On June 4, 1999, during the congressional recess, President Clinton
did an end run around the Senate when he named James C. Hormel, the
billionaire “gay activist,” ambassador to Luxembourg. The
self-described mentor to homosexuals has used his family’s food fortune
to help create the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian political
activist group.

Since 1997, Hormel’s nomination had been blocked by Republican Senate
Majority Leader Trent Lott. But, what will Senate Republicans, who
blocked Hormel’s appointment due to his sexual politics, say about
Republican presidential hopeful, Gov. George W. Bush, R-Texas?
According to the April 9 New York Times, Bush said he, too, would give
unelected “homosexuals” administrative power “if their political agenda
was the same as mine.”

Citing the interview, Kevin Ives of the homosexual Log Cabin
Republicans was more definite. He said Bush “would appoint …
ambassadors” and other “openly gay people to his administration. …
Since one in three gays voted Republican in 1998,” said Ives, Bush is
“reaching out to the gay community.”

By now, the world knows that Clinton’s lifestyle is in harmony with
the “gay” sexual agenda. But has Bush really investigated its village
squares for evidence that the political/sexual agenda of “openly gay
people” can be the same as his?

Supporters for Hormel cast him as a conventional guy, said Associated
Press reporter, Kim Curtis (June 6, 1999). “Friends say that, far from
being a radical activist, Hormel is a devoted family man to his partner,
Timothy Wu, and to his children — four daughters and a son, and 13
grandchildren.” But what is a “devoted” gay family man? And, are
fidelity and monogamy as ideal in the gay life as in holy matrimony?

The Advocate, the national mainstream homosexual publication,
reported Aug. 23, 1994, that heterosexual fidelity and monogamy are
impractical. And the gay ideal is “open” marriage, even for “family”
men. In 1995, my research on male “Partner Solicitation Language”
confirmed what The Advocate said. It also provided a serendipitous
discovery, a dictionary of homophile cant entitled, “The Queens
Vernacular,” by Bruce Rodgers. Rodgers compiled 12,000 words describing
a life “common” to gays, but foreign to most of us. “The Queens
Vernacular” defined “married” for gays as,

    Living together with another homosexual in a partnership of
    mutual consent. “Oops! Something clever just walked into the tearoom
    [public toilet]. Pardon me while I go ‘get married.'”

To discover if gays’ lives and political agendas were like his,
did Bush and his staff tour the heart of “gay” life? These hubs are
bars, theaters, clubs and bathhouses, described by The New York Times
(May 29), where men “meet and have casual and often anonymous sex in
private cubicles … [where] oral and anal sex are routine behind closed
doors.”

Did Bush shake hands and talk with consumers about their “political
[sexual] agenda”? For what takes place in “gay” gathering places is
critical to whom this group will really serve. Sex is bankable in this
homosexual “old boys’ network.” And, homosexual authors, Jay and Allen
(1978), Rofes (1996) and others confirm that Rep. Barney Frank’s male
prostitution scandal in 1990 was prototypical of the employment and
economic favors given for “gay” sexual favors received “in private
cubicles.”

Just like Bill Clinton, openly gay people barter prominent and menial
jobs for sex. Academic, political and business cohorts are hired — and
votes are secured in back rooms. Thus, the American ideal of a
meritocracy is corrupted. As “birds of a feather,” sexual radicals
“flock together.” Gay activists are dedicated to changing society by
overturning laws that constrain their sexual brotherhood — and to
protect each other’s crimes and abuses.

Thus, the American Psychological Association’s recent
pedophile-positive research report makes the following more ominous as
gay activists are appointed to more and higher positions in the
government. The heterosexual Webster’s Dictionary defines “boy” briefly
and asexually:

    Young unmarried man, fellow, guy, lad, stripling, youth,
    youngster.

Yet “The Queens Vernacular” defines “boy” as,

    Chicken, a young recruit; any boy under the age of consent,
    heterosexual, fair of face and unfamiliar with homosexuality.

In total, there are 254 words in the gay community’s lexicon for
sex with boys or “chicken.” A sampling follows:

    Chicken dinner; skin some chicken; jail tail — boy below the age
    of consent with whom sex merits a stretch in the pen … poultry dealer
    — a man who pimps boys to interested homosexuals … pluck some
    feathers — to make love with a young boy.

There is only one word for adult sex with boys within the
heterosexual community — “pederasty” — and it is illegal, for now.
The gay vocabulary found in “Queens” hardly fits the current media image
of presenting the gay community and its leaders as “dedicated family”
men. This cultural vocabulary of seduction, recruitment and abuse of
boys gives a whole new meaning to “chicken dinners.”

So, George W. Bush, when you are on the presidential “rubber chicken
circuit,” take note. Each time you look at your plate, remember what
“chicken” means in the world of “gay family values.” If you continue,
like Bill Clinton, to appoint openly gay people to powerful governmental
appointments, it will promote and validate their cause of a society with
no sexual limits for all — no matter what age.


Dr. Judith Reisman is president of the Institute for Media Education,
Crestwood, Ky. Her latest book is “Kinsey, Crimes and Consequences”
(1998). Copies of “Partner Solicitation Language as a Reflection of Male
Sexual Orientation,” can be obtained by calling 1-800- 837-0544.

Eunice Van Winkle Ray is the founder of the RSVP America Campaign.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.