Editor’s note: This article begins a series which will examine the most controversial aspects of the gay rights agenda.

February 1999 – The decade of the 1990s has been a time of unparalled success for the gay rights movement. Perhaps for the first time in the history of mankind, homosexuals may be on the verge of receiving the acceptance of their lifestyle by an entire civilization – the Western world.

While initially gay activists faced pro-family resistance that was sporadic and often disorganized, now the two sides of this cultural war have been fully joined in battle. As our culture enters the final year of the decade many have called the “Gay ’90s,” what are the prospects for halting the advances of this pro-homosexual campaign?

New strategy for a new fight
In the late 1980s the strategy of the homosexual movement seemed to change, perhaps in great part due to an article written by homosexual activists Marshal Kirk and Erastes Pill. They both argued for a change in the focus of the debate over homosexuality – away from sex.

“In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed,” they said.

The change in strategy, leading to a primary emphasis on the more abstract question of gay “civil rights,” has been a huge success, according to Dennis Altman, author of The Homosexualization of America.

“The greatest single victory of the gay movement over the past decade has been to shift the debate from behavior to identity, thus forcing opponents into a position where they can be seen as attacking the civil rights of homosexual citizens rather than attacking specific and (as they see it) antisocial behavior,” Altman said.

Thus, whenever gay activists frame the debate in terms of equality vs. discrimination, they seem to touch a soft spot in the hearts of many Americans. One poll, for example, showed that 84% of respondents favored job protection for homosexuals.

But when pro-family groups constructed the debate in terms of the creation of a new minority, most Americans – 84% in one poll – were opposed to “special rights” for homosexuals.

Whoever is better able to frame this debate could win a handful of potential battles this year – such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and legislation which would add sexual orientation to current federal “hate crime” laws.

Small screen yields big dividends
Fortunately for homosexual activists, their attempts to refocus the national discussion on gay civil rights have been picked up by the entertainment and media establishments and pushed heavily. In fact, Steve Warren, a spokesman for the radical homosexual group ACT UP, boasted that gay activists “have captured the liberal establishment and the press.”

The now infamous “coming out” episode of Disney/ABC’s Ellen in April 1997 opened a prime-time TV door for homosexuals that may never be shut. For example, one of NBC’s successful fall debut sitcoms is Will & Grace, which features a gay lead character who rooms with a best-buddy straight woman. Although the show is not nearly the gay agenda vehicle that Ellen was, it is nevertheless filled with positive imagery about the homosexual lifestyle. Yet Will & Grace has hardly created a ripple of protest from the same pro-family community that just 16 months earlier had lambasted Disney for producing Ellen.

Not content to simply follow in Ellen’s footsteps, Will & Grace will probably push the limits of television homosexuality even further. Co-producer Max Mutchnick said he intends to have the show’s gay lead eventually have a love interest and a scene featuring the first-ever small-screen romantic same-sex (male) kiss. Should it occur, it remains to be seen whether that television first will produce outrage or a collective yawn from jaded TV viewers.

Meanwhile, if the entertainment industry is providing a carrot in leading the culture to an acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, then the news media is using a stick to pummel those who would resist. That was never more evident than during the uproar over the brutal October murder of Matthew Shepard, a Wyoming college student.

Following his death, the news media spoke with virtually one voice, not only in condemning the death, but also in linking the slaying to Christian opposition to the homosexual movement. Representative of this antagonism was a statement by Jonathan Alter in Newsweek that conservative Christian opposition “paves [the] way for gay-lynchers.”

Christians can probably expect intense criticism to grow as the stakes in this cultural battle become higher.

Strategic or tactical battles?
Optimism permeates the homosexual community as activists ride the crest of a TV-land utopia and the news media’s knee-jerk protectionism of the gay rights movement. With a huge national march on Washington, D.C., scheduled for April of 2000, activists hope to further their visibility – and thus their agenda – on the national level.

Prior to that march, however, will be a campaign involving simultaneous marches in all 50 state capitals scheduled for March or April of this year. These two efforts, organized by separate gay rights groups, has produced some squabbling over a question which also faces pro-family forces: are resources for this cultural battle better spent in national campaigns, or on a state and/or local level?

On a national – or strategic – level, the election of a president in 1992 who was sympathetic to the gay agenda was a monumental boost to the movement. Both President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore have blazed a pro-homosexual trail that helped shift momentum to the gay activist agenda.

Simultaneously, activists have had enormous success in arguing that anyone who opposes the gay rights agenda demonstrates merely that the opponents are full of hate and prejudice. Upholding lofty ideals like equality and fairness, public opinion appears to be changing in response. After all, how many Americans want to be accused of favoring discrimination?

For example, one survey of public opinion over the last three decades demonstrates that there had been little change through the 1980s in the percentage of Americans – usually hovering in the 70-75% range – who believe that same-sex relationships are “always wrong.”

Then came the homosexual movement’s new emphasis on civil rights and, not surprisingly, beginning in 1990 that public disapproval began to deteriorate. The result: in 1996, only 56% of respondents believed homosexual relationships were “always wrong.” And in almost every other area, public opinion has shifted during the ’90s in favor of the demands being made by gay activists.

But when the larger, national debate detonates locally or state-wide, the gay rights push hits turbulence. Some of the biggest defeats for homosexual activists came in battles which were not national but on state or local levels. Thus in 1998 gay rights activists suffered major defeats in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine and Washington (state).

On this level, pro-family groups used the simple tactic of preparing voters for the concrete results of voting for the gay agenda; that is, showing them that the veneer which garnished the claims of gay activists actually carried a hefty cultural price tag. It would affect everyone personally.

A continued emphasis on this tactic by pro-family forces should yield further gains, unless gay activists can get the federal government to override state and local efforts.

Unholy matrimony
Ironically, gays used this very state-by-state tactic in an attempt to unhinge the gates that defended the most sacred institution of all – marriage. When the effort to give legal recognition to same-sex marriages failed on the national level with the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, gay activists turned to the state level with fervor.

In Hawaii, four same-sex plaintiffs appeared on the verge of a stunning victory in the state courts. But pro-family forces initiated a massive campaign that mobilized voters in that state to reject homosexual marriage. A similar effort defeated gay efforts in Alaska.

But in a culture that is losing the ability to think clearly about fundamental questions like human sexuality, marriage and the family, conservatives are facing severe tests when asked to defend the status quo against those who would overturn it. A same-sex marriage battle in the Vermont court system is a prime example: those opposing homosexual marriage by appealing to tradition seemed to be having difficulty in convincing skeptical Vermont judges.

Gay activists appear content to continue fishing state-by-state for the same-sex marriage breakthrough they desire. In the meantime, they are quietly staging a revolution in corporate boardrooms. Companies which used to reserve benefit packages for employees and their spouses are beginning to grant them to the domestic partners of their homosexual employees.

Even though currently only 6% of U.S. employers offer such domestic partner benefits for their homosexual employees, another 29% are said to be considering such a change. This backdoor effort is intended to gain for homosexuals the same benefits as married couples, just in case they are not allowed to legally marry.

Conclusion
Some 1998 victories for pro-family groups appear to have slowed the momentum of the homosexual movement, but gay activists exhibit an inexhaustible supply of fresh troops and a dogged determination to keep hammering away. And they have the luxury of staying narrowly focused on their own agenda, while pro-family activists have their efforts spread thin over a wide array of issues, from partial-birth abortion to school vouchers to pornography on the Internet.

This year is shaping up to be a turning point, especially in key areas like same-sex marriage, hate crime legislation, and special employment protections for homosexuals. Probably within the next few years, one side or the other in this theater of the culture war could very well emerge victorious. And that outcome could determine the moral landscape well into the next century.  

For other articles in this series, see AFA Journal, March, April, May, and June 1999.