more persons (of either sex or the same sex), sharing residency whose income and resources are available to meet the family's needs and who are either related by blood, marriage or operation of law, or have evidenced a stable family relationship."

When Priscilla Banks, the HUD housing program specialist who wrote the new rules, said the concept of the family is "very brand new," she made the under statement of the year! The federal government in a back-handed way legitimatized homosexual marriages.


In San Francisco, the board of education unanimously approved inclusion of "gay" lifestyle studies in sex education classes.

An advisory board is recommending revisions to the sex education program. The idea is (1) to brainwash the children so they no longer think of homosexuals in negative terms, and (2) to train them to refer to deviant persons not as homosexuals, queers or sodomites, but as "gays."

Furthermore, while the board of education allowed the course to be taught primarily in high schools, the Gay Teachers Alliance has now succeeded in getting it approved for use from kindergarten through senior high school.

However, you can be sure that the children will not be told that the gay world is far from gay as its name implies. For example, Dr. John White (University of Manitoba) writes, "As your age advances your chance of loneliness in creases. Young faces are fair, young bodies beautiful, young movements quick and eager. But who is attracted to a "tired old fairy?"

Incidentally, the term "gay" at one time was a euphemism for a prostitute. It has usually carried the connotation of immorality and racy living. Its under ground usage to mean homosexual dates from about 1900 and came into common use in the 1950's.


In New York City, Dr. Ralph Blair, president of the Board of Trustees of "Evangelicals Concerned," an organiza tion sympathetic to the gay liberation movement, hiding within the framework of conservative Christianity, said, "Contrary to what some people claim, he had not seen any evidence of conversion to heterosexuality on the part of a homosexual who accepts Christ as Savior." Blair's efforts seem to be directed at getting Christian people "to stop bearing false witness against our homosexual neighbors" and getting "our eyes open to the good gay Christians around us." What Blair fails to tell the evangelical community is that gay "Christians" seduce the young just as much as gay non-Christians. Besides that, gay "Christians" have just as much trouble telling the truth as gay non-Christians. There may be gay "Christians," although there seems to be some debate based on 1 Cor. 6:9, but one thing is for sure: there are no good gay "Christians."


Newsweek (October 25,1976) reported that since 1961, "eighteen states have eliminated sodomy laws that bar sexual acts between consenting adults. Communities as diverse as Amherst, Mass., and Los Angeles have approved ordinances prohibiting job, credit and other discrimination on the basis of sexual preferences. Many corporations now have a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in hiring and promotion."

According to the ACLU's The Rights of Gay People, (1975), only eight states (instead of eighteen) have actually eliminated their sodomy laws. The eight states are: California, Colorado, Conneticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Ohio and Oregon.

To see what kind of struggle the country as a whole faces, however, let's observe what happened in Miami.


The language of the Miami ordinance, passed by a 6-3 vote of the Metro Dade County Commission January 18,1977, is quite clear -- no discrimination in housing, jobs, or public accommodations because of a person's "affectional or sexual preference." Its purpose was to force employers to hire homosexuals, including school teachers, boys' camp administrators, etc.

It was this prospect that had Anita Bryant, a Christian mother of four, so indignant and willing to lay her career on the line for her convictions and the welfare of her children.

Jane Fonda can commit what amounts to treason, as she glorifies the communist enemy of North Vietnam, and still be praised in films and the press. But let it get around that Anita Bryant holds to the Judeo/Christian view of sex and marriage, and her career is suddenly jeopardized and her name is smeared in the media from coast to coast. Even as we go to press (July 9,1977), AP reports that Anita Bryant's talent agency is dropping her (but not Rod McKuen) because of her "battle against homosexuals."

She believed, along with many others, that the Miami ordinance would permit overt homosexuals to flaunt their "abnormality" in the schools, thereby providing "a role model" and setting a bad example for children at an impressionable age. In fact, this is exactly what is happening in San Francisco.

Her whole fight was waged on behalf of the civil rights of children (the young innocent children have civil rights too) and of the inherent right of parents who are charged with the responsibility of their children's wholesome up bringing.

"Homosexuals cannot reproduce, so they must recruit," she said. "And to freshen their ranks, they must recruit the youth of America."

Anita Bryant knew what had happened in Minneapolis was a harbinger of what any community might expect where homosexuals are given full protection of the law.

The executive director of Minneapolis' Big Brothers testified, "In 1974, the City of Minneapolis adopted an ordinance giving special priviledges to homosexuals -- using language identical to Metro Dade County's controversial new law.

"Shortly after passage of the Minneapolis ordinance, a homosexual applied as a volunteer for Big Brothers, a charitable organization found in many United States communities (including greater Miami). Big Brothers provides, and has done so for decades, normal male volunteers to provide fatherly or brotherly companionship for fatherless boys.

"When Big Brothers realized it could not, under the Minneapolis ordinance, refuse to accept the homosexual volunteer, it decided that it would pass along to mothers seeking companionship for their sons the information that a particular volunteer was known to be a practicing homosexual.


"The homosexual volunteer then complained that this passing along of information violated his civil rights -- and the Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights agreed with the homosexual volunteer, and even suggested that Big Brothers should place special advertisements for homosexual volunteers in the area's 'gay' publications." The end result of giving homosexuals the protection of law inevitably leads to this type of madness, for such laws commit absurdities against other legitimate institutions.

Normally one would expect the religous hierarchy to rush to the aid of Anita Bryant, but a UPI wire service story, April 8,1977, said Rev. G. William Sheek, described as a church leader and top of ficial of the National Council of Churches, wrote the Dade County (Miami) commissioners expressing strong disagreement with her stand.

Rev. Sheek, who heads the NCC family ministries and human sexuality program, accused Anita Bryant of misrepresenting the Christian position and "stereotyping" homosexuals.

According to the National Council spokesman, the Bible does not have a single or clear position on homosexuality. Thus to declare, on grounds of Scripture, that homosexuality is a sin against nature, not to be tolerated in society, is simply a myth.

The attitude of the NCC in this matter is, for example, diametrically opposite the stand taken by Southern Baptists, the nation's largest Protestant denomination. At its 119th annual convention last June the convention, by overwhelming sentiment, urged its 32,000 churches to refuse employment to homosexuals .


Interestingly, just two years ago the National Council of Churches voted to take homosexuality out of the category of male prostitution, child seducers, transvestites and put it in the category of race, sex, class, creed and place of national origin. Thus by a simple vote, the NCC declared evil to be good!

In his concern for the inverts and perverts and their rights, Sheek denied the charge that homosexuals seek to recruit and seduce children. This is a new low of willful blindness even for the NCC. It flies in the face of what is so obviously and historically always true. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce, they must recruit the young. And when they work their will and way on them, they turn something beautiful into a nightmare.

Of importance to Christians is the fact that Sheek did not even bother to quote the Bible in defense of his statements. Instead, he turned to the work of a liberal theologian (who could even be a homosexual) who claims that neither homosexual inclination nor the act excludes "one from the domain of God's gracious intention." Such theological lingese translates, "sexual relations between homosexual partners is sanctioned by God."

It is not surprising in this hour of apostasy to see religious leaders reinterpret and thus scorn God's Word. They presume to place their own moral preferences above the revelation of God. Instead of judging their morality by God's Word, they judge God by their morality. God is placed in the dock. Absolute moral judgments are declared dead.

Liberal theologians are presently espousing three main theses relative to homosexuality: (a) that the so-called homosexual condition is according to the will of God, (b) that God had a divine purpose in so creating human nature that a certain percentage of human beings are homosexual, and (c) that there is the possibility of morally good homosexual relationships and that the love which unites the partners in such a relationship rather than alienating them from God, can be judged as uniting them more closely with God and as mediating God's presence in our world. (See John J. McNeill, S. J., The Church and the Homosexual, Sheed, Andrews, McMeel, Inc., 1976)


The first and third points, as we shall see, are patently false and the Point that homosexuals are born is likewise false. Homosexuals are not born, they are made. Homosexuality is a learned behavior. Older homosexuals "queer" the next generation of homosexuals. There certainly is no mystery about it. Somewhere between the ages of eight and 18 or six and 16 the child is propositioned or seduced. The child enjoys the sexual behavior and is on his way to be coming a practicing homosexual.

Homosexuality is not a matter of genes and chromosomes. Time magazine commented, "The only thing most experts agree on is that homosexuality is not a result of any kinky genes." And Dr. John White noted, "Once I experience physical pleasure with a member of my own sex, I am more likely to want to experience it again. The more frequently I experience it, the more fixed will the pattern become. What I do determines what I am just as much as what I am determines what I do."

From its power bases in New York and Washington, the NCC (National Council of Churches) sought to influence the commissioners of Dade County and thus force its will, on behalf of perversion, on the people of Miami. The NCC is as deviant in its stand on issues as the homosexual is in its posture on sex.

Still the NCC has the temerity to charge that Anita Bryant misrepresented certain Christian positions and "stereotyped" homosexuals. The NCC leadership and policy makers are as obnoxious as the Pharisees of our Lord's day must have been to Him.

Further misrepresentation lies in the concluding UPI statement, "The National Council of Churches represents 30 Protestant and Orthodox denominations." The impression given is that these 30 denominations would concur in such a stance. We would like to see a referendum of the laymen in the churches cf these denominations. We have no doubt what the majority vote would be. As it is, however, the rank and file of the NCC have no more of a voice in what the top officials pontificate than the peasants in Russia have in what the Kremlin decrees .


The whole incident in Miami demonstrates the growing influence of homosexuals. The Dade County Coalition for Human Rights developed a full-time staff, hiring a New York firm to handle publicity. As the vote on the issue neared, it had 50 persons staffing a telephone bank eight hours a day to call registered voters. Supported by the Democratic party, which provided voting lists, the coalition targeted 126 of approximately 400 precincts and called all voters in those areas.

Activists in Boston, New York, Chica go and Los Angeles rallied to the cause, passing the hat in homosexual bars and holding fund-raising events. Rod McKuen, for example, was invited to appear at a $100 a plate dinner in Miami. For those who think of the homosexuals as a poor, downtrodden minority, it is important to note that in the Miami struggle the homosexuals raised $350,000, while the anti-homosexual forces raised only $140,000!

Homosexuals sold orange-emblazoned T-shirts with the characteristically tasteless wording, "Anita, dear ... cram it." A photo of the shirt, displayed by a limpwrister, was circulated by the AP and appeared in many U.S. newspapers.


But the most ominous sign was the White House meeting late in March between presidential adviser Midge Constanza and 14 militant homosexuals. It was a three hour session to allow the homosexuals to air their grievances, especially about the present policies of the Immigration and Naturalization Board which keeps homosexuals from entering the country and the Defense Department's policy of discharging homosexuals from the services.

If the homosexuals can be believed, the President of the United States, while not present, was said to be aware that the meeting was held. Upon leaving, one of the guests was quoted as saying, "Ms. Constanza had given us the power of her office as a door opener."

Other observers have noted that the President openly courted the homosexual vote during his presidential campaign and therefore, was merely paying back a debt.

Wherever the truth lies, one thing is obvious, no similar invitation from the White House was extended to Anita Bryant, who represents the civil rights of parents to save their children from homosexual influence and seduction.

Anita Bryant's husband, Bob Green, was quoted as saying, "One thing we have noticed in letters we receive from people is the question, 'Why should it have to be a woman and mother in the forefront of this battle, instead of the Christian leadership in this country.' Since the petition drive began, Anita has had her life threatened almost daily..."

The homosexual struggle has just begun. It will last until our Lord returns and solves it. In the meantime we must be about our Lord's work, including standing firm on Biblical moral absolutes.


Chapter One

Chapter Three

Chapter Four