More from Deroy.

In a new column posted at NRO (National Review Online) titled "The Homophobe Myth: The Facts About Ronald Reagan," Deroy Murdock responds to critics of his earlier piece, "The Truth About Reagan and AIDS" (posted at right). And note, National Review is one of the preeminent conservative home bases -- arguing persuasively here that Reagan was not a homophobe is all to the good. Just what does the left think it's accomplishing by screeching that this widely beloved hero-president (and, yes, conservative icon) was anti-gay? And doing so with distorted history (e.g., the claim Reagan never mentioned AIDS until 1987)?

Deroy, by the way, does clear up a misattribution of a Reagan statement about AIDS, which was not in the State of the Union address, as he originally stated, but in ancillary material given to Congress. We've posted a correction on his earlier article to clarify the matter, which is also noted in a letter in our mailbag.

From Overseas.

New Zealand's Institute for Liberal Values [which seems to be a vehemently anti-left, pro civil liberties group] posts this piece, "Was Reagan a Bigot"? Jim Peon writes:

There are times that the dominant Left in the gay community really irritate me. And right now is one of them. Ronald Reagan has just died. Many Americans, myself included, still have some fond feelings for the man.
But some of the more radical elements within the gay community refuse to see any good in Reagan just as they refuse to see any problems with their anointed candidates.

It's a small world, after all.

Gays Abroad Need Our Help

In the middle of our struggles over gay marriage, the Boy Scouts and sodomy laws, it is easy to develop blinders when it comes to what might initially appear to be peripheral causes. Surely, the past five years have been the most eventful in the gay rights movement with acceptance reaching an all-time high.

If current trends are any indication, the American gay rights cause should even be concluded within the next several decades. Gay marriage will eventually become reality across the country, and legal discrimination will come to an end.

This will not, of course, erase homophobia from society; no more than the Civil Rights Act of 1964 erased racism toward blacks. But equality for people of all sexual orientations in the United States will at the very least be written into law, thus realizing the accomplishment of the modern gay rights agenda.

But throughout the world, gays face barbaric oppression that is almost medieval in nature. Up until Afghanistan was liberated in late 2001, the Taliban would regularly flatten gays with massive stones.

Robert Mugabe, the dictator of Zimbabwe, has cracked down on gays and publicly labeled them "worse than pigs." Egypt imprisons homosexuals, and Saudi Arabia beheads them.

In sum, Matthew Shepard-like killings, rare in this country, are a regular occurrence in other nations, particularly those headed up by Islamic fundamentalists.

We have a responsibility to stand up for gay rights not just at home, but abroad. Gay Americans have a special responsibility to speak out, for our nation has always served as a place of refuge for the oppressed.

Having achieved economic success and to a large degree, mainstream acceptance, it would be all too easy to rest on our laurels. Many gays in this country, even though they are denied countless basic rights, are ambivalent about the indignity of their inferior status, choosing to lead closeted or apathetic lives.

This attitude must change not only for the sake of gay rights in America, but for fellow gays living outside this country�s borders.

We could take some lessons from American Jews on how a domestic civil rights cause can effectively turn its focus to the international scene. For many years, national Jewish organizations spent a great deal of effort on domestic concerns, encouraging pluralism and denouncing discrimination against religious and ethnic groups.

Once Jews became largely accepted, international issues like global anti-Semitism and Israel became the raison d�etre of American Jewish groups. This is not to say that American Jewry once ignored Israel and their European brethren in favor of domestic causes, but talk to American Jewish leaders today about what concerns them most and you will almost always hear about international anti-Semitism and Israel.

When faced with decisions to fight nativity scenes on town commons or Islamist terror against Israeli civilians, American Jews have wisely made the latter crisis a priority.

This is not to suggest that the United States should traipse around the world invading nations that do not live up to our standards of gay tolerance. But there are many things that the United States can do, short of military action, to support gay rights abroad.

Employing the moral authority of the United States against our enemies, much like Ronald Reagan did against the Soviet Union, is something that left-leaning gay leaders are loathe to do. But it is undeniable that America stands on the side of human dignity: Compare our record with those states that actively persecute gays.

Withholding economic aid to repressive nations is another possibility, along with affording asylum to gays fleeing repressive states. Once gays in this country achieve full marriage equality and win the fight to erase discrimination from the books, non-profit gay money, which is quite plentiful, should be devoted to making gay rights a central part of the American international agenda.

These domestic victories are closer than many gay activists imagine them to be, and so national gay organizations would do well prepare for future battles.

With the current rapid progress, we are emerging more strident than ever in our demands for fair treatment, and these successes have empowered a new generation of gay activists. What agenda these future leaders set is impossible to predict, but advocating the use of American power to aid gay people abroad is a noble start.

The “A” Word.

Because the canard about Reagan not mentioning AIDS before 1987 is spreading, here's an excerpt from a press conference transcript, from the NY Times, Sept. 18, 1985:

Q: Would you support a massive Government research program against AIDS like the one that President Nixon launched against cancer?

Reagan: I have been supporting it for more than four years now. It's been one of the top priorities with us, and over the last four years and including what we have in the budget for '86 it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS, in addition to what I'm sure other medical groups are doing.

And we have $100 billion, or $100 million in the budget this year; it'll be $126 million next year. So this is a top priority with us. Yes, there's no question about the seriousness of this, and the need to find an answer.

Reagan and the 'Briggs Initiative.'

On another gay-related issue, here's a good discussion of Reagan's opposition to a statewide ballot initiative that would have banned gays and lesbians from teaching in California's public schools. Writes columnist John Nichols:

it was quite a remarkable moment when Ronald Reagan, who had served two terms as governor of California and was preparing to mount a campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 1980, emerged as an outspoken foe of the Briggs Initiative. Convinced by activists David Mixner and Peter Scott that the initiative represented an unwarranted threat to free speech rights and individual liberties, Reagan declared that the initiative "is not needed to protect our children -- we have the legal protection now." ...

Reagan's forceful opposition to the Briggs Initiative helped to doom it.

Initially, one poll had shown that Californians backed the anti-gay initiative by a margin of 61 percent to 31 percent.

Reagan and Gays: A Reassessment

When Ronald Reagan died on June 5, many gay Americans lost no tears. The conventional view in gay political circles is that Reagan, a strong conservative, was virulently anti-gay. In this view, Reagan was propelled to office by the newly powerful religious right, and repaid that support with socially conservative administration appointments and policies. (Most unforgivably, according to the conventional view, Reagan did nothing while thousands of gay men died of AIDS. That's a charge I'll address in my next column.) The truth about Reagan and gays, however, is more complicated.

Start with the notion that Reagan himself was anti-gay. Like most of us, Reagan reflected the prejudices of his times. Born in 1911, he grew up in a small-town world that misunderstood and feared homosexuality. He was 62 by the time homosexuality was removed from the official list of mental disorders. According to biographer Lou Cannon, Reagan shared the common view of his time that homosexuality was a sickness. He was not above telling jokes about gays.

Still, perhaps because he worked with gay actors in Hollywood and had gay friends, Reagan was relatively tolerant. Cannon notes that Reagan was "respectful of the privacy of others" and was "not the sort of person who bothers about what people do in their own bedrooms." This attitude was consistent with Reagan's larger philosophical commitment to individual liberty and limited government.

Reagan's daughter, Patti Davis (the politically liberal one), recounted on Time magazine's website that she and her father once watched an awkward kiss between Doris Day and Rock Hudson in a movie. Reagan explained to his daughter that the closeted Hudson would have preferred to kiss a man. "This was said in the same tone that would be used if he had been telling me about people with different colored eyes," recalled Davis, "and I accepted without question that this whole kissing thing wasn't reserved just for men and women."

During Reagan's presidency the first openly gay couple spent a night together in the White House. In a column for The Washington Post on March 18, 1984, Robert Kaiser described the sleep-over: "[The Reagans'] interior decorator, Ted Graber, who oversaw the redecoration of the White House, spent a night in the Reagans' private White House quarters with his male lover, Archie Case, when they came to Washington for Nancy Reagan's 60th birthday party. . . . Indeed, all the available evidence suggests that Ronald Reagan is a closet tolerant."

Tolerance is not acceptance, however, and Reagan made it clear in speeches that he would not cross the line to the latter. Said Reagan during the 1980 presidential campaign: "My criticism is that [the gay movement] isn't just asking for civil rights; it's asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I."

Aside from his tolerant personal attitude, Reagan's actual record on civil liberties for gays was surprisingly good. Cannon reports that Reagan was "repelled by the aggressive public crusades against homosexual life styles which became a staple of right wing politics in the late 1970s."

In 1978, for example, Reagan vigorously opposed a California ballot initiative sponsored by religious conservatives that would have barred homosexuals from teaching in the public schools. The timing is significant because he was then preparing to run for president, a race in which he would need the support of conservatives and moderates very uncomfortable with homosexual teachers. As Cannon puts it, Reagan was "well aware that there were those who wanted him to duck the issue" but nevertheless "chose to state his convictions."

Reagan penned an op-ed against the so-called Briggs Initiative in which he wrote, "Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this." This was a remarkably progressive thing for a politician, especially a conservative one about to run for president, to say in 1978. The Briggs Initiative was overwhelmingly defeated. Its sponsors blamed Reagan for the defeat.

Nor does Reagan's record as president support the view that he was strongly anti-gay. Reagan was not much worse on gay issues than Jimmy Carter, his opponent in 1980, who avoided even meeting with gay groups. Walter Mondale, Reagan's opponent in 1984, received only tepid gay support, according to gay activist Urvashi Vaid in her book Virtual Equality. Neither Carter nor Mondale made support for any gay rights measure an issue in their respective campaigns, though their party's platform included a gay rights plank.

The military's ban on service by homosexuals was firmly in place long before Reagan became president. It remained in force during his tenure, of course, but discharges for homosexuality declined every single year of Reagan's presidency, suggesting the administration wasn't interested in anti-gay witch-hunts.

It's true that no pro-gay legislation, like an employment non-discrimination bill, made headway during the Reagan years. But anti-gay legislation also made little progress. Reagan often talked the talk of religious conservatism, but he did not often walk the walk.

His priorities were elsewhere: reviving the country's morale, strengthening national defense to defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War, limiting the growth of the federal government, and boosting the economy. At each of these, Reagan succeeded brilliantly. Gays, like all other Americans, continue to benefit from his legacy.

Talking Marriage to Conservatives.

John Phillips informs us of an amusing column he wrote for the conservative site Men's News Daily, arguing why conservatives should support gay marriage. As he puts it:

I've always believed that when it comes to protecting liberty the following rules apply: (1) individuals know better than politicians, (2) the states know better than the feds and (3) those who think that the Constitution should grow like Topsy are always wrong. Unfortunately, when it comes to gay marriage many conservatives suddenly develop amnesia. It's the only issue that I know of that can make committed Republicans get down on their hands and knees and beg for government regulation.

If conservatives are willing to give Big Brother the power to tell you who you can or can't marry, why get upset when liberals want to dictate what your salary should be, what you should pay for rent or whether or not you really need your sports utility vehicle? You're either for big, intrusive government or you aren't.

The column sparked quite a bit of debate on another conservative site, freerepublic.com. Remarks Phillips in his note to us, "For the first time in my life I was accused of being an anarchist, socialist and atheist! Anyway, I just thought that you guys would be amused by this." You may be, too.

The Haters.

A commentary by author and ACT-UP founder Larry Kramer, slated for the July 6th issue of The Advocate (on sale June 22), is making the rounds of the 'net. It's headlined "Adolf Reagan," and the Hitler/Reagan comparisons aren't limited to the title. Kramer begins his polemic:

Our murderer is dead. The man who murdered more gay people than anyone in the entire history of the world, is dead. More people than Hitler even.

Andrew Sullivan has a well-reasoned response on his andrewsullivan.com blog to this kind of anti-Reagan hyperbole. Sullivan writes that once the epidemic became evident:

Many people most at risk were aware -- mostly too late, alas -- that unprotected sex had become fatal in the late 1970s and still was. You can read Randy Shilts' bracing And The Band Played On to see how some of the resistance to those warnings came from within the gay movement itself. In the polarized atmosphere of the beleaguered gay ghettoes of the 1980s, one also wonders what an instruction from Ronald Reagan to wear condoms would have accomplished.

As for research, we didn't even know what HIV was until 1983. Nevertheless, the Reagan presidency spent some $5.7 billion on HIV in its two terms -- not peanuts. The resources increased by 450 percent in 1983, 134 percent in 1984, 99 percent the next year and 148 percent the year after.

And than there's the oft-repeated charge, or variants thereof, that Reagan never mentioned AIDS until a 1987 speech. For instance, writes Matt Foreman, head of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force:

AIDS was first reported in 1981, but President Reagan could not bring himself to address the plague until March 31, 1987, at which time there were 60,000 reported cases of full-blown AIDS and 30,000 deaths.

But the New York Times, in an article dated September 18, 1985 and titled "Reagan Defends Financing for AIDS," reported:

President Reagan, who has been accused of public indifference to the AIDS crisis by groups representing victims of the deadly disease, said last night that his Administration was already making a "vital contribution" to research on the disease....

Mr. Reagan said that he had been supporting research into AIDS, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, for the last four years and that the effort was a "top priority" for the Administration.

No, Reagan didn't poison the drinking water or otherwise engage in "murder." Could and should he have done more to let people know his government cared about their plight? Yes. Did his efforts to embrace the religious right as part of the GOP coalition give power and prestige to some very bad people? Yes. But that's far from what some are accusing him of. It seems the extremes of both the left and the right are united in their need to express a daily dose of hate and vitriol.

So Much Noise, So Little Support.

From a survey of evangelical Christians reported on the website Christianity Today:

52% of evangelical Christians would rather prohibit gay marriage through state laws than through a constitutional amendment.

48% of evangelicals say a candidate's support for gay marriage would disqualify him from getting their votes.

That is, a majority of evangelicals are opposed to the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, and less than a majority would make gay marriage a litmus test issue. The prospects for the FMA look weaker all the time.

Mail Call

There are some new letters in our mailbag, including comments on anti-Americanism and a defense of Mississippi. Check 'em out.

When Worldviews Collide.

From the Log Cabin Republicans:

President Reagan's inspirational vision for America relied on optimism, hope and an enduring faith in individual freedom.... He succeeded by bringing America together -- not trying to divide it for political gain.

From the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force:

The Reagan administration's policies on AIDS and anything gay-related resulted -- and continue to result -- in despair and death.

More Recent Postings

5/30/04 - 6/06/04

Reagan Passes.

Many will never forgive his apparent lack of concern as so many perished from AIDS (though Deroy Murdock makes the case that much was actually being done), or that his administration helped legitimize the religious right as a political force. Still, his refusal to play the appeasement game brought down the Soviet Union and freed millions from totalitarianism, and his policies slowed the expansion of welfare-state paternalism and reversed economic stagnation here at home. A mixed legacy, as is so often the case.

Worth noting: the first openly gay couple spent a night together in the White House during Reagan's term. From a Washington Post story on March 18, 1984:

The Reagans are also tolerant about homosexual men. Their interior decorator, Ted Graber, who oversaw the redecoration of the White House, spent a night in the Reagans' private White House quarters with his male lover, Archie Case, when they came to Washington for Nancy Reagan's 60th birthday party -- a fact confirmed for the press by Mrs. Reagan's press secretary. Indeed, all the available evidence suggests that Ronald Reagan is a closet tolerant.

Deroy Murdock's column helps puts to rest the charge that Reagan harbored anti-gay animosity. He notes a Time magazine story in which Patti Reagan recalls "the clear, smooth, non-judgmental way" her father discussed homosexuality. Speaking of Rock Hudson, she says:

My father gently explained that Mr. Hudson didn't really have a lot of experience kissing women; in fact, he would much prefer to be kissing a man. This was said in the same tone that would be used if he had been telling me about people with different colored eyes, and I accepted without question that this whole kissing thing wasn't reserved just for men and women.

Deroy also reminds us that Reagan publicly opposed Proposition 6, a 1978 ballot measure that called for the dismissal of California teachers who "advocated" homosexuality, even outside of schools. His opposition was considered instrumental to the measure's defeat.

And Deroy quotes Kenneth T. Walsh, former White House correspondent and author of the biography Ronald Reagan, who wrote: "Despite the urging of some of his conservative supporters, he never made fighting homosexuality a cause. In the final analysis, Reagan felt that what people do in private is their own business, not the government's."